@dcarr said:
When I lean back away from the screen and squint, I see one thing:
That was the one thing I saw as well. The problem is that it's probably not conclusive enough to prove anything in court, which is where any dispute over the coin's provenance would have to be resolved.
My thought is that it was part of the die and would be present on all 4 coins. Although the "marker" does not appear present on the coin TDN posted.
The "new" coin shows a bag mark on the front of the neck.
The "old" coin seems to have something there in the same location, about the same size and orientation.
So you think that is a bag mark and could not be part of the die?
@dcarr said:
When I lean back away from the screen and squint, I see one thing:
That was the one thing I saw as well. The problem is that it's probably not conclusive enough to prove anything in court, which is where any dispute over the coin's provenance would have to be resolved.
My thought is that it was part of the die and would be present on all 4 coins. Although the "marker" does not appear present on the coin TDN posted.
The "new" coin shows a bag mark on the front of the neck.
The "old" coin seems to have something there in the same location, about the same size and orientation.
So you think that is a bag mark and could not be part of the die?
It is definitely a bag mark on the "new" coin.
What it is on the old coin is uncertain, due to the low resolution of the old picture.
Lips look different to me but I do see some of the things in the image that would cause me to pause like the mark by the 4 in the date and crud above star 7. would have to see similar pictures of the reverse to provide any more detail
BTW if I owned the coin I would not want it in the NGC "prong" holder given what happened to that colonial pattern coin - the gold/silver alloy is harder, but I would not want those prongs pressing on small my multi-million dollar coin!
@Connecticoin said: "My thought is that it was part of the die and would be present on all 4 coins. Although the "marker" does not appear present on the coin TDN posted."
Then as you know we cannot refer to it as a "marker" of anything UNLESS it is the "MARKER" that begins to prove the "new" coin is actually the "old" coin with additional circulation and marks.
As I wrote above, there is no way to prove anything from the old image unless some entity I don't know about can take the black and white image and enhance it in some way to make it useful.
All I can add is I hope this coin turns out to be the stolen coin and it can be proved conclusively enough to have the coin returned and then an interesting story can be written about the coin, the robbery, the alterations, and the recovery just as has been done with the inverted 24c "Jenny" stamps.
@afford said: "Check out the obv middle hair bun for the diagonal line near the edge, it is to be found on both, and not on TDN's example."
The "white" line on the black and white image looks like debris as I do not see it on the new specimen.
I have met coin dealers who claim to have a photographic memory of coins they have seen, is it too far fetched to try to find someone who may have examined it in hand back then or to try to get handwritten notes on the coin a real numismatist inspected? Evidence is needed, not just Mr. Montgomery's analysis.
@Insider2 said: @CaptHenway said: "Rick Montgomery says the two coins are not the same. He is damned good at what he does. I trained him to be an Authenticator.
I agree! So you are the one.
That being said, people do make mistakes. This obviously would be a huge one, but our hobby is totally based on opinions. And opinions are not facts.
Of course. I have made mistakes. But I will take the opinion of a highly trained professional with 35 years experience in the field over the opinions of ten well-meaning amateurs any day.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The Canals of Mars, or, "What you can see if you look at a bad picture long enough!"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Actually, IMO, yes and no. While this statement sounds like a universal truth, it is not. You see, it all depends on the subject and the person giving the opinion. For example, no one is qualified to have a 100% true opinion on the existence of an "afterlife." Yet on something as simple as a die break, a long time professional error collector (in the best case) MAY only be "wrong" once or twice in a lifetime. Therefor, this persons opinion should be considered as a fact.
We don't know the criteria or the image the folks at NGC used to determine the coin is a "new" discovery. Those guys are good. We can only guess they proceeded slowly and carefully as a mistake on this piece will be a big black eye for all involved! Some prankster here may send them a link to this thread just to make them sweat.
@Insider2 said: @CaptHenway said: "Rick Montgomery says the two coins are not the same. He is damned good at what he does. I trained him to be an Authenticator.
I agree! So you are the one.
That being said, people do make mistakes. This obviously would be a huge one, but our hobby is totally based on opinions. And opinions are not facts.
Of course. I have made mistakes. But I will take the opinion of a highly trained professional with 35 years experience in the field over the opinions of ten well-meaning amateurs any day.
Not amateurs, logic and reasoning. It is certainly possible that it is a new discovery but it is most probable that it is the stolen DuPont coin.
In the press release it noted that the coin was compared to an image of the Wolfson coin.
“Upon carefully comparing the submitted coin to the images of the known examples in the Smithsonian and the Pogue Collection, it became quite clear that we were looking at a major find. We next sought to be sure the coin was not the stolen DuPont example. The DuPont 1854-S $5 was the same piece sold in the October 1962 Stack's sale of the Samuel W. Wolfson Collection. After locating images from the Wolfson auction, we were able to determine that the coin in our offices was not the coin that was stolen from the DuPont family,” explained Montgomery."
Can we confirm that there is an image other than the plate from the catalog? If not then are any of us experts? Can you help to confirm with Rick if there are in fact alternate images?
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Very hard to tell anything due to the poor detail in the Stack's B&W photo but I'm convinced that there is enough strike detail to conclude that these are two different coins. The old photo shows weakness at the base of the "Y" in "Liberty" while the newly discovered specimen is sharp. The same is true of several of the stars in the Stack's photo that appear weaker than the others while these same stars look sharp on the newly discovered coin.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@Insider2 said: @CaptHenway said: "Rick Montgomery says the two coins are not the same. He is damned good at what he does. I trained him to be an Authenticator.
I agree! So you are the one.
That being said, people do make mistakes. This obviously would be a huge one, but our hobby is totally based on opinions. And opinions are not facts.
Of course. I have made mistakes. But I will take the opinion of a highly trained professional with 35 years experience in the field over the opinions of ten well-meaning amateurs any day.
Not amateurs, logic and reasoning. It is certainly possible that it is a new discovery but it is most probable that it is the stolen DuPont coin.
In the press release it noted that the coin was compared to an image of the Wolfson coin.
“Upon carefully comparing the submitted coin to the images of the known examples in the Smithsonian and the Pogue Collection, it became quite clear that we were looking at a major find. We next sought to be sure the coin was not the stolen DuPont example. The DuPont 1854-S $5 was the same piece sold in the October 1962 Stack's sale of the Samuel W. Wolfson Collection. After locating images from the Wolfson auction, we were able to determine that the coin in our offices was not the coin that was stolen from the DuPont family,” explained Montgomery."
Can we confirm that there is an image other than the plate from the catalog? If not then are any of us experts? Can you help to confirm with Rick if there are in fact alternate images?
I will continue to look into it when I can.
In the meantime, I am mindful of how certain people were utterly convinced that there had to be some nefarious backstory to the Saddle Ridge Hoard, without a single solitary shred of evidence that there was!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Boosibri said:
... “Upon carefully comparing the submitted coin to the images of the known examples in the Smithsonian and the Pogue Collection, it became quite clear that we were looking at a major find. We next sought to be sure the coin was not the stolen DuPont example. The DuPont 1854-S $5 was the same piece sold in the October 1962 Stack's sale of the Samuel W. Wolfson Collection. After locating images from the Wolfson auction, we were able to determine that the coin in our offices was not the coin that was stolen from the DuPont family,” explained Montgomery."
Can we confirm that there is an image other than the plate from the catalog? If not then are any of us experts? Can you help to confirm with Rick if there are in fact alternate images?
Upon seeing the Wolfson catalog photos, if that's what was meant by "locating images from the Wolfson auction," then it seems that was a pretty dodgy call to make.
Transparencies overlay starting with 100% new coin, then approximately 80%, 60%, 40%, 20% then 0% (or 100% of the Du Pont coin).
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Let's think about what we can do to change the appearance of a coin we steal:
We can add more wear to lower its grade. We cannot raise its grade.
We can change its color with heat and chemicals.
We can add dirt or remove it.
We can add marks on the surface or rims, but we cannot remove or hide ALL the marks on the coin w/o leaving a trace of an altered surface.
We can improperly clean it to hide marks but we cannot restore an improperly cleaned surface w/o it being detected.
Other?
This is not rocket science. Anyone including my blind sister could tell it the coin we altered was the same with just the suspect coin and a sharp magnified image of the original unaltered piece. Without that, IMO, it will be impossible to prove anything except some lucky guy "found" an extreme rarity and it is certified as such.
@Insider2 said:
Let's think about what we can do to change the appearance of a coin we steal:
We can add more wear to lower its grade. We cannot raise its grade.
We can change its color with heat and chemicals.
We can add dirt or remove it.
We can add marks on the surface or rims, but we cannot remove or hide ALL the marks on the coin w/o leaving a trace of an altered surface.
We can improperly clean it to hide marks but we cannot restore an improperly cleaned surface w/o it being detected.
Other?
This is not rocket science. Anyone including my blind sister could tell it the coin we altered was the same with just the suspect coin and a sharp magnified image of the original unaltered piece. Without that, IMO, it will be impossible to prove anything except some lucky guy "found" an extreme rarity and it is certified as such.
So...does NGC have a sharper image or has their guess based on the catalog image become the standard to disprove?
@Insider2 said:
Let's think about what we can do to change the appearance of a coin we steal:
We can add more wear to lower its grade. We cannot raise its grade.
We can change its color with heat and chemicals.
We can add dirt or remove it.
We can add marks on the surface or rims, but we cannot remove or hide ALL the marks on the coin w/o leaving a trace of an altered surface.
We can improperly clean it to hide marks but we cannot restore an improperly cleaned surface w/o it being detected.
Other?
This is not rocket science. Anyone including my blind sister could tell it the coin we altered was the same with just the suspect coin and a sharp magnified image of the original unaltered piece. Without that, IMO, it will be impossible to prove anything except some lucky guy "found" an extreme rarity and it is certified as such.
So...does NGC have a sharper image or has their guess based on the catalog image become the standard to disprove?
I have not worked at NGC for about nine years so I don't have a clue what they did or what they used. Normally, I would call Rick to ask but I don't think anyone at NGC will talk about this coin - I would not. I hope it "stays" a "new" discovery.
@Insider2 said:
Let's think about what we can do to change the appearance of a coin we steal:
We can add more wear to lower its grade. We cannot raise its grade.
We can change its color with heat and chemicals.
We can add dirt or remove it.
We can add marks on the surface or rims, but we cannot remove or hide ALL the marks on the coin w/o leaving a trace of an altered surface.
We can improperly clean it to hide marks but we cannot restore an improperly cleaned surface w/o it being detected.
Other?
This is not rocket science. Anyone including my blind sister could tell it the coin we altered was the same with just the suspect coin and a sharp magnified image of the original unaltered piece. Without that, IMO, it will be impossible to prove anything except some lucky guy "found" an extreme rarity and it is certified as such.
So...does NGC have a sharper image or has their guess based on the catalog image become the standard to disprove?
I have not worked at NGC for about nine years so I don't have a clue what they did or what they used. Normally, I would call Rick to ask but I don't think anyone at NGC will talk about this coin - I would not. I hope it "stays" a "new" discovery.
You have always been a free thinking, healthy skeptic in past threads, now willing participant here?
@Boosibri said:
The new coin has a lightly processed look to it despite the choiceful applications of dirt on the obverse. My gut reaction when seeing the coin was that the overall surfaces did not match with a newly discovered coin and that it was recently processed with then the dirt applied.
No way you can tell that from an image, have to see it in hand to say processed then added dirt. JMHO.
@CaptHenway said:
I am reminded of a story I once heard about a high-end coin club meeting where one of the members presented, as his "show-and-tell" contribution, an ancient coin that he described as "unique." After the coin was passed around and left out with the other items on display, it was suddenly noticed to be missing!
The owner, highly upset, requested that everybody in the room be searched. Most agreed, but one member refused. This caused the owner of the coin to cast veiled aspersions upon the other member's honesty. The other member stood by his rights.
Suddenly the coin was rediscovered in some plausible location that I cannot recall. The owner was satisfied that it was his coin, unharmed, and he offered a half-hearted apology to the other member, ending with the question "But if you knew that you did not have the piece, why did you object to being searched?"
In response the other member silently pulled out of his pocket a SECOND specimen of the allegedly "unique" coin.
Nobody has offered any CREDIBLE proof, or even suggestion, that the new coin is the DuPont coin. I would advise everyone here to remember this before casting aspersions upon it.
TD
P.S.: Rick Montgomery says the two coins are not the same. He is damned good at what he does. I trained him to be an Authenticator.
No one has publicly offered credible proof that it is not the DuPont specimen. The fact that the coin could be a new specimen does not mean that it is the most likely scenario.
@afford said:
Check out the obv middle hair bun for the diagonal line near the edge, it is to be found on both, and not on TDN's example.
That is because, me thinks, they are both worn and this is the curved line between in the outermost, and 2nd strands. This shows up on the TDN image, but is complete because it is not worn.
@Boosibri said:
The new coin has a lightly processed look to it despite the choiceful applications of dirt on the obverse. My gut reaction when seeing the coin was that the overall surfaces did not match with a newly discovered coin and that it was recently processed with then the dirt applied.
No way you can tell that from an image, have to see it in hand to say processed then added dirt. JMHO.
So we now have the formula for fencing a stolen Top 100 coin rarity:
Somehow acquire the rarity
Pocket-piece the rarity for 50 years
Bring rarity to TPG as a "new discovery"
Effective, but takes a lot of patience!
This is all hypothetical of course! And yes, bear in mind many were suspicious of the Saddle Ridge hoard. If this is indeed a 4th coin, I hope the owner eventually reveals its provenance - should be an interesting story!
The lack of provenance does not condemn a coin. Where was the 1870-S Half Dime for over a century before it was noticed? Where was the King of Siam Proof Set for 125 years?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
My question is not if they are the same. It might be impossible to say with certainty given the print image. I would like to know how did NGC determine that they are not the same. They should provide proof given the seriousness of the discovery.
@EagleEye said:
My question is not if they are the same. It might be impossible to say with certainty given the print image. I would like to know how did NGC determine that they are not the same. They should provide proof given the seriousness of the discovery.
If I was a betting man, they have an entire file on how they came to the determination given an almost 100% probability that any heir of the DuPont family with a copy of the original police report as well as some form of law enforcement or lawyers inquiry will be coming.
@Boosibri said: "You have always been a free thinking, healthy skeptic in past threads, now willing participant here?"
I have given my opinion here. Read between your comments.
As for finding out specifics about this coin, I don't wish to damage my relationship with NGC. As I posted, If I still worked at NGC I would be mum about how it was determined to be different.
They are not a fly-by-night-TPGS. If they say the coin is different, it probably is.
@EagleEye said:
My question is not if they are the same. It might be impossible to say with certainty given the print image. I would like to know how did NGC determine that they are not the same. They should provide proof given the seriousness of the discovery.
We all wish to know.
Nevertheless, I'm in 100% disagreement with you. A TPGS needs to prove nothing. How do they certify one of your FE Proofs? What did they use to reach their opinion? What if they disagree with your opinion? You are the man on this series. But all you can do is ask them to reconsider and give your reasons. Because of who you are, they would probably give you a personal call but John Doe would be out of luck as far as discussing a reason for an opinion - the "proof."
@Boosibri said:
The new coin has a lightly processed look to it despite the choiceful applications of dirt on the obverse. My gut reaction when seeing the coin was that the overall surfaces did not match with a newly discovered coin and that it was recently processed with then the dirt applied.
No way you can tell that from an image, have to see it in hand to say processed then added dirt. JMHO.
Best, SH
The coin looks processed
Sure but I would still like to see it in hand to determine that, all I am saying. And if it is the DuPont example, maybe it was processed too? We can't tell from the old images.
You guys are overthinking this - it's much better for almost everyone in situations where provenance is impossible to ascertain for an expert to unequivocally bless the coin as a new discovery. What's the alternative? Impounding the coin for years in a cloud of litigation? NGC called it right.
@Insider2 said:
A TPGS needs to prove nothing. How do they certify one of your FE Proofs? What did they use to reach their opinion? What if they disagree with your opinion? You are the man on this series. But all you can do is ask them to reconsider and give your reasons. Because of who you are, they would probably give you a personal call but John Doe would be out of luck as far as discussing a reason for an opinion - the "proof."
If they make a mistake on certifying a counterfeit or stolen coin, it will come back to them someday. This is different than a mistake on an attribution. Just to note, I am not saying it is the same coin or that they made a mistake. I just want to see where they had certainty. Sure, they don't have to prove to us anything. They do have to prove to future owners, which means the world at large, that they have certainty in their determination and why they do.
So, I'm not asking them to prove it to me personally, as it doesn't matter to me. It will matter to someone someday.
@Insider2 said:
A TPGS needs to prove nothing. How do they certify one of your FE Proofs? What did they use to reach their opinion? What if they disagree with your opinion? You are the man on this series. But all you can do is ask them to reconsider and give your reasons. Because of who you are, they would probably give you a personal call but John Doe would be out of luck as far as discussing a reason for an opinion - the "proof."
If they make a mistake on certifying a counterfeit or stolen coin, it will come back to them someday. This is different than a mistake on an attribution. Just to note, I am not saying it is the same coin or that they made a mistake. I just want to see where they had certainty. Sure, they don't have to prove to us anything. They do have to prove to future owners, which means the world at large, that they have certainty in their determination and why they do.
So, I'm not asking them to prove it to me personally, as it doesn't matter to me. It will matter to someone someday.
Given the lack of a good image...
That coin is going to be considered a newly discovered specimen FOREVER; unless, sometime in the future some new test is devised (something as amazing as detecting the DNA traces of previous owners and matching one particular trace with a Dupont relative). Other than something as impossible as that may be today, without a clear image of the original coin - CASE CLOSED!
PS. If the coin had been auctioned in the last ten years, then went missing, I'll bet an ID would have been a piece of cake (in spite of any alterations) for a forensic examiner using a stereomicroscope and florescent light.
I am thinking that NGC is fully cognizant of the consequences of a mistake in this situation. I am thinking they know more than all of us, and that they have more evidence than just using these old auction catalog images. Perhaps they had access to high res photos taken when the DP's had their coin? It would however be good to let the numismatic world know of their evidence given that many highly regarded numismatists view this discovery with concern.
@Insider2 said:
Let's think about what we can do to change the appearance of a coin we steal:
We can add more wear to lower its grade. We cannot raise its grade.
We can change its color with heat and chemicals.
We can add dirt or remove it.
We can add marks on the surface or rims, but we cannot remove or hide ALL the marks on the coin w/o leaving a trace of an altered surface.
We can improperly clean it to hide marks but we cannot restore an improperly cleaned surface w/o it being detected.
Other?
This is not rocket science. Anyone including my blind sister could tell it the coin we altered was the same with just the suspect coin and a sharp magnified image of the original unaltered piece. Without that, IMO, it will be impossible to prove anything except some lucky guy "found" an extreme rarity and it is certified as such.
There a more methods than most have heard about. Even with my limited interaction hearing about coin docs. I know that there are basic methods like thumbing with nose grease to high tech methods like lasering used largely on proof issues to take out hairlines. Then you have all the chemicals that are used, quite toxic, like mercury, cyanide and other compounds.
If they can unravel the Herculaneum scrolls with high tech methods, I would think that even substandard pictures could be substantially enhanced.
Since Rick Montgomery has seen this coin and he signed off on it I’m going with him. I reserve the right to change my mind if one of you Matlocks discovers some tangible evidence to the contrary
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@afford said:
I am simply dumbfounded that a tpg would compare a coin in hand with a bad old catalog photo that is at certain level worthless. I have tried matching coins to similar photos and have made many mistakes that have gone either way. I sometimes have trouble against excellent photos. The tpg should have said, without a decent photo we will not participate.
We have no idea what NGC had to work with to verify this wasn’t the stolen coin. No idea on what they saw or didn’t see to make their determination.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
Since Rick Montgomery has seen this coin and he signed off on it I’m going with him. I reserve the right to change my mind if one of you Matlocks discovers some tangible evidence to the contrary
m
Agreed. They are professionals who understand the consequences of what they are doing. Their talk ain't cheap!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The article mentioned that the owner had (paraphrased) "shown this coins to multiple dealers, who said it was counterfeit." Any of those dealers consulted by NGC? Names given? Seems like a lot of folks would have remembered that coin and the story. Not everyday you see a real or a fake 54-S 5$
Comments
.
So you think that is a bag mark and could not be part of the die?
It is definitely a bag mark on the "new" coin.
What it is on the old coin is uncertain, due to the low resolution of the old picture.
Lips look different to me but I do see some of the things in the image that would cause me to pause like the mark by the 4 in the date and crud above star 7. would have to see similar pictures of the reverse to provide any more detail
BTW if I owned the coin I would not want it in the NGC "prong" holder given what happened to that colonial pattern coin - the gold/silver alloy is harder, but I would not want those prongs pressing on small my multi-million dollar coin!
@Connecticoin said: "My thought is that it was part of the die and would be present on all 4 coins. Although the "marker" does not appear present on the coin TDN posted."
Then as you know we cannot refer to it as a "marker" of anything UNLESS it is the "MARKER" that begins to prove the "new" coin is actually the "old" coin with additional circulation and marks.
As I wrote above, there is no way to prove anything from the old image unless some entity I don't know about can take the black and white image and enhance it in some way to make it useful.
All I can add is I hope this coin turns out to be the stolen coin and it can be proved conclusively enough to have the coin returned and then an interesting story can be written about the coin, the robbery, the alterations, and the recovery just as has been done with the inverted 24c "Jenny" stamps.
@afford said: "Check out the obv middle hair bun for the diagonal line near the edge, it is to be found on both, and not on TDN's example."
The "white" line on the black and white image looks like debris as I do not see it on the new specimen.
I have met coin dealers who claim to have a photographic memory of coins they have seen, is it too far fetched to try to find someone who may have examined it in hand back then or to try to get handwritten notes on the coin a real numismatist inspected? Evidence is needed, not just Mr. Montgomery's analysis.
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6557/discovery-of-a-lifetime-1854-s-five-dollar/
Of course. I have made mistakes. But I will take the opinion of a highly trained professional with 35 years experience in the field over the opinions of ten well-meaning amateurs any day.
I agree with DCarr’s initial gut. I also know it is pointless as it will never be tied to the stolen coin unless there is some withheld evidence
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The Canals of Mars, or, "What you can see if you look at a bad picture long enough!"
@afford said: "...And opinions are not facts."
Actually, IMO, yes and no. While this statement sounds like a universal truth, it is not. You see, it all depends on the subject and the person giving the opinion. For example, no one is qualified to have a 100% true opinion on the existence of an "afterlife." Yet on something as simple as a die break, a long time professional error collector (in the best case) MAY only be "wrong" once or twice in a lifetime. Therefor, this persons opinion should be considered as a fact.
We don't know the criteria or the image the folks at NGC used to determine the coin is a "new" discovery. Those guys are good. We can only guess they proceeded slowly and carefully as a mistake on this piece will be a big black eye for all involved! Some prankster here may send them a link to this thread just to make them sweat.
Not amateurs, logic and reasoning. It is certainly possible that it is a new discovery but it is most probable that it is the stolen DuPont coin.
In the press release it noted that the coin was compared to an image of the Wolfson coin.
“Upon carefully comparing the submitted coin to the images of the known examples in the Smithsonian and the Pogue Collection, it became quite clear that we were looking at a major find. We next sought to be sure the coin was not the stolen DuPont example. The DuPont 1854-S $5 was the same piece sold in the October 1962 Stack's sale of the Samuel W. Wolfson Collection. After locating images from the Wolfson auction, we were able to determine that the coin in our offices was not the coin that was stolen from the DuPont family,” explained Montgomery."
Can we confirm that there is an image other than the plate from the catalog? If not then are any of us experts? Can you help to confirm with Rick if there are in fact alternate images?
Latin American Collection
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Very hard to tell anything due to the poor detail in the Stack's B&W photo but I'm convinced that there is enough strike detail to conclude that these are two different coins. The old photo shows weakness at the base of the "Y" in "Liberty" while the newly discovered specimen is sharp. The same is true of several of the stars in the Stack's photo that appear weaker than the others while these same stars look sharp on the newly discovered coin.
What do you think @EagleEye
Latin American Collection
I will continue to look into it when I can.
In the meantime, I am mindful of how certain people were utterly convinced that there had to be some nefarious backstory to the Saddle Ridge Hoard, without a single solitary shred of evidence that there was!
Upon seeing the Wolfson catalog photos, if that's what was meant by "locating images from the Wolfson auction," then it seems that was a pretty dodgy call to make.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
What are these? The first and second image on the left are the same coin.
Transparencies overlay starting with 100% new coin, then approximately 80%, 60%, 40%, 20% then 0% (or 100% of the Du Pont coin).
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Let's think about what we can do to change the appearance of a coin we steal:
We can improperly clean it to hide marks but we cannot restore an improperly cleaned surface w/o it being detected.
Other?
This is not rocket science. Anyone including my blind sister could tell it the coin we altered was the same with just the suspect coin and a sharp magnified image of the original unaltered piece. Without that, IMO, it will be impossible to prove anything except some lucky guy "found" an extreme rarity and it is certified as such.
Nice try.
Thanks.
To me they all look like the same coin.
Donato
Edited to add: The spot above the eagles head looks like it is repeated on all the images
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
So...does NGC have a sharper image or has their guess based on the catalog image become the standard to disprove?
Latin American Collection
I have not worked at NGC for about nine years so I don't have a clue what they did or what they used. Normally, I would call Rick to ask but I don't think anyone at NGC will talk about this coin - I would not. I hope it "stays" a "new" discovery.
You have always been a free thinking, healthy skeptic in past threads, now willing participant here?
Latin American Collection
No way you can tell that from an image, have to see it in hand to say processed then added dirt. JMHO.
Best, SH
Au contraire, the stars as noted by MikeinFl.
That is because, me thinks, they are both worn and this is the curved line between in the outermost, and 2nd strands. This shows up on the TDN image, but is complete because it is not worn.
Best, SH
The coin looks processed
Latin American Collection
So we now have the formula for fencing a stolen Top 100 coin rarity:
Effective, but takes a lot of patience!
This is all hypothetical of course! And yes, bear in mind many were suspicious of the Saddle Ridge hoard. If this is indeed a 4th coin, I hope the owner eventually reveals its provenance - should be an interesting story!
The lack of provenance does not condemn a coin. Where was the 1870-S Half Dime for over a century before it was noticed? Where was the King of Siam Proof Set for 125 years?
My question is not if they are the same. It might be impossible to say with certainty given the print image. I would like to know how did NGC determine that they are not the same. They should provide proof given the seriousness of the discovery.
If I was a betting man, they have an entire file on how they came to the determination given an almost 100% probability that any heir of the DuPont family with a copy of the original police report as well as some form of law enforcement or lawyers inquiry will be coming.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
@Boosibri said: "You have always been a free thinking, healthy skeptic in past threads, now willing participant here?"
I have given my opinion here. Read between your comments.
As for finding out specifics about this coin, I don't wish to damage my relationship with NGC. As I posted, If I still worked at NGC I would be mum about how it was determined to be different.
They are not a fly-by-night-TPGS. If they say the coin is different, it probably is.
We all wish to know.
Nevertheless, I'm in 100% disagreement with you. A TPGS needs to prove nothing. How do they certify one of your FE Proofs? What did they use to reach their opinion? What if they disagree with your opinion? You are the man on this series. But all you can do is ask them to reconsider and give your reasons. Because of who you are, they would probably give you a personal call but John Doe would be out of luck as far as discussing a reason for an opinion - the "proof."
Sure but I would still like to see it in hand to determine that, all I am saying. And if it is the DuPont example, maybe it was processed too? We can't tell from the old images.
Best, SH
You guys are overthinking this - it's much better for almost everyone in situations where provenance is impossible to ascertain for an expert to unequivocally bless the coin as a new discovery. What's the alternative? Impounding the coin for years in a cloud of litigation? NGC called it right.
If they make a mistake on certifying a counterfeit or stolen coin, it will come back to them someday. This is different than a mistake on an attribution. Just to note, I am not saying it is the same coin or that they made a mistake. I just want to see where they had certainty. Sure, they don't have to prove to us anything. They do have to prove to future owners, which means the world at large, that they have certainty in their determination and why they do.
So, I'm not asking them to prove it to me personally, as it doesn't matter to me. It will matter to someone someday.
Given the lack of a good image...
That coin is going to be considered a newly discovered specimen FOREVER; unless, sometime in the future some new test is devised (something as amazing as detecting the DNA traces of previous owners and matching one particular trace with a Dupont relative). Other than something as impossible as that may be today, without a clear image of the original coin - CASE CLOSED!
PS. If the coin had been auctioned in the last ten years, then went missing, I'll bet an ID would have been a piece of cake (in spite of any alterations) for a forensic examiner using a stereomicroscope and florescent light.
I am thinking that NGC is fully cognizant of the consequences of a mistake in this situation. I am thinking they know more than all of us, and that they have more evidence than just using these old auction catalog images. Perhaps they had access to high res photos taken when the DP's had their coin? It would however be good to let the numismatic world know of their evidence given that many highly regarded numismatists view this discovery with concern.
Best, SH
There a more methods than most have heard about. Even with my limited interaction hearing about coin docs. I know that there are basic methods like thumbing with nose grease to high tech methods like lasering used largely on proof issues to take out hairlines. Then you have all the chemicals that are used, quite toxic, like mercury, cyanide and other compounds.
If they can unravel the Herculaneum scrolls with high tech methods, I would think that even substandard pictures could be substantially enhanced.
Since Rick Montgomery has seen this coin and he signed off on it I’m going with him. I reserve the right to change my mind if one of you Matlocks discovers some tangible evidence to the contrary
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Hmmmm! NGC is a grading service! Is it really their responsibility to guarantee it is not the Dupont coin?
We have no idea what NGC had to work with to verify this wasn’t the stolen coin. No idea on what they saw or didn’t see to make their determination.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Agreed. They are professionals who understand the consequences of what they are doing. Their talk ain't cheap!
The article mentioned that the owner had (paraphrased) "shown this coins to multiple dealers, who said it was counterfeit." Any of those dealers consulted by NGC? Names given? Seems like a lot of folks would have remembered that coin and the story. Not everyday you see a real or a fake 54-S 5$
siliconvalleycoins.com