An 1853 No Arrows quarter...........and a tough lesson learned

Manorcourtman · February 17, 2015 9:25AM

I have been meaning to post this experience for over a year now but just found the coin after I thought I lost it. This is why you should not EVER trust any slab outside PCGS, NGC and maybe ANACS. A couple years back I was looking for a rare 1853 No Arrows quarter and one popped up on eBAy in an old PCI holder. Since I have never had an issue with old PCI 10 digit and 14 digit green holders I bought the coin or won the auction on eBay, I don't recall at this point. I still have the original seller pics from eBay:

I got the coin and closely examined it. I thought the coin looked a little rough but I didn't exactly buy a Mint state gem! I thought it would slab genuine cleaned at worst which was fine with me. So I cracked it out. It looked fine, and as mentioned possibly cleaned. Here's what it looks like raw:

So off it went to PCGS. My first mistake was I failed to do the following prior to sending it away:

What's wrong with this picture you many ask? 1853 Arrow quarters weigh 6.22 grams new from the mint. So this worn down old soldier has probably lost some weight after years in circulation. No big deal, right? WRONG!! This is supposed to be a 1853 No Arrows quarter which is supposed to weigh 6.68 grams. In 1853 the weight of quarters was reduced and the US Mint added Arrows to quarters to signify the reduction in weight. What I have here is an expertly altered 1853 Arrows quarter that got by the folks at PCI years ago! They apparently failed to weigh it prior to slabbing it! This was $500+ lesson to me but I have not bought an off brand slab since. So if you are considering buying one you may have a terrible surprise waiting for you. EOM.

Sonorandesertrat · February 17, 2015 9:34AM

Your images are more than adequate as far as catching the problem is concerned. Look to the right of the 3 in the date and, since that area looks funny, you can bet that the area to the left of the 1 ain't right either. No real need to weigh this coin.

planonit · February 17, 2015 9:38AM

A tough one. Sorry for the loss.

It happens. I have seen a ton of fake 1853 No Arrows as of late but no matter what coin we are talking about it is always good to remember that they have been make counterfeits a long time.

Add it to your counterfeit collection. All seasoned collectors have at least a small counterfeit collection. Mine is getting a little big though......

RichieURich · February 17, 2015 9:39AM

Sorry you had that bad experience, Manorcourtman.

One of the wisest things to do is examine a picture of a known genuine coin, of the same date and mint, and compare it with the coin that you have just acquired. The date on the coin posted doesn't match the date of a genuine 1853 No Arrows quarter. The difference is clear on the digit "5". See pix below of a nice one we sold at the FUN show:

stealer · February 17, 2015 9:47AM

<< Your images are more than adequate as far as catching the problem is concerned. Look to the right of the 3 in the date and, since that area looks funny, you can bet that the area to the left of the 1 ain't right either. No real need to weigh this coin. >>

Yup. You probably didn't even need to crack it to see.

Manorcourtman · February 17, 2015 9:53AM

<< 

<< Your images are more than adequate as far as catching the problem is concerned. Look to the right of the 3 in the date and, since that area looks funny, you can bet that the area to the left of the 1 ain't right either. No real need to weigh this coin. >>

Yup. You probably didn't even need to crack it to see. >>

Hindsight.....Yup, agreed.

Wabbit2313 · February 17, 2015 10:08AM

Wow. That stinks. I agree for the most part with these green holders. My bad experiences have been missed light cleanings and an altered surfaces on a proof Morgan once.

Otherwise, at grade on commons and about minimum 1 grade too high on rare pieces.

rec78 · February 17, 2015 11:03AM

Have the rays from the reverse been removed also? Could you please show a close-up of the reverse also? Is the reeding correct? Could it be a total counterfeit? I cannot see any signs of tooling, but then maybe I just can't see. You are most likely correct as the weight loss is most likely due to the removal of the rays and arrows. This is a real stinker coin and may even fool seasoned veterans.

Bob

COALPORTER · February 17, 2015 11:33AM

Maybe it is an 1858 with an altered date. Did PCGS state what the problem is ?

kaz · February 17, 2015 11:35AM

great question, rec78. The rev. rays would have to be removed as well which would be a heck of a lot of tooling, I think. I suspect the whole thing is a counterfeit.

Eclectic · February 17, 2015 12:42PM

I like the idea of it being an altered date from 1858. Expert engravers can do a heck of a job!

yosclimber · February 17, 2015 12:55PM

<< One of the wisest things to do is examine a picture of a known genuine coin, of the same date and mint, and compare it with the coin that you have just acquired. The date on the coin posted doesn't match the date of a genuine 1853 No Arrows quarter. The difference is clear on the digit "5". >>

Rich nails it.
The date position (too high) also is pretty obvious.

roadrunner · February 17, 2015 1:10PM

<< I like the idea of it being an altered date from 1858. Expert engravers can do a heck of a job! >>

Yup. I bought a comparable piece years ago at a local show for $20 figuring there wasn't a ton of downside if the coin was a fake or whatever. It looked ok at the show. But, once home under a good lamp and more magnification I could see boths sides were fully tooled to remove all the arrows and rays. Pretty decent job actually. I keep that coin as a reminder....though I can't find where I put it....lol.

TallGuy · February 17, 2015 1:13PM

Hi, Just asking, please don't take offense. But, are you sure this is the same coin that was in the PCI slab. The whole PCI slab images, while small, show a fairly original looking coin with a very noticeable darker rim tone from 12 to 4 on the obverse rim. While your full obverse closeup shows no sign of rim toning?? Just a thought! Or is this somehow the lighting?

yosclimber · February 17, 2015 1:39PM

He took it out of the slab; it's the same coin.
You can see the darker toning on the stars in the photo on the scale.
And you can see that the date position is too high in the slab also.

Timbuk3 · February 17, 2015 2:05PM

Wow, what a drag !!! :-(

ricko · February 17, 2015 9:42PM

Tough lesson here..but thanks for showing us and the commentary that followed - very informative. Cheers, RickO

okiedude · February 17, 2015 10:17PM

Bought an 1853 NA Half Dime a few years back off ebay. Same deal, the arrows had been poorly removed, at least they did not have to deal with the rays-LOL! Pics weren't that great, and it was only obvious once in hand. Fortunately the seller took it back and refunded my loot. Any 1853 NA SL coin requires extra attention.
I've got an 1803 half dollar sitting on my desk that came out of an old PCI slab, NGC sent it back "not genuine", it's too light-counterfeit. A good one though, even has edge lettering.

CaptHenway · February 17, 2015 10:47PM

While at ANACS I saw a few quarters and halves with both arrows and rays removed.

thebeav · February 18, 2015 12:17AM

Wow.....That's a pretty basic part of authentication (weight). I'm really surprised that got by them.
Lesson learned.......

DaveWcoins · February 18, 2015 12:25AM

Can you post an image of the reverse? Now I'm dying to see it!

BillJones · February 18, 2015 12:29AM

<< While at ANACS I saw a few quarters and halves with both arrows and rays removed. >>

I would think that removing the rays would be "major surgery." It's hard to believe that one could do a credible job of doing that.

Here is a genuine 1853 arrows and rays quarter to illustrate what I mean.

Manorcourtman · February 18, 2015 1:14AM

Here's the reverse and a close up of the date:

Sonorandesertrat · February 18, 2015 1:21AM

There are tool marks on the reverse. Rays were smoothed out. Notice the leaves under the eagle's right wing---the coin doctor clipped the tips during the smoothing process.

ebaybuyer · February 18, 2015 1:31AM

notice how the bottoms of almost every letter in United States Of America appear faint ? huge red flag, PCI should have caught this one, its not a counterfeit, its a genuine coin that has been altered, and someone did a fairly good job.

BillJones · February 18, 2015 1:37AM

There is one end of a ray above the eagle's left wing. Compare it with the piece I posted.

dogwood · February 18, 2015 1:43AM

They flat out left the rays under the left side leg, just to the left of the arrow feathers.
Tough lesson.
I vowed not to even look for a 53N/A when I was doing my set.

ToughCOINS · February 18, 2015 2:03AM

As I examine the OP's images, even before getting deep into the content of the thread, I felt that the look of the holder just wasn't right. Now, this is going out on a limb a bit, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude that the coin in the holder was authenticated and graded by the service from whence the holder came - It actually looks to me like the holder had been tampered with. It looks a bit wider, or "flexed" in the middle, has some cracking on the right side, and appears to be foggy (inside?).

There was / is one eBay seller in particular that had / has a very nasty habit of buying common-date mintmarked coins for which their non-mintmarked counterparts are much more valuable . . . 1867-S H10c, 1850-O 50c, 1915-S 50c, 1899-O $1.00, etc. That seller was irrefutably altering those coins to remove the mintmarks, and then selling the coins again as the more valuable issues, often in his / her own slabs. For a period of months I carefully tracked his / her buying / selling on eBay, correlating the purchased / sold coins by images before / after and then by item numbers before / after into a spreadsheet, and turned that seller in to PCGS with the spreadsheet.

To my knowledge, nothing ever happened, and I still see this seller surface for a couple of weeks worth of quick hits every so often before disappearing again for another few months.

This coin reminds me very much of the handiwork I saw on those altered coins. Is it the same seller? Probably not, but I don't really think that is germain to this thread. It is the fact that there was a bad coin in a "good" holder. Frankly, if I saw the holder we currently see in the images, I wouldn't think the holder good, and would instantly question the integrity of the contents.

While I'm no great fan of PCI, I would continue to buy good coins in their holders. We are not buying plastic, we are buying coins. Don't forget that.

telephoto1 · February 18, 2015 2:07AM

<< There are tool marks on the reverse. Rays were smoothed out. Notice the leaves under the eagle's right wing---the coin doctor clipped the tips during the smoothing process. >>

This.
Genuine Arrows/Rays piece that's been tooled.

TopographicOceans · February 18, 2015 2:58AM

I bought a no arrows once (raw) that was an arrows variety that were ground off

CoinJunkie · February 18, 2015 3:32AM

<< They flat out left the rays under the left side leg, just to the left of the arrow feathers. >>

Good catch. That's the clearest "tell" of all.

rec78 · February 18, 2015 12:35PM

Thanks for posting this. Added or altered mint marks or dates are more common than a whole coin being altered as this one has been. Hard to detect.

ToughCOINS · February 26, 2015 2:17PM

<< As I examine the OP's images, even before getting deep into the content of the thread, I felt that the look of the holder just wasn't right. Now, this is going out on a limb a bit, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude that the coin in the holder was authenticated and graded by the service from whence the holder came - It actually looks to me like the holder had been tampered with. It looks a bit wider, or "flexed" in the middle, has some cracking on the right side, and appears to be foggy (inside?).

There was / is one eBay seller in particular that had / has a very nasty habit of buying common-date mintmarked coins for which their non-mintmarked counterparts are much more valuable . . . 1867-S H10c, 1850-O 50c, 1915-S 50c, 1899-O $1.00, etc. That seller was irrefutably altering those coins to remove the mintmarks, and then selling the coins again as the more valuable issues, often in his / her own slabs. For a period of months I carefully tracked his / her buying / selling on eBay, correlating the purchased / sold coins by images before / after and then by item numbers before / after into a spreadsheet, and turned that seller in to PCGS with the spreadsheet.

To my knowledge, nothing ever happened, and I still see this seller surface for a couple of weeks worth of quick hits every so often before disappearing again for another few months.

This coin reminds me very much of the handiwork I saw on those altered coins. Is it the same seller? Probably not, but I don't really think that is germain to this thread. It is the fact that there was a bad coin in a "good" holder. Frankly, if I saw the holder we currently see in the images, I wouldn't think the holder good, and would instantly question the integrity of the contents.

While I'm no great fan of PCI, I would continue to buy good coins in their holders. We are not buying plastic, we are buying coins. Don't forget that. >>

ToughCOINS · February 26, 2015 2:28PM

Sorry about my failure to post new content with the above quote of my prior post. I wanted to follow it with what you see below.

I just saw some of the aforementioned seller's wares surface on eBay today . . . for those of you who are interested, while the listings remain visible, the coins may be seen as eBay items 281611397655, 281611399112, 281611401874, 281611354886, 281611351348, 281611359213, 281611362274, 281611365466, 281611367491, 281611369101 & 281611370251.

TopographicOceans · February 26, 2015 2:34PM

I bought one of those once, but mine was raw.

A no arrows quarter that used to be an arrows quarter that was altered by grinding off the arrows.

I sent it off the PCGS and got a BB back.

lordmarcovan · February 26, 2015 2:48PM

Bummer.

Nice informative post, though.

PS- that must have been a lot of work for the coin doctor, considering how much metal he had to move. Considering all that, he did a relatively sophisticated job of it without leaving blatant traces of his diabolical deed.

I wonder if the coin was slightly higher in grade when it was doctored and then "pocket-pieced" or artificially worn down a bit more to conceal the work.

lordmarcovan · February 26, 2015 2:57PM

Seller's auctions

Hmm. A self-slabber. Lots of key-date "Philadelphia" coins like the 1913-15 Barber halves.

Note how the reverse of this one is a lighter color than the obverse.

*snif*sniff* What's that smell?

rec78 · February 26, 2015 9:57PM

This 1866 dime is an "S" mint as any liberty seated dime person can tell you that the date is sloped the wrong way for the Philadelphia issue for 1866. A lot of the mm's on this date were weakly struck also. The person is a self slabber and a crook. I will bet that all his coins have removed mm's. If you check his completed auctions you will see some rare date "Philadelphia" mint coins such as 1851 half dollars and 1863 dimes etc. Anyone can be a self slabber and print a "certificate of authenticity". A certificate of authenticity is a meaningless piece of paper that does not prove anything.

ebaybuyer · February 26, 2015 11:06PM

this seller is solid proof that if you are willing to spend the money you should be willing to study (and know) the series that you collect. buy the coin, not the plastic. no matter what name is on the plastic

seanq · February 26, 2015 11:12PM

<< Seller's auctions

Hmm. A self-slabber. Lots of key-date "Philadelphia" coins like the 1913-15 Barber halves.

Note how the reverse of this one is a lighter color than the obverse.

*snif*sniff* What's that smell?

>>

If you want to feel sick to your stomach, take a look at his completed auctions. Every one of his last batch of coins sold, some after spirited bidding.

Sean Reynolds

An 1853 No Arrows quarter...........and a tough lesson learned

Comments

Leave a Comment