Unless the DuPont family have a good photo of the coin, this is going nowhere. Even with the photo it may be impossible to prove the recently discovered piece is the same one.
The chances of a 1960s collector having a good photo archive of their entire collection are approximately zero.
@Coinosaurus said:
Unless the DuPont family have a good photo of the coin, this is going nowhere. Even with the photo it may be impossible to prove the recently discovered piece is the same one.
The chances of a 1960s collector having a good photo archive of their entire collection are approximately zero.
FWIW, when I recovered the DuPont 1804 Linderman dollar, I was able to positively identify it from the 1922 James Ten Eyck auction catalogue by B. Max Mehl. It was convenient that I was sitting in the ANA Library at the time.
When I told this to Ken Bressett later, and mentioned that I had re-confirmed it using the picture and the very precise weight in "The Fantastic 1804 Dollar," he told me that he and Eric P. Newman had been unable to get a picture of the coin from the DuPont family prior to publication, and that they had been forced to use a copy of the James Ten Eyck picture for their book.
I highly doubt that the DuPont Family has any picture of their 1854-S $5.
TD
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.
@Coinosaurus said:
Unless the DuPont family have a good photo of the coin, this is going nowhere. Even with the photo it may be impossible to prove the recently discovered piece is the same one.
The chances of a 1960s collector having a good photo archive of their entire collection are approximately zero.
I’m still curious how NGC can certify the coin as new without pictures of the DuPont coin.
@Coinosaurus said:
Unless the DuPont family have a good photo of the coin, this is going nowhere. Even with the photo it may be impossible to prove the recently discovered piece is the same one.
The chances of a 1960s collector having a good photo archive of their entire collection are approximately zero.
I’m still curious how NGC can certify the coin as new without pictures of the DuPont coin.
The NGC press release said they had pictures from when the coin was auctioned.
I’m still curious how NGC can certify the coin as new without pictures of the DuPont coin.
You have to keep in mind as well that NGC wouldn't stake their reputation, as a business that they have developed over the lat 30 years, on any coin such as this that has the possibility of being a stolen piece...
@Coinosaurus said:
Unless the DuPont family have a good photo of the coin, this is going nowhere. Even with the photo it may be impossible to prove the recently discovered piece is the same one.
The chances of a 1960s collector having a good photo archive of their entire collection are approximately zero.
I’m still curious how NGC can certify the coin as new without pictures of the DuPont coin.
The NGC press release said they had pictures from when the coin was auctioned.
Like from the Wolfson catalog. My contention the entire thread has been that if they have better pictures they should disclose that, if they don't they are basically guessing like the rest of us.
FWIW I wrote Rick at NGC and never received a response. My question was more to the point of if better Wolfson pictures exist as I owned a piece which I have traced to Wolfson but the pictures are unhelpful in establishing the provenance. Additional pictures would be super helpful if the photo plates were found. Needless to say I was ignored.
@Boosibri said: "FWIW I wrote Rick at NGC and never received a response. My question was more to the point of if better Wolfson pictures exist as I owned a piece which I have traced to Wolfson but the pictures are unhelpful in establishing the provenance. Additional pictures would be super helpful if the photo plates were found.
Needless to say I was ignored."
As you should have been in my opinion. What connection do you have to the coin or submitter?
FWIW, I worked over there for ten years and would not have the balls, class, reason, whatever to ask about that coin.
@Insider2 said: @Boosibri said: "FWIW I wrote Rick at NGC and never received a response. My question was more to the point of if better Wolfson pictures exist as I owned a piece which I have traced to Wolfson but the pictures are unhelpful in establishing the provenance. Additional pictures would be super helpful if the photo plates were found.
Needless to say I was ignored."
As you should have been in my opinion. What connection do you have to the coin or submitter?
FWIW, I worked over there for ten years and would not have the balls, class, reason, whatever to ask about that coin.
I asked if additional photos from the Wolfson sale were available as I was looking to trace the provenance of an 1842 $5 in MS65 which I believe came form that sale.
Regardless, it seems likely the NGC does not have additional photos beyond the poorly plated Wolfson catalog and made the calculated bet to assert that the coin was a "new" discovery knowing that it was unlikely that it could be proven otherwise.
And @Insider, as for balls and class, I am the CFO of a $1B business and I generally have no problem answering any question I can about our business providing that it comes from a position of curiosity and isn’t material non-public in nature. Nothing to hide.
Great to hear, I always thought you were a foreign coin dealer rather than the "money guy." I'm just a regular member on a vacation day as I was authenticating a few hundred 8 Reales until 2 AM. Specific Gravity tests are the pits!
BTW, I only judge the quality, experience, knowledge, and importance (to me) of others on CU by their written word. I also know some folks get "special treatment" from the TPGS's. Good for you!
I'm surprised that a coin as famous as this doesn't have several sets of photographs going back 100 years or so. It wasn't plated in a Chapman or Mehl sale? Many of the original photo plates from those are around. Most of my library is in storage, where did Wolfson get it.
Regardless, it seems likely the NGC does not have additional photos beyond the poorly plated Wolfson catalog and made the calculated bet to assert that the coin was a "new" discovery knowing that it was unlikely that it could be proven otherwise.
I think we have no idea whether NGC has additional photos or not. Given that it would cost a company dearly if it was documented that they made a mistake in a situation like this, I doubt they would risk not having unequivocal evidence to their claim as a newly discovered piece and not a worn down tampered with DuPont piece. So I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they do have better images of the DuPont coin. Nevertheless, stranger things have happened and there is certainly compelling evidence, at least what we have seen on these boards, that it could indeed be the DuPont coin. Still.....
@EagleEye - perhaps of interest, there's a copy of the catalog on the Newman Portal which looks like it was scanned a bit differently, adding some contrast:
I did a bit of quick Photoshopping to see if anything jumped out when colors are inverted. This has helped me match old plates of ancient coins. Here's an animated GIF I made of the new specimen and the Wolfson coin: both images are at 100% opacity. I highlighted what I think are some similarities but will defer to experts on the series.
(One other possible area of note is equidistant between the first T in STATES and the eagle's wing)
Learn about our world's shared history told through the first millennium of coinage: Colosseo Collection
EXCELLENT WORK. That's the way astronomers find asteroids, etc. Look at the dark hit between the "A" and "T" of states. CAUTION: when doing this your eye retains some of the former images so let's not make assumptions.
PS I guarantee if I had the image and the discovery coin for ten minutes under my scope, I could tell if the surfaces of the discovery coin were repaired in certain spots. THERE is not a man alive that could hide the hits under the arrows from me. Take that to the bank!
Excellent work there, I don't think we can dismiss this line of approach - not that it matters, but I am a bit on the fence on this newly "discovered" specimen and this format pushes me a bit in the direction of thinking them the same.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
What would NGC's liability actually be if they were found to be the same coin? NGC has a guarantee of authenticity, not a guarantee that the person submitting the coin has clear title to it.
If the coin is authentic (of which there is no doubt), then they are in the clear, as I see it.
It may be more than a little embarrassing to NGC if they are found to be the same coin since they announced that they had determined it is not, but that is their opinion.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
@DaveWcoins said:
What would NGC's liability actually be if they were found to be the same coin? NGC has a guarantee of authenticity, not a guarantee that the person submitting the coin has clear title to it.
If the coin is authentic (of which there is no doubt), then they are in the clear, as I see it.
It may be more than a little embarrassing to NGC if they are found to be the same coin since they announced that they had determined it is not, but that is their opinion.
IMO, they have no liability at all. If the coin turns out to be the Dupont coin, the fact that NGC knows the owner will be a plus! Additionally, how could anyone be expected to prove the coin was the same with those awful
images? ?
If I owned NGC, due to this backwater controversy, I would ask to reexamine the coin. The folks at NGC have microscopes too and they know what the surface of a repaired coin looks like and NOW at the least, they'll know exactly where to look. I'd be shocked if the initial reexam and correct conclusion would take less than two minutes! One way or the other, deciding what to do next will take longer.
NGC knows what it is doing, and it knows the consequences of what it stated. It would not have issued that statement lightly.
TD
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.
@CaptHenway said:
NGC knows what it is doing, and it knows the consequences of what it stated. It would not have issued that statement lightly.
TD
Bump for the new thread to save time.
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.
Whew. I forgot about this tread. Glad I was consistent!
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......
Well since opinions are like blank and everyone has one...
I think NGC does not have better pics and just guessed based on available information. If you cannot prove it is the stolen coin it has to be a new discovery. There is no other option left.
I missed this thread the first time around as well, and I did not read all five pages, but based upon the images that @dcarr put up, the corner of the mouth softness of the "new" discovery, would sway my opinion to not being the DuPont example.
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
@asheland said:
That's gotta bust NGC's bubble slabbing the coin then it goes right over to PCGS.
Disagree. NGC got all the publicity! Note that most of us on CU had no clue the coin was now in a PCGS slab. PCGS should have put the coin in an ad after it crossed.
Example: "Knowledgeable collectors know that even an extremely rare coin with very few examples is more valuable in our slab."
I don't know. A lot of people seemed to think NGC needed to, and needed to disclose the evidence they used, so it would seem reasonable that anyone else slabbing the coin do the same, right?
I don't know. A lot of people seemed to think NGC needed to, and needed to disclose the evidence they used, so it would seem reasonable that anyone else slabbing the coin do the same, right?
Only if they don't trust the experts that already assessed it.
Only if they don't trust the experts that already assessed it. >
Does PCGS know who those experts are, and what they did to reach their determination? And have they disclosed this information anywhere?
Seems unusual that NGC (according to some posting here) would have an obligation to disclose this information without PCGS having a similar obligation.
Only if they don't trust the experts that already assessed it. >
Does PCGS know who those experts are, and what they did to reach their determination? And have they disclosed this information anywhere?
Seems unusual that NGC (according to some posting here) would have an obligation to disclose this information without PCGS having a similar obligation.
NGC doesn't have an obligation to disclose. In fact, they would be best served by NOT disposing. If the Dupont coin is still in existence, you are just telling the owner how to cover the identity of the coin by telling them what the technical "tells" are.
Personally, I think the most likely fate of the Dupont coin was the melting pot. If you stole a gold coin that you could not sell, wouldn't you scrap it to get what you could out of it?
Only if they don't trust the experts that already assessed it. >
Does PCGS know who those experts are, and what they did to reach their determination? And have they disclosed this information anywhere?
Seems unusual that NGC (according to some posting here) would have an obligation to disclose this information without PCGS having a similar obligation.
The people posting here about NGC's obligation think they are more important than they are. The only person NGC would have to disclose to would be federal law enforcement.
I don't think they do, either (have an obligation to disclose). There are a number of posts here that seem to differ on that but nobody who has expressed such an opinion has (yet) made an issue over the fact that PCGS hasn't done (as far as I know, I asked for a link) what they think NGC should have.
@asheland said:
That's gotta bust NGC's bubble slabbing the coin then it goes right over to PCGS.
Disagree. NGC got all the publicity! Note that most of us on CU had no clue the coin was now in a PCGS slab. PCGS should have put the coin in an ad after it crossed.
Example: "Knowledgeable collectors know that even an extremely rare coin with very few examples is more valuable in our slab."
And there is only a snippet that can be found on the PCGS coinfacts
Sometime early in 2018, a 4th example was reported as being discovered by the news media. The owner of the coin chose to remain anonymous but he is said to be from New England. According to the news reports, the owner of the coin had shown it to several dealers and collectors who all deemed it fake. The coin was graded XF45 and was consigned to Heritage Auctions where it realized $2,160,000. on August 2018.
@vulcanize said:
According to the news reports, the owner of the coin had shown it to several dealers and collectors who all deemed it fake. The coin was graded XF45 and was consigned to Heritage Auctions where it realized $2,160,000. on August 2018.
Comments
Unless the DuPont family have a good photo of the coin, this is going nowhere. Even with the photo it may be impossible to prove the recently discovered piece is the same one.
The chances of a 1960s collector having a good photo archive of their entire collection are approximately zero.
FWIW, when I recovered the DuPont 1804 Linderman dollar, I was able to positively identify it from the 1922 James Ten Eyck auction catalogue by B. Max Mehl. It was convenient that I was sitting in the ANA Library at the time.
When I told this to Ken Bressett later, and mentioned that I had re-confirmed it using the picture and the very precise weight in "The Fantastic 1804 Dollar," he told me that he and Eric P. Newman had been unable to get a picture of the coin from the DuPont family prior to publication, and that they had been forced to use a copy of the James Ten Eyck picture for their book.
I highly doubt that the DuPont Family has any picture of their 1854-S $5.
TD
Who owns this coin now? CoinFacts has the current owner as Pogue. Do we know?
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I’m still curious how NGC can certify the coin as new without pictures of the DuPont coin.
Latin American Collection
The NGC press release said they had pictures from when the coin was auctioned.
You have to keep in mind as well that NGC wouldn't stake their reputation, as a business that they have developed over the lat 30 years, on any coin such as this that has the possibility of being a stolen piece...
Like from the Wolfson catalog. My contention the entire thread has been that if they have better pictures they should disclose that, if they don't they are basically guessing like the rest of us.
Latin American Collection
FWIW I wrote Rick at NGC and never received a response. My question was more to the point of if better Wolfson pictures exist as I owned a piece which I have traced to Wolfson but the pictures are unhelpful in establishing the provenance. Additional pictures would be super helpful if the photo plates were found. Needless to say I was ignored.
Latin American Collection
@Boosibri said: "FWIW I wrote Rick at NGC and never received a response. My question was more to the point of if better Wolfson pictures exist as I owned a piece which I have traced to Wolfson but the pictures are unhelpful in establishing the provenance. Additional pictures would be super helpful if the photo plates were found.
Needless to say I was ignored."
As you should have been in my opinion. What connection do you have to the coin or submitter?
FWIW, I worked over there for ten years and would not have the balls, class, reason, whatever to ask about that coin.
I asked if additional photos from the Wolfson sale were available as I was looking to trace the provenance of an 1842 $5 in MS65 which I believe came form that sale.
Regardless, it seems likely the NGC does not have additional photos beyond the poorly plated Wolfson catalog and made the calculated bet to assert that the coin was a "new" discovery knowing that it was unlikely that it could be proven otherwise.
Latin American Collection
And @Insider, as for balls and class, I am the CFO of a $1B business and I generally have no problem answering any question I can about our business providing that it comes from a position of curiosity and isn’t material non-public in nature. Nothing to hide.
Latin American Collection
Great to hear, I always thought you were a foreign coin dealer rather than the "money guy." I'm just a regular member
on a vacation day as I was authenticating a few hundred 8 Reales until 2 AM. Specific Gravity tests are the pits!
BTW, I only judge the quality, experience, knowledge, and importance (to me) of others on CU by their written word. I also know some folks get "special treatment" from the TPGS's. Good for you!
The Pogue's own a different coin than the one being discussed.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
I'm surprised that a coin as famous as this doesn't have several sets of photographs going back 100 years or so. It wasn't plated in a Chapman or Mehl sale? Many of the original photo plates from those are around. Most of my library is in storage, where did Wolfson get it.
Sure, I know. Earlier in the thread, TDN showed the top pop coin that I show here. My question, does Pogue still own this coin?
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I think we have no idea whether NGC has additional photos or not. Given that it would cost a company dearly if it was documented that they made a mistake in a situation like this, I doubt they would risk not having unequivocal evidence to their claim as a newly discovered piece and not a worn down tampered with DuPont piece. So I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they do have better images of the DuPont coin. Nevertheless, stranger things have happened and there is certainly compelling evidence, at least what we have seen on these boards, that it could indeed be the DuPont coin. Still.....
Best, SH
@EagleEye - perhaps of interest, there's a copy of the catalog on the Newman Portal which looks like it was scanned a bit differently, adding some contrast:
I did a bit of quick Photoshopping to see if anything jumped out when colors are inverted. This has helped me match old plates of ancient coins. Here's an animated GIF I made of the new specimen and the Wolfson coin: both images are at 100% opacity. I highlighted what I think are some similarities but will defer to experts on the series.
(One other possible area of note is equidistant between the first T in STATES and the eagle's wing)
EXCELLENT WORK. That's the way astronomers find asteroids, etc. Look at the dark hit between the "A" and "T" of states. CAUTION: when doing this your eye retains some of the former images so let's not make assumptions.
PS I guarantee if I had the image and the discovery coin for ten minutes under my scope, I could tell if the surfaces of the discovery coin were repaired in certain spots. THERE is not a man alive that could hide the hits under the arrows from me. Take that to the bank!
Those marks shown on the negative sure look consistent to the spots of discoloration on the “new” coin
Latin American Collection
Excellent work there, I don't think we can dismiss this line of approach - not that it matters, but I am a bit on the fence on this newly "discovered" specimen and this format pushes me a bit in the direction of thinking them the same.
Well, just Love coins, period.
What would NGC's liability actually be if they were found to be the same coin? NGC has a guarantee of authenticity, not a guarantee that the person submitting the coin has clear title to it.
If the coin is authentic (of which there is no doubt), then they are in the clear, as I see it.
It may be more than a little embarrassing to NGC if they are found to be the same coin since they announced that they had determined it is not, but that is their opinion.
IMO, they have no liability at all. If the coin turns out to be the Dupont coin, the fact that NGC knows the owner will be a plus! Additionally, how could anyone be expected to prove the coin was the same with those awful
?
images?
If I owned NGC, due to this backwater controversy, I would ask to reexamine the coin. The folks at NGC have microscopes too and they know what the surface of a repaired coin looks like and NOW at the least, they'll know exactly where to look. I'd be shocked if the initial reexam and correct conclusion would take less than two minutes! One way or the other, deciding what to do next will take longer.
NGC knows what it is doing, and it knows the consequences of what it stated. It would not have issued that statement lightly.
TD
Or they made a calculated risk to get the publicity of getting such a coin in their holder. But that could go under the “not lightly” category
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Like about the 12-S nickels and PC over grading ?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I hear the soundtrack from Jaws playing in the background :finsuplawyers;
Bump for the new thread to save time.
Thanks. I missed this the first time around and the photos here are very useful.
Whew. I forgot about this tread. Glad I was consistent!
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......
Well since opinions are like blank and everyone has one...
I think NGC does not have better pics and just guessed based on available information. If you cannot prove it is the stolen coin it has to be a new discovery. There is no other option left.
I missed this thread the first time around as well, and I did not read all five pages, but based upon the images that @dcarr put up, the corner of the mouth softness of the "new" discovery, would sway my opinion to not being the DuPont example.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Was the recently discovered NGC example crossed to PCGS?
Coinfacts picture looks similar...
My YouTube Channel
yes
That's gotta bust NGC's bubble slabbing the coin then it goes right over to PCGS.
My YouTube Channel
Disagree. NGC got all the publicity! Note that most of us on CU had no clue the coin was now in a PCGS slab. PCGS should have put the coin in an ad after it crossed.
Example: "Knowledgeable collectors know that even an extremely rare coin with very few examples is more valuable in our slab."
Is there a link to PCGS's explanation of how they determined it wasn't the DuPont coin before crossing it? Asking for a friend...
Why would PCGS need to determine this?
I don't know. A lot of people seemed to think NGC needed to, and needed to disclose the evidence they used, so it would seem reasonable that anyone else slabbing the coin do the same, right?
Only if they don't trust the experts that already assessed it.
Does PCGS know who those experts are, and what they did to reach their determination? And have they disclosed this information anywhere?
Seems unusual that NGC (according to some posting here) would have an obligation to disclose this information without PCGS having a similar obligation.
NGC doesn't have an obligation to disclose. In fact, they would be best served by NOT disposing. If the Dupont coin is still in existence, you are just telling the owner how to cover the identity of the coin by telling them what the technical "tells" are.
Personally, I think the most likely fate of the Dupont coin was the melting pot. If you stole a gold coin that you could not sell, wouldn't you scrap it to get what you could out of it?
The people posting here about NGC's obligation think they are more important than they are. The only person NGC would have to disclose to would be federal law enforcement.
I don't think they do, either (have an obligation to disclose). There are a number of posts here that seem to differ on that but nobody who has expressed such an opinion has (yet) made an issue over the fact that PCGS hasn't done (as far as I know, I asked for a link) what they think NGC should have.
I trust the experts' opinion on both sides of the street.
However, I don't like the discovery piece. It looks mercilessly processed and very unoriginal.
But I guess with a coin like that you don't have a lot to choose from.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I wonder what the PCGS "guarantee" covers in this situation.
I never bought the whole "story" around this coin surfacing. Just had that fishy smell I guess.
And there is only a snippet that can be found on the PCGS coinfacts
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1854-s-5/8260
Needs to be updated.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
.
TYVM. - that confirms my memory of that event(s) with that 54-s i commented about in another thread.