New NGC article about supposedly fake Costa Rica coin, but is it?

WorldCoinsDmitry

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6572/counterfeit-detection-costa-rica/

I believe this is a miss by NGC. The reasoning for why the coin is counterfeit makes little sense and is based on very few points of reference. The "missing skirt" and other details are normal for this type and other denominations as well. Aside from the weak details and what looks to be a late die state, it matches the genuine reference example given in the same article very well.

amwldcoin

I think I agree with NGC on this one. There are differences especially in the lettering. Look at the size of the period on the column on the fake coin compared to the genuine as well as the fat mushy letters.

WorldCoinsDmitry

My point is that the reasons given in the article, including the rounded lettering, describe what is normally seen on various denominations bearing this design. There is no solid evidence and nothing mentioned of size, weight, specific gravity, etc.
See these examples: https://www.coinshome.net/en/coin_definition-1_2_Escudo-Gold-Costa_Rica-9hcKbzbijMkAAAFMazSKYUoi.htm

Abuelo

I am not an expert on these, but look as if they are struck from different dies. That much is clear to me. As far as counterfeit or not, no clue. For sure I would like to know the characteristics mentioned by @WorldCoinsDmitry . Perhaps the clues are there.

mkman123

How much is this coin worth? Big premium or ?

jgenn

I agree that the diameter and weight should have been given as part of the "evidence". They can also do XRF. It's as if NGC has authenticators that only look at photos and compare to who-knows-how-many photographed exemplars.

MrEureka

Weak strikes are normal for this series. Here are a couple of 1/2 Onzas, NGC 62 and NGC 64.

WorldCoinsDmitry

@mkman123 said:
How much is this coin worth? Big premium or ?

It definitely has a premium, but that is dangerous thinking when it comes to counterfeits. That mentality of "it's not valuable enough to be faked" is a false safety net. There have been counterfeits documented of coins worth as little as 12 cents US if they were genuine. Counterfeiters can survive on a very minimal profit margin.

Timbuk3

Interesting !!!

asheland

That design is sweet!

Insider2

Highly enthusiastic about coins, counterfeits and odd stuff also.

This discussion gives me the chance to remind all of you NOT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ (including my post)! Read and then verify what you read as misinformation is all over the Internet.

IMHO, the OP's opinion is incorrect. I agree with NGC that the coin is 100% counterfeit, and not a very good example. Authenticators often call a fake this poorly executed "chocolate." There is no need to weigh it or test it in any way as this type of fake looks "bad" from a foot away. The weakness in the skirt is obviously not a very good reason to give - perhaps written to add more words to the article as there is not much to say about a fake this crude! It would have been far better to concentrate more on the "fatty" letters in the legend.

The TPGS are not perfect. You can rest assured that when they publish something like this, they are 100% positive.

I've been around awhile and THE ONLY TIME I've ever seen a genuine coin called counterfeit by an authentication service in print occurred in the Numismatist magazine soon after the ANACS was moved to CO. An authenticator in training who moved from DC to CO with the company published images of a genuine 1907 HR $20 in the ANACS Column and wrote that it was a fake because he though the 100% genuine mint die polish shown on the coin were "tool marks" on the counterfeit die!

Obviously, his training was not far along but the reason for that is another one of those stories only a few people living today know.

WorldCoinsDmitry

@Insider2 said:
Highly enthusiastic about coins, counterfeits and odd stuff also.

This discussion gives me the chance to remind all of you NOT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ (including my post)! Read and then verify what you read as misinformation is all over the Internet.

IMHO, the OP's opinion is incorrect. I agree with NGC that the coin is 100% counterfeit, and not a very good example. Authenticators often call a fake this poorly executed "chocolate." There is no need to weigh it or test it in any way as this type of fake looks "bad" from a foot away. The weakness in the skirt is obviously not a very good reason to give - perhaps written to add more words to the article as there is not much to say about a fake this crude! It would have been far better to concentrate more on the "fatty" letters in the legend.

The TPGS are not perfect. You can rest assured that when they publish something like this, they are 100% positive.

I've been around awhile and THE ONLY TIME I've ever seen a genuine coin called counterfeit by an authentication service in print occurred in the Numismatist magazine soon after the ANACS was moved to CO. An authenticator in training who moved from DC to CO with the company published images of a genuine 1907 HR $20 in the ANACS Column and wrote that it was a fake because he though the 100% genuine mint die polish shown on the coin were "tool marks" on the counterfeit die!

Obviously, his training was not far along but the reason for that is another one of those stories only a few people living today know.

I very much respect and appreciate your input, but the article doesn't present enough. Maybe you see something that is obvious, but the "fatty letters" and weakness of strike are BOTH commonly seen on these coins. Do the people authenticating these things use a general checklist or do they consider characteristics specific to the type/series?

In fact, here is another example authenticated by none other than NGC https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/7/lot/20901/

Note the strong match, including the die crack across the top of AME in AMERICA and fatty lettering.

Aegis3

Here's another example from "B&M" back in 2010. Checking the three pieces now mentioned (NGC, GB, B&M) I see no repeating depressions. They are clearly from different dies than other pieces such as the NGC comparison piece. So there are a few possibilities that I can see.

1) NGC got it wrong. They didn't consider the possibility of other die varieties for the issue.
2) NGC got it right, and all pieces of the variety are counterfeit.
3) NGC got it right, that the coin they showed is counterfeit (but others are genuine), but made a bad comparison by using a genuine coin of a different variety, rather than the same one. (I should note that PCGS has done the same.)

Insider2

@WorldCoinsDmitry said:

@Insider2 said:
Highly enthusiastic about coins, counterfeits and odd stuff also.

This discussion gives me the chance to remind all of you NOT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ (including my post)! Read and then verify what you read as misinformation is all over the Internet.

IMHO, the OP's opinion is incorrect. I agree with NGC that the coin is 100% counterfeit, and not a very good example. Authenticators often call a fake this poorly executed "chocolate." There is no need to weigh it or test it in any way as this type of fake looks "bad" from a foot away. The weakness in the skirt is obviously not a very good reason to give - perhaps written to add more words to the article as there is not much to say about a fake this crude! It would have been far better to concentrate more on the "fatty" letters in the legend.

The TPGS are not perfect. You can rest assured that when they publish something like this, they are 100% positive.

I've been around awhile and THE ONLY TIME I've ever seen a genuine coin called counterfeit by an authentication service in print occurred in the Numismatist magazine soon after the ANACS was moved to CO. An authenticator in training who moved from DC to CO with the company published images of a genuine 1907 HR $20 in the ANACS Column and wrote that it was a fake because he though the 100% genuine mint die polish shown on the coin were "tool marks" on the counterfeit die!

Obviously, his training was not far along but the reason for that is another one of those stories only a few people living today know.

I very much respect and appreciate your input, but the article doesn't present enough. Maybe you see something that is obvious, but the "fatty letters" and weakness of strike are BOTH commonly seen on these coins. Do the people authenticating these things use a general checklist or do they consider characteristics specific to the type/series?

In fact, here is another example authenticated by none other than NGC https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/7/lot/20901/

Note the strong match, including the die crack across the top of AME in AMERICA and fatty lettering.

Sorry to disagree but the sharpness of the Goldberg coin looks nothing like the NGC coin you suspect is genuine. The fake had to be made from something. If the genuine coin used as a model had a die break it would be transferred.

Let me play devil's advocate and suggest that the best valid argument to use would be to say that "you cannot authenticate a coin by an internet image." That is often the case, however, IMO, this fake is such a poor example that the image is all that is needed. One other thing. Without a comparison piece, this coin may look real just not to me.

WorldCoinsDmitry

@Aegis3 said:
Here's another example from "B&M" back in 2010. Checking the three pieces now mentioned (NGC, GB, B&M) I see no repeating depressions. They are clearly from different dies than other pieces such as the NGC comparison piece. So there are a few possibilities that I can see.

1) NGC got it wrong. They didn't consider the possibility of other die varieties for the issue.
2) NGC got it right, and all pieces of the variety are counterfeit.
3) NGC got it right, that the coin they showed is counterfeit (but others are genuine), but made a bad comparison by using a genuine coin of a different variety, rather than the same one. (I should note that PCGS has done the same.)

@Insider2 said:

@WorldCoinsDmitry said:

@Insider2 said:
Highly enthusiastic about coins, counterfeits and odd stuff also.

This discussion gives me the chance to remind all of you NOT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ (including my post)! Read and then verify what you read as misinformation is all over the Internet.

IMHO, the OP's opinion is incorrect. I agree with NGC that the coin is 100% counterfeit, and not a very good example. Authenticators often call a fake this poorly executed "chocolate." There is no need to weigh it or test it in any way as this type of fake looks "bad" from a foot away. The weakness in the skirt is obviously not a very good reason to give - perhaps written to add more words to the article as there is not much to say about a fake this crude! It would have been far better to concentrate more on the "fatty" letters in the legend.

The TPGS are not perfect. You can rest assured that when they publish something like this, they are 100% positive.

I've been around awhile and THE ONLY TIME I've ever seen a genuine coin called counterfeit by an authentication service in print occurred in the Numismatist magazine soon after the ANACS was moved to CO. An authenticator in training who moved from DC to CO with the company published images of a genuine 1907 HR $20 in the ANACS Column and wrote that it was a fake because he though the 100% genuine mint die polish shown on the coin were "tool marks" on the counterfeit die!

Obviously, his training was not far along but the reason for that is another one of those stories only a few people living today know.

I very much respect and appreciate your input, but the article doesn't present enough. Maybe you see something that is obvious, but the "fatty letters" and weakness of strike are BOTH commonly seen on these coins. Do the people authenticating these things use a general checklist or do they consider characteristics specific to the type/series?

In fact, here is another example authenticated by none other than NGC https://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/7/lot/20901/

Note the strong match, including the die crack across the top of AME in AMERICA and fatty lettering.

Sorry to disagree but the sharpness of the Goldberg coin looks nothing like the NGC coin you suspect is genuine. The fake had to be made from something. If the genuine coin used as a model had a die break it would be transferred.

Let me play devil's advocate and suggest that the best valid argument to use would be to say that "you cannot authenticate a coin by an internet image." That is often the case, however, IMO, this fake is such a poor example that the image is all that is needed. One other thing. Without a comparison piece, this coin may look real just not to me.

All three appear to be a match in even the finer details. I would expect these to have been lost or malformed had a counterfeit been made from a genuine piece. Here is a direct comparison attached.
Also, had the coin in the NGC article been a copy of one of the others, would it not have less detail rather than more? The inscription on the column is more strongly struck than the other two, for example.

Edited to include image in post rather than as file attachment.

Insider2

Please forgive me but I'm tired. I see you have never had to explain to a collector that the cast lead Brasher Doubloon he discovered in a tiny box hidden behind a loose brick in a basement wall is a crude copy.

That said, If you wish to disagree with those nearsighted idiots at the ATS who claim a crude counterfeit that one of my YN students could ID as fake with their naked eyes is actually a genuine coin, send a link to Rick and alert him to their mistake. BTW, thanks for posting. I especially enjoyed seeing the very weakly struck genuine piece in this thread.

Insider2

@WorldCoinsDmitry said: "All three appear to be a match in even the finer details. I would expect these to have been lost or malformed had a counterfeit been made from a genuine piece. Here is a direct comparison attached.
Also, had the coin in the NGC article been a copy of one of the others, would it not have less detail rather than more? The inscription on the column is more strongly struck than the other two, for example."

You know what, I'm not done with you. I want you to think about what you have asked and try to answer your own questions that I highlighted.

Good night.

WorldCoinsDmitry

@Insider2 said:
Please forgive me but I'm tired. I see you have never had to explain to a collector that the cast lead Brasher Doubloon he discovered in a tiny box hidden behind a loose brick in a basement wall is a crude copy.

That said, If you wish to disagree with those nearsighted idiots at the ATS who claim a crude counterfeit that one of my YN students could ID as fake with their naked eyes is actually a genuine coin, send a link to Rick and alert him to their mistake. BTW, thanks for posting. I especially enjoyed seeing the very weakly struck genuine piece in this thread.

@Insider2 said:
@WorldCoinsDmitry said: "All three appear to be a match in even the finer details. I would expect these to have been lost or malformed had a counterfeit been made from a genuine piece. Here is a direct comparison attached.
Also, had the coin in the NGC article been a copy of one of the others, would it not have less detail rather than more? The inscription on the column is more strongly struck than the other two, for example."

You know what, I'm not done with you. I want you to think about what you have asked and try to answer your own questions that I highlighted.

Good night.

Other than telling me I'm wrong in a vaguely general and mostly condescending way, I'm not getting anything of substance in your responses. That is unfortunate because you have a lot of actual knowledge to share. If you are so sure the first coin is fake, then tell me how it's so different from the other two as to be obvious from a foot away and clear to even a newbie.

Insider2

@WorldCoinsDmitry said: "Other than telling me I'm wrong [Both NGC and I have told you that you that the coin is a counterfeit] are in a vaguely general [??? We both gave reasons but IMO strike weakness should not have been one of them] and mostly condescending way [Try telling someone that an orange is "orange" over and over and watch the tone of your voice change!] I'm not getting anything of substance in your responses. [??? As I wrote, when something is this crude there is not much to say other than it is crude. Three genuine coins have been posted that differ in sharpness from the counterfeit. That is unfortunate because you have a lot of actual knowledge to share. If you are so sure the first coin is fake, then tell me how it's so different from the other two as to be obvious from a foot away and clear to even a newbie. [?? Both NGC, other posters, and I already have].

Last night I posted that I was done with this thread and gave my reasons. I erased my response because I saw you asked two more "thoughtful" questions. As I claim to be a teacher, I couldn't do what I intended.

So, I asked you to do something.: I want you to think about what you have asked and try to answer your own questions that I highlighted. I'm not going to reply again until you try. That's because I learned that the best teachers lead their students to answer the questions for themselves.

WorldCoinsDmitry

@Insider2 As you're just going to give me more of the same non-answers as to what makes it fake in your mind besides "everyone knows", I would rather present the evidence. Below are all three examples noted here. The die crack is, among other things, evidence that all three were struck from the same dies. There is no distortion or detail loss from the transfer die/mold process. Also, the dentils seen in this area on both the supposedly fake and the PCGS authenticated coin are a match. The dentils are not clearly visible on the NGC authenticated coin due to the holder.

Edit: corrected grades listed in image.

Insider2

YAWN...I want you to think about what you have asked and try to answer your own questions that I highlighted. I'm not going to reply again until you try.

I'll check back tomorrow.

PS Please answer how this could possibly happen also: "The die crack is, among other things, evidence [?] that all three were struck from the same dies.

WorldCoinsDmitry

I maintain that there are two possibilities here. Either NGC and PCGS both made a mistake in authenticating a fake coin and the writer of the article caught it. Or, as I suspect, all three coins are genuine and the new NGC article is the mistake. Since we are forced to agree to disagree here @Insider2 , I'll just leave the cards on the table and let the readers make their own decision.

Insider2

The only thing I wished to see on the table was an attempt to think out the reasons why your questions would prove nothing about the coin - one way or the other. Therefore, you will not learn anything additional about the manufacture and detection of counterfeits by being "spoon-fed" from me.

Unfortunately, a libelous post about a major TPGS by a "World Coin Expert" will stand. Best Regards

WorldCoinsDmitry

@Insider2 said:
The only thing I wished to see on the table was an attempt to think out the reasons why your questions would prove nothing about the coin - one way or the other. Therefore, you will not learn anything additional about the manufacture and detection of counterfeits by being "spoon-fed" from me.

Unfortunately, a libelous post about a major TPGS by a "World Coin Expert" will stand. Best Regards

I've never claimed to be an expert, those are your words. This is not libel. It's important to question misinformation, just as you obviously believe you are doing in your responses to me. The image comparisons posted here speak for themselves and I prefer to just defer to them.

The only thing I'd like to point out that you may have missed is that I am NOT debating as to whether the coin in the article is genuine. The entire basis of my thread is that the reasons that the author cites for why the coin is fake are all normal characteristics for the type. Now after we have close-ups of two more examples I am simply hammering home the point that either all are fake or all are real. I have my opinion of which it is, but am not 100% certain beyond that they are of the same origin.

Edit: Added one more image regarding the other point from the article, the one besides the "missing skirt" that is already known to not be a sign of forgery on this type.

Insider2

@WorldCoinsDmitry posted: "The only thing I'd like to point out that you may have missed is that I am NOT debating as to whether the coin in the article is genuine. The entire basis of my thread is that the reasons that the author cites for why the coin is fake are all normal characteristics for the type."

This was adressed at the beginning by a member who posted an image in agreement with both you and I. A poor strike is not a good reason to call a coin C/F. Other things mentioned in the thread by me and others ARE valid.

PS, I pulled my disagrement of your opinion based on the "technicality" that you pointed out. So, now you believe the coin is a counterfeit as the article stated but its strike is not a usuful reason. If so, we are in total agreement.

Abuelo

@MrEureka said:
Weak strikes are normal for this series. Here are a couple of 1/2 Onzas, NGC 62 and NGC

But do you think is fake, Andy?

MrEureka

This is one of the coolest threads ever. Thanks to everyone for your contributions!

My initial take on the coin was that it should not be condemned for strike or for the blurry and filled letters. These are not unusual for the series. However, the condemned piece has an unnatural look in the images. I still can't be sure if the coin is real, fake, whizzed, repaired or what. I can't even tell if it's gold! To make a firm decision, I would probably need to see it in person.

That said, the best I could do without having the coin in hand was to check out images of many other 1850 CR 1 Escudos. Here's an image of one that I found especially revealing.

I'm looking forward to hearing your comments after reviewing the above piece. Especially you, Insider2!

Insider2

@MrEureka said:
This is one of the coolest threads ever. Thanks to everyone for your contributions!

My initial take on the coin was that it should not be condemned for strike or for the blurry and filled letters. These are not unusual for the series. However, the condemned piece has an unnatural look in the images. I still can't be sure if the coin is real, fake, whizzed, repaired or what. I can't even tell if it's gold! To make a firm decision, I would probably need to see it in person.

That said, the best I could do without having the coin in hand was to check out images of many other 1850 CR 1 Escudos. Here's an image of one that I found especially revealing.

I'm looking forward to hearing your comments after reviewing the above piece. Especially you, Insider2!

I cannot magnify the image to be 100% positive but if the weight and specific gravity are OK, I see nothing on this coin that would make me think it was not genuine. Thanks for posting all the examples.

MrEureka

The condemned coin, followed by the late die state piece.

Insider2

And...?

WorldCoinsDmitry

@Insider2 I am of the opinion that all of the pieces are genuine, but it is not a certainty that I would argue. I am only arguing that all the pieces shown here are the same, either genuine or fake. Our disagreement lies in that you believe there are both genuine and fake pieces among the examples presented, while I believe all are one or the other.
If the coin is fake, then it should be noted as such for the right reasons. The article gave only two reasons, both of which are invalid for making that determination. This is irresponsible because so many people see such articles as a trusted source.

Insider2

A very thoughtful post. Perhaps the owner should get a second opinion from a European Bank. Since you have not answered any of your questions, I'll leave you only with this,,,since the 1970's, any die crack or weakness on a genuine coin will be picked up and transferred to a well-made counterfeit.

MrEureka

@WorldCoinsDmitry said:
I am only arguing that all the pieces shown here are the same, either genuine or fake. Our disagreement lies in that you believe there are both genuine and fake pieces among the examples presented, while I believe all are one or the other.

That's a mistake. A good copy of a good coin is going to look very similar to the good coin. If it's fake, the condemned coin may indeed be the only fake among these coins.

If the coin is fake, then it should be noted as such for the right reasons. The article gave only two reasons, both of which are invalid for making that determination.

This is true.

Abuelo

@MrEureka said:
The condemned coin, followed by the late die state piece.

The cord of the bow, and the letters in the monument are different, but still do not know if is just a die variety (assuming it's gold, same size, etc). If it is a fake NGC did a poor job explaining why I think. Thanks Andy for the input.

WorldCoinsDmitry

@MrEureka said:

@WorldCoinsDmitry said:
I am only arguing that all the pieces shown here are the same, either genuine or fake. Our disagreement lies in that you believe there are both genuine and fake pieces among the examples presented, while I believe all are one or the other.

That's a mistake. A good copy of a good coin is going to look very similar to the good coin. If it's fake, the condemned coin may indeed be the only fake among these coins.

Yes you're right. I do understand that a good copy will have things such as die cracks transferred over. In the case of this particular coin I find nothing to separate it from the others which are authenticated. No distortion or anything from the design copy process as I've learned and no differences in things like detail or depth/shallowness of the relief features.

It's very possible that @Insider2 is correct that the one coin is the only fake, but I'm not seeing anything in the images or the article description other than a typical looking example. I'm less concerned about whether NGC got it right on authenticity and more concerned about the reasoning given.

Washingtoniana

I'm calling it authentic now from the comfort of my armchair and smoking jacket. We should all now focus our attention on proposing a fitting humiliation for the grader who made the wrong call. Usually, that would entail something involving mustard, but given the Costa Rican theme, maybe sending the grader on an Anacondaesque misadventure would be more appropriate.

asheland

FWIW it certainly looks counterfeit to me, too. The fatty letters and the fields look way off to me.

MrEureka

@asheland said:
FWIW it certainly looks counterfeit to me, too. The fatty letters and the fields look way off to me.

Did you even bother to look at the images of the other coins?

Insider2

@MrEureka said:

@asheland said:
FWIW it certainly looks counterfeit to me, too. The fatty letters and the fields look way off to me.

Did you even bother to look at the images of the other coins?

The other coins do not have "fatty letters." The filled letters don't count. I'm going to play devil's advocate again to keep this thread going. The NGC coin is heavily buffed. That will round off the top of the relief on the letters and make them appear "fatty" - just not this "fatty."

NGC had the coin in hand. The fact that they have certified others as genuine has given them some experience with this issue. The fact that they condemned its strike was not good.

It still looks counterfeit to me in the image in spite of the other posted coins in this thread. I suspect that the owner will try for a refund and if NGC made a mistake (they probably will keep mum) someone here will hear about it.

asheland

@MrEureka said:

@asheland said:
FWIW it certainly looks counterfeit to me, too. The fatty letters and the fields look way off to me.

Did you even bother to look at the images of the other coins?

I did. I still think the said coin is counterfeit. It looks off to me.
I'm with NGC on this one.