New Purchase from a Small Show - Your thoughts? **Slab Revealed**

astrorat

I generally am not a purchaser of gold, but something about this coin interested me. Please share your thoughts and I'll share the grade and story later.

hchcoin

Any gold is good gold Love the coin.

Insider2

In the image, it looks OK** and "Uncirculated-enough." I should price it as an MS-63.

**Note: I'm unable to blow up the image enough to be 100% positive about authenticity. There is "something" about its satin luster that makes me have any doubt but I have not seen a counterfeit of this date. Let's wait to see what the real experts have to say.

jonathanb

I'd also be interested in comments on why it is or isn't authentic.

The dies don't match the ones posted on pcgscoinfacts... but I'm sure that a lot of dies were used for this date, so that doesn't prove anything.

PTVETTER

I don't see any spikes or tool marks
looks good to me

BruceS

Really nice Luster. The date looks funky on my phone though, probably the glare from the lighting. A few marks very little wear. 64 obv 65 rev very nice gold.

morgandollar1878

It looks nice, I bet it really stood out in the dealers case.

Soldi

Nice flashy luster. Soldi is more of a circ. gold collector.

Justacommeman

Crazy 8's

mark

Insider2

@Justacommeman said:
Crazy 8's

mark

I need a better image but you may be right. Additionally, counterfeit detection should be done using ONLY florescent light.

@PTVETTER said: "I don't see any spikes or tool marks."

These are a thing of the past.

Batman23

I think it looks good. 63?

skier07

It's a nice looking, lower mintage quarter eagle. It's difficult to tell by images what the grade is. I'd buy it if the price was right.

mariner67

Bottom loop of first 8 has something in it.

MrEureka

@Insider2 said:

@Justacommeman said:
Crazy 8's

mark

Additionally, counterfeit detection should be done using ONLY florescent light.

Never heard that before. What's your rationale?

astrorat

Here are a couple of better? images. Now shot with a Nikon D7100 using a Nikkor 105 micro and daylight florescent lamps with diffusers. [Lance - I am still working on getting a Nikkor 200 micro!]

While not as good as the real photographers on the Board, I hope these shots are an improvement (caveat ... it's still shot through a slab).

ricko

I will say authentic and a very attractive gold coin... Gold coins are my favorite... even little one's.. This one has a very nice look and relatively clean surfaces....There is a strange 'mark' above star seven on the obverse and a scratch in the right field on the reverse.... but major magnification always shows minor issues. I like this coin and may well have purchased it had I seen it at a show. Cheers, RickO

astrorat

Okay ... here's its current home ...

lordmarcovan

Wow, that's an ancient ACG holder.

Looks like a nice coin despite the plastic.

jwitten

Love it, and love the holder. I would keep it as is.

Insider2

@astrorat

I would show that coin to one of the authentication/grading services giving free opinions at coin shows. I see some tool marks from the denticles and I've already written that the luster looks "off."

@MrEureka asked me to explain why counterfeit detection should be done using ONLY florescent light.

Because the glare from the OP's coin is making it look fishy. So all I'll say for now is that's what the U.S. Mint technicians use to examine dies and coins. I'll call you this week with more as I'm watching a football game.

astrorat

@Insider2

Good instincts (or skills or knowledge or ?). I purchased the coin as a counterfeit (for gold value). However, I really purchased the coin for the "rare" slab. I was also not aware of using florescent lighting for counterfeit detection.

For me, the denticles on the reverse (around K-4 and K-9) seem a bit too flat and some of the detail looks a little mushy. I thought (and could be wrong) that this is a piece produced in the 1960s - 1970s out of Lebanon.

ricko

Well... it fooled me.... guess I better pull out the book on gold and counterfeits and refresh my skills. Cheers, RickO

lkeigwin

That's a pretty decent fake. The rims look excessively thick, particularly on the reverse, and not very well defined.

Cool holder!
Lance.

CascadeChris

I suspected counterfeit from the OP pics before I started scrolling down and I'm not a big gold guy. Something was just "off" about it.

Insider2

@MrEureka and @astrorat were not aware of using florescent lighting for counterfeit detection."

Rather than call Andy, I'll make this brief. Florescent light spreads a dull even light over the coin's surface. Eliminating glare from an incandescent light that hides luster loss from the high points (useful for determining AU or Unc) and depressions, tool marks, defects on C/F's. This type of light was used by Treasury Dept. authenticators who trained the original Director of ANACS (Charles Hoskins) in DC. As I posted, it is the ONLY light (in combination with a stereo microscope) to use for coin authentication.

Nevertheless, if you are a professional authenticator at NGC or PCGS, you probably don't have any experience using it. As lighting is so important, when you are accustomed to one type, it's best to stick to it. Incandescent is used for grading. I use both types.

PS The color of your coin is suspect due to an improper alloy.

PPS I'm just a rookie around here and made a lucky guess about your coin. I really like what you did too. Having us grade a counterfeit. When I tried that on another coin forum I got blasted for being a smart butt who was just trying to embarrass the members.

I wish more folks would do what you have done. In EVERY grading class I've been in the instructor slipped a few fakes into the grading exercises to keep even the very advanced students from getting too full-of-themselves!

astrorat

@Insider2
Thanks for the explanation, it was quite helpful and makes a lot of sense. I also appreciate the kind words.