Options
Will PCGS put a counterfeit coin in a holder?
learningcoins
Posts: 73 ✭✭
I have a vintage cast counterfeit 1831 half cent. Just wondering it would be put in a holder and marked counterfeit, or if they would not want anything to do with it?
1
Comments
They don't generally slab counterfeits like you say but they do make exceptions for special cases like the Machin's Mills half pennies. ICG generally slabs and identifies counterfeits which seems like it may fit your case.
It would be sent back in a "body bag" (flip with the cert insert identifying it as counterfeit - not gradable)...I believe.
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...
Why in heaven's name would you want it slabbed?
Having a "certified" coin means that it is certified as a genuine coin... they shouldn't intentionally slab known counterfeits.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I posed that question directly to David Hall a number of years ago, as I have a rather famous counterfeit 1796 Half Dollar, pedigreed to the collection of Leo Young, that sold for over $80K in the year 1980. I suggested doing exactly as you are asking -- that it be holdered and labeled as a counterfeit. (In this case, the piece is a transfer die struck copy, as it rings like any other struck coin.)
The answer then was "No," with the explanation that everyone expects a coin in a PCGS capsule is authentic, such that they would just see the holder and not even notice the labeling. The piece itself is very deceptive. David said I should show it to John Dannreuther, and when I did, JD was wondering why I was showing him a no-grade cleaned 1796 half dollar in a CoinWorld slab? Then, he looked at the piece with a loupe and realized it was the famous fake!
I had that conversation a few years back with both PCGS and NGC regarding the 96-O micro-O Morgan. The conclusion was that even though it was a known, collectible counterfeit, it is just bad optics and could be used by an unscrupulous person to deceive. Same for the Omega Man HRs.
BTW, the ICG slab is called the "Educational" slab and it's intended to protect contemporary counterfeits from damage. As well as other counterfeits used for educational purposes. You have to specially request it.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Counterfeits are the "weeds" of numismatics. I hope the major TPGs never agree to slab them regardless of the label may say.
ICG will holder counterfeit coins. I'm planning to send a couple out in the near future.
PCGS and NGC won't certify counterfeit large or small size US currency or national bank notes but they will certify (and identify as such) counterfeit colonial, obsolete and Confederate currency. The later group are somewhat akin to Machin's Mills coppers as they were intended to circulate when similar money was in circulation, contemporary counterfeits.
It will come back like this:
bob
.
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......
Authentication is the prime directive.
But PCGS will holder some copies
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......
The label and the coin in a flip - as PCGS does - should be sufficient. It is an agreement that it is counterfeit. Cheers, RickO
I have seen pictures of that piece and it is scary as hell. The thing actually made it through a major auction house in the early 1960s.
I agree with the PCGS position not to certify these things. Contemporary counterfeits that have a historic background, like the Machin’s Mills stuff, is okay. Counterfeits that were made to deceive collectors is not.
Years ago (actually 19 years ago), I sat down with Jules Reiver and had a conversation about counterfeit bust dollars. He told me that he had purchased a VF 1794 dollar for his collection in 1967, and could never figure out it's provenance. Years later, Jack Collins did enormous research on the 1794 dollars, and he found an auction catalog with a photo that matched Reiver's coin exactly. Collins showed Reiver the catalog from the 1982 Robison sale, and indeed, the coin matched up to Reiver's coin -- yet, Reiver had purchased his coin in 1967! Obviously, one was a fake, but which one? Years afterward, the Robison specimen came up for auction again, and Reiver purchased it, then knowing he had an authentic 1794 dollar. Reiver and Collins compared the two coins side by side, and both agreed the Robison piece was the authentic one, and the Reiver's earlier purchase was the fake one.
Reiver's fake was super convincing. He told me that he sent both coins to ANACS for authentication (at separate times, of course), and BOTH of them were returned labeled as AUTHENTIC!
As I was researching and documenting the known population of 1794 dollars for my book during 2004, I searched out every auction appearance of a 1794 dollar. I worked to connect each specimen with its earlier appearances, so that I could identify previously unknown specimens from previously documented specimens. Well, I came upon a lot in a Heritage sale, where an abrasively cleaned VF-level specimen was being sold raw, and it matched up precisely to the Reiver and Robinson specimens. Clearly, the one I identified was yet another fake from the same set of dies that struck Reiver's first specimen. (BTW, I alerted Heritage of my findings immediately, and they reached out to the winning bidder from the auction, to make things right.) Since the fakes were die struck copies, there could be even more fakes lurking out there!
Cardinal.............your research is commendable..........a lot of time and effort paid off.
This whole thing is super scary to me. I'm not a "big buck" buyer, but even hundreds of dollars for a fake is way too much!
I try to warn collectors in the Buffalo Nickel area about altered coins. Some of them need an advanced study in specific areas just to catch them.
I tried to warn collectors through this forum about what I know. Added mintmarks and embossed coins can cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in losses. Often times fakes are so good that they can only be caught because they "look" suspicious to the studied eye. For an example, 1913-S Type II Buffalo nickels should NEVER be bought raw unless you know what your doing. Added and embossed mintmarks can really fool collectors. (I know....I got fooled - thank God the seller made good).
Knowledge is power - that will always be true. The sophistication of fakes gets better every day.
Pete
Here's a sacary thought. Years ago the population for 1794 dollars in all grades was estimated to be 125 pieces. Today that number is up to 150. Could be that some of the new ones are of this "new vintage."
I remembered the Jules Reiver story after you wrote about it.
Not necessarily. Modern counterfeits I'll give you, but it's undeniable that many contemporary counterfeits circulated, especially back when coins had much more purchasing power than they do today. True such pieces aren't genuine, government-issued coins, nor are they everyone's cup of tea, but they are part of the history of money.
Speak of the devil...
1899-O micro O with all the bells & whistles
I think that "weeds" is too kind of a term for them. I'd label them potentially fatal disease.
@cardinal
What a great read! Thanks for sharing
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......
only is they do not know it is a counterfeit!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@CaptHenway said: "Why in heaven's name would you want it slabbed?"
This opinion is a shocker. I too have lobbied for decades to have some of my counterfeit coins slabbed by a TPGS. The answer was always N_O as the company owners did not wish to pollute their genuine product. Thankfully ICG has been slabbing counterfeits for at least two years and I predict all the TPGS will follow - just as they eventually did after PCI came out with "red label" problem slabs. I know for a fact that several counterfeit instructors have slabbed some of their teaching coins in the ICG "counterfeit slab."
@illini420 said: "Having a "certified" coin means that it is certified as a genuine coin... they shouldn't intentionally slab known counterfeits."
IMHO, It will do no harm if properly identified. Additionally, as you read in this thread, the TPGS already slab the fakes they consider "worthy."
@291fifth said: "Counterfeits are the "weeds" of numismatics. I hope the major TPGs never agree to slab them regardless of the label may say."
One man's weeds are another's grass. I think you may be uninformed at the high price and desirability of the contemporary counterfeits of the world. I'm still looking for an AU 1795 or 1796 FH dollar for my collection - the deceptive ones that were passed as genuine. Unfortunately, the folks who own them cannot/will not take a hundred dollars for a piece that cost them over a thousand.
@BuffaloIronTail said: "Cardinal.............your research is commendable..........a lot of time and effort paid off. This whole thing is super scary to me...Added and embossed mintmarks can really fool collectors. (I know....I got fooled ."
Agreed, and we ain't seen nothing yet! Due to complacency and inattention, I missed the first embossed mint mark nickel I ever saw too. Who thought it was possible.?
@BillJones said: "Since the fakes were die struck copies, there could be even more fakes lurking out there...Here's a sacary thought. Years ago the population for 1794 dollars in all grades was estimated to be 125 pieces. Today that number is up to 150. Could be that some of the new ones are of this "new vintage."
We shall see...Unfortunately, once these early coins loose their original surface due to circulation and cleaning, authentication must become very difficult.
In addition to the Machin's Mills pieces, PCGS also slabs the 1786 Nova Constellatio.
What a resource this forum is for beginners.
Was just eyeing one up after an initial success buying Buffs. Great thread.
@Tradernik said: "What a resource this forum is for beginners."
When you are here a little longer, you will see that this forum is a great resource for all of us!
Did all 2x2's vanish suddenly?
Not long ago I photographed a notable collection of contemporary counterfeit half dollars. 309 different coins in total. Remarkable diversity.
Some were spectacularly good...enough to fool most casual collectors today. Others were intriguing, like the 1787 Taxay plate coin, the 1838-O with a reverse mintmark, and a couple of 1842 bust halves.
I'd go along with slabbing these rarities made for commerce, not to fool collectors.
Lance.
No, if pcgs determines it is in fact a counterfeit they will not put it in one of their slabs.
Depends on what your definition of "counterfeit" is:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/half-cents/1796-1-2-c-edwards-copy-ms66-brown-pcgs/a/1114-1496.s
Short answer: They will not intentionally put a counterfeit in a holder.
More nuanced answer: There are some coins made as contemporary counterfeits that are cataloged alongside the genuine article, and are slabbed as genuine, but these do not include any US federal coinage. The Machin's Mills halfpence are a good example, and there are probably many more outside America (early 18th century British/Irish coppers?) that are slabbed as being genuinely attributable as contemporary counterfeits. Then there are "restrikes" such as the 1811 1/2c "Mickley restrike," and the 1804 and 1823 restrike cents, all restruck from discarded U.S. Mint dies in the 1850s-60s. None of these are strictly authentic, but the hobby wants these authenticated to their respective sources, and TPGs oblige. Then there's stuff like the New Haven Fugio and Wyatt Massachusetts silver coins, both struck around 1860, both technically fake as the day is long, but they're both desirable enough to be certified by TPGs.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
that really is not a counterfeit coin.
It's a real coin with added mint mark.
Yes, it's a case of the major grading services playing "GOD." I remember a time when you couldn't get a major variety slabbed unless it was in the Red Book, and forget about a major new overdate discovery UNTIL another shows up...and yes I'm still pissed although it makes a humorous story now!
I think the Red Book established that role long before the TPGs came around with respect to the specific coins I mention.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@messydesk said: "I think the Red Book established that role long before the TPGs came around with respect to the specific coins I mention."
May I call you John? John, the Red Book has NOTHING to do with what coins are slabbed. Long before NGC and PCGS were gleams in their owner's eyes, several authentication services were slabbing every variety known to man! Either the "Big Boys" did not find it financially profitable to research coins or more likely - in the beginning, the professional graders like
, 
, 
, 
, and 
had no clue that coins such as 1901/0-S & 1881/0 $5 existed as they were commonly found in slabs like all the other major DDO/DDR coins that are now attributed.
You cannot blame them, I'll confess that I had no clue there were so many interesting varieties to be "cherrypicked" until the1980's. in the 1960's and early 70's the only ones I ever heard of were listed in the Red Book. Then I discovered Taxay's Encyclopedia and Breen. Life was great until the whole world fell apart with the publication of the Cherrypickers Guide.
We're not talking about varieties.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
1899's are the only Morgan Micro O's that are indeed genuine coins.
What about the 1880-O's?
No - what wb point / expenditure lol.
Yeah, you're right... I can't keep my micro-O VAMs straight, even with D. Carr's cheat sheet.
Correct, but I know of some recent examples where contemporary counterfeits were sent to PCGS and a couple got into holders (and these are not your common Micro O Morgans)...one even has a CAC sticker!
I could see PCGS (and NGC) one day expanding their operation to slab and label contemporary counterfeits (maybe when things start to slow down and they need to re-energize collector interest levels). A strong reference book positively (emphasis) identifying the provenance and origin of different contemporary counterfeits would add to the reliability of knowing that a counterfeit coin was contemporary or Modern; or more broadly positively identifying a counterfeit made before the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. You could easily start with such counterfeit pedigree's as those of Henning, and Riddell (1845).
NGC already slabs fourree's, which are generally ancient counterfeits, so it's not necessarily a large stretch to 18th and 19th century counterfeits from the U.S. and elsewhere.
LOL, I was testing you. My point is the TPGS decides what to slab.
I see you know about Riddell.
The "newly" discovered Morgan dollar fakes (both die-linked and not) fooled everyone - just like the "micro "O" counterfeits. News flash...IMHO there are lots of fakes in slabs (virtually all foreign coins) that have not been "detected" yet. As counterfeiting methods increase, the number will go up including vintage US coins.