I'm bewildered. Got a Lg. Cent back as "Authenticity Unverifiable"

coindeuce · April 7, 2016 1:31AM

I don't know what to make of PCGS determination. 1803 Small Date, Large Fraction. No notes on the body bag, which I thought was a thing of the past.

Is it not correct composition ?

Is it not correct dimension ?

Is it not within Mint weight tolerance ?

Does PCGS have a list of criteria for what they will deem not verifiable ?

Maybe this needs to be examined by an EAC expert ?

This piece has no glaring features of a nonsense reproduction.

This piece has the appearance of VF Details, with porosity on both sides.

Edited to add:The only time I've ever had a similar situation was on a PCGS submission of what appeared to be a Genuine 1794 Flowing Hair half dollar that had been extensively tooled. Neither that coin or the above large cent involved any significant liability to our host, which I've always perceived as their primary consideration for authentication.

ms70 · April 7, 2016 1:37AM

Pic?

Give them a call. I'd be interested in hearing the outcome of this.

Walkerguy21D · April 7, 2016 1:38AM

Strange - I'd opt for your EAC expert option....but would like to know what the grader's questions/issues with the piece are, to give it that designation.

joebb21 · April 7, 2016 1:40AM

i can easily imagine that heavy porosity can be problematic in determining authenticity.

Porosity can make a coin look very crude and even counterfeit.

ive had that happen to me where I was fooled

oih82w8 · April 7, 2016 1:45AM

According to our host, the description should be included.

Described: Yes

Holdered: No

Code: 86

Reason: Authenticity Unverifiable

Explaination: Coin's status inconclusive. (more)

Authenticity Unverifiable

Fee not refunded. In the rare instances where the experts at PCGS are unable to determine conclusively that a coin is either genuine or counterfeit, that coin will be returned to the submitter ungraded.

PCGS spends a great deal of time examining coins that have been harshly cleaned, corroded and or tooled. PCGS must be able to positively determine that a coin is both genuine and has not been “holed and plugged”. In some situations the surface of the coin is completely destroyed, and in these instances PCGS will not render an opinion on the coin. Many counterfeit coins are harshly altered or intentionally damaged in an attempt to fool the grading services. If a coin is worn or damaged to an extent that makes it impossible to identify the date, mint mark, or variety, an Authenticity Unverifiable will be issued.

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

coindeuce · April 7, 2016 1:51AM

The point I have most difficulty accepting is within this paragraph:

PCGS spends a great deal of time examining coins that have been harshly cleaned, corroded and or tooled. PCGS must be able to positively determine that a coin is both genuine and has not been “holed and plugged”. In some situations the surface of the coin is completely destroyed, and in these instances PCGS will not render an opinion on the coin. Many counterfeit coins are harshly altered or intentionally damaged in an attempt to fool the grading services. If a coin is worn or damaged to an extent that makes it impossible to identify the date, mint mark, or variety, an Authenticity Unverifiable will be issued.

I have always expected that PCGS owned an X-Ray Fluorescence apparatus to determine composition. Would that not be a simple pass/fail measure using a standard established from known genuine pieces of same issue ?

braddick · April 7, 2016 2:44AM

Corroded large cents are difficult to determine authenticity.

PCGS appears to have handled this correctly as it is better to side on caution rather than risk poor judgement.

topstuf · April 7, 2016 2:54AM

Back in the days of ANACS photo grading, I had same thing with an 8 Escudo.

ALL the genuine signs were there.

and a LOT of the fake elements.

They sent the thing all over to various dealers and still could not render a firm opinion.

MrEureka · April 7, 2016 2:55AM

I have always expected that PCGS owned an X-Ray Fluorescence apparatus to determine composition. Would that not be a simple pass/fail measure using a standard established from known genuine pieces of same issue ?

What is to stop a counterfeiter from melting down cull large cents and minting "better" coins?

cmerlo1 · April 7, 2016 2:55AM

Since they have to guarantee authenticity, PCGS decided to play it safe. Seems like the right call to me...

TopographicOceans · April 7, 2016 5:05AM

I had a similar situation with a coin I submitted that got BB'd for that.

I called to ask why but they wouldn't tell me.

I assume it was because if I was trying to make counterfeit coins, that information would have helped.

Like, if you just made it 1/2" mm wider it would have fooled us.

coindeuce · April 7, 2016 5:18AM

Originally posted by: MrEureka

I have always expected that PCGS owned an X-Ray Fluorescence apparatus to determine composition. Would that not be a simple pass/fail measure using a standard established from known genuine pieces of same issue ?

What is to stop a counterfeiter from melting down cull large cents and minting "better" coins?

Maybe the value of a forger's time and labor ? There has to be a practical break point for the value of creating a forgery that can be brought to market which offsets that value and also carries a profit without being instantly recognized.

keets · April 7, 2016 5:29AM

I once got an HK-4 back from NGC with the note "unable to verify authenticity" written on the BB tag. my inference was that they thought it was real but were unable to make that judgment with 100% certainty due to the fact that the date had been effaced.

Sonorandesertrat · April 7, 2016 6:41AM

"Porosity can make a coin look very crude and even counterfeit."

This. Don't spend more money trying to get this graded. If both sides are porous, its realistic value will be much less than the nominal 'VF' value. Without seeing pics, it's impossible to even intelligently guess what the verdict should be. Get an experienced EAC member/dealer to look at it. I would try to sell something like this raw.

CaptHenway · April 7, 2016 7:30AM

Originally posted by: topstuf

Back in the days of ANACS photo grading, I had same thing with an 8 Escudo.

ALL the genuine signs were there.

and a LOT of the fake elements.

They sent the thing all over to various dealers and still could not render a firm opinion.

That might have been in my time. I always figured that an honest "We don't know" was better than an educated guess.

TD

ebaybuyer · April 7, 2016 7:41AM

try ANACS, they seem to be able to properly identify almost anything

TwoSides2aCoin · April 7, 2016 7:59AM

When in doubt, don't. See DennisH's sigline for details. I'm with Braddick's assertion of " erring on the side of caution" .... even more than PCGS, usually. So I can understand the OP's bewilderment, yet can totally understand the position of the TPG. Ours truly, in this case.

COINS MAKE CENTS · April 7, 2016 8:06AM

Need a picture

TigersFan2 · April 7, 2016 8:38AM

Originally posted by: oih82w8
According to our host, the description should be included.

Described: Yes

Holdered: No

Code: 86

Reason: Authenticity Unverifiable

Explaination: Coin's status inconclusive. (more)

Authenticity Unverifiable
Fee not refunded. In the rare instances where the experts at PCGS are unable to determine conclusively that a coin is either genuine or counterfeit, that coin will be returned to the submitter ungraded.

PCGS spends a great deal of time examining coins that have been harshly cleaned, corroded and or tooled. PCGS must be able to positively determine that a coin is both genuine and has not been “holed and plugged”. In some situations the surface of the coin is completely destroyed, and in these instances PCGS will not render an opinion on the coin. Many counterfeit coins are harshly altered or intentionally damaged in an attempt to fool the grading services. If a coin is worn or damaged to an extent that makes it impossible to identify the date, mint mark, or variety, an Authenticity Unverifiable will be issued.

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

But wouldn't that explanation make practically any FR1 or PO2 fit that same requirement? Any extreme well-worn coin is missing so many of its features that it can't be deemed genuine. Now I'm nervous because I have an 1803 Large Cent that I'll be submitting later this year in hoping for a FR1 grade.

foodude · April 7, 2016 11:08AM

I've gotten coins back with no opinion or something like that 3 times. One was a Morgan dollar that was too worn for the PO01 grade. Another was a Peace dollar that was too worn for the PO01 grade. And the third was a U.S. pattern. The grading fee was refunded for each.

IrishMikey · April 8, 2016 5:47AM

I agree with the "consult an EAC dealer" advice. There have been some highly deceptive fake large cents in the past year that are made much harder to spot due to corrosion/burnishing. Some of these have been lightweight, most have the proper weight and composition.

Pretty sure that one of them was an 1803.

jcping · April 8, 2016 6:02AM

It seems that our host gave many "un-verify-able" body bags these days and still charged the service fee. I have no clue what is going on inside the authentication room

TigersFan2 · April 8, 2016 8:34AM

Originally posted by: jcping
It seems that our host gave many "un-verify-able" body bags these days and still charged the service fee. I have no clue what is going on inside the authentication room

Maybe this...

The Hokey Pokey

coindeuce · April 8, 2016 11:09AM

Originally posted by: IrishMikey

I agree with the "consult an EAC dealer" advice. There have been some highly deceptive fake large cents in the past year that are made much harder to spot due to corrosion/burnishing. Some of these have been lightweight, most have the proper weight and composition.

Pretty sure that one of them was an 1803.

Thanks for the tip on the recently made fakes, but this came from the estate of an old time dealer who passed away almost two years ago.

Either we both got bamboozled, or PCGS is being very gun shy in certain circumstances.

Walkerguy21D · April 8, 2016 11:43PM

With these photos, it looks more like XF/+ details, FWIW. Perhaps it was was dug up or something, then given a light acid bath
to remove the heaviest crud, as it appears the surfaces are etched as well as corroded. And perhaps PCGS has seen fakes that were
abused in a similar manner, to hide the workmanship, making them leery. All just speculation on my part.

Sonorandesertrat · April 9, 2016 3:00AM

I agree with Walkerguy21D. Seeing the images, my initial reaction was to wonder if the coin was a fake. That is an interesting piece from an educational point of view.

CaptHenway · April 9, 2016 3:11AM

I can see issuing a no decision on that coin.

Wabbit2313 · April 9, 2016 3:39AM

Originally posted by: TigersFan2

Originally posted by: jcping
It seems that our host gave many "un-verify-able" body bags these days and still charged the service fee. I have no clue what is going on inside the authentication room

Maybe this...

The Hokey Pokey

Wabbit2313 · April 9, 2016 3:41AM

That coin looks terrible. Dug up sometime in it's past.

ricko · April 9, 2016 3:57AM

PCGS gave a good opinion on that coin..... It may sell among EAC collectors... Cheers, RickO

I'm bewildered. Got a Lg. Cent back as "Authenticity Unverifiable"

Comments

Leave a Comment