1923-s slq Genuine or Counterfeit
Hadleydog
Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭
This coin was posted on another forum asking if it was the real deal or a counterfeit. Not my series, although my favorite design. Something about this coin just looks wrong to me, so the best place for answers that I know of is right here. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
The first image is of the coin in question, the second is of a graded ms example.
0
Comments
real. I think. Messed with though.
bob
It may just be the picture, but the "M" looks kind of sketchy. It looks not well-defined and too small.
I would be wary of it.
Looks ok to me, it looks AU. Possibly cleaned.
Where is this M you speak of?
Next to the bottom right star.
BHNC #203
The 3 looks funky.
Look at the angle of the 3
BHNC #203
Looks good to me !!!
Cleaned AU, the only possible alteration I would suspect on this would be an added 'S',
but from what I can see (not much), it appears to be Ok.
I would say genuine, but probably whizzed or cleaned.
Looks authentic to me, though likely dipped......Cheers, RickO
I see no reason from the picture to doubt its authenticity.
Agree with Mr Jones, coin looks whizzed.
Looks real with light hairlines. Wizzed perhaps.
100% Positive BST transactions
I'd like to leave you all with a thought. I'm thankful for the numismatists here that share their opinions. Some here may feel the same...
With the deceptive C/F's around, in a short time it will be virtually impossible to authenticate a coin by a "washed-out" Internet image. In spite of this we can all keep trying as it is fun and can be a learning experience.
I respect the all the folks who are brave enough to post an opinion after posting that they know nothing about authenticating or grading anything or the specific coin series. This is an open forum and any opinion keeps it going. Nevertheless, the "experienced" folks who write that a coin looks suspicious due to a "pimple" or the shape of an infinitesimal part of the design is just plain...well, I'll just say not helpful at all.
I'm most thankful when a member posts an opinion and backs it up with instruction for all of us. For example: I just compared the OP's coin with images at Heritage. All the relief matches including the shape of the mint mark. The coin looks like it has full mint luster; however, I see some tiny gray areas (cabinet friction?) on the highest relief. There are also some diagonal HLNS across the legs. What looks like cleaning in the field on the left side of the head is raised die polish. The two DC's across the "N" and "G" still appear to be unworn so the coin is possibly best called a mishandled Unc and sold as one.
BTW I have been told a very tiny number of professional authenticators who use stereomicroscopes (at low power) on a daily basis to examine coins use florescent light. That takes the glare off the coin and also makes it extremely easy to see any breaks in a coin's luster on the high points. Once it is considered to be genuine, incandescent light is used to "market grade" the coin.
PS Apparently, some posting here do not know what whizzing is or what it looks like in spite of all the articles and photographs available since 1972 showing the characteristics that define a whizzed coin and separating those seen on one that is harshly buffed! This coin is NOT WHIZZED or BUFFED.
It is probably real.
Comparing it to the photo, it does look mushy, but that is likely a function of the camera set up or digital imaging processing, as in lower resolution.
Thank you all for the input. This forum is an amazing source of knowledge with so many willing to share, I owe a lot to you all. Thanks again!
It looks real but messed with. Are those tool marks at the top, left of the head.
We need a different angle. The bottom looks really messed with in the photo, but it could be just the color variation and shading in the photo.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The lines to the left of the head appear to be simple die polish marks, such as one might find on a die that clashed and was touched up by a press operator. If anything they make the coin more likely, to me, to be authentic.
It looks authentic, but I'm not sure it hasn't been messed with. Hard to tell without some other angles.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Would fit well into a DANSCO 7070 type set yet not so much for a trip to PCGS.
peacockcoins
I think it is probably genuine but cleaned. A big problem is 23-p's with an added mintmark. A useful clue (from Cline's book) is that on genuine 23-s coins the 2 is "fat" from about halfway down the numeral to its base. the 23-P has a "thin" 2 for it's entire height.
I believe that that irregularity in the 2 is the result of the rims of the planchets being upset slightly differently from mint to mint, so that there was more or less metal under the 2 when the dies came together. If this is the case, it is not a reliable diagnostic.
Yep..........I agree. Fat 2 shows rather nicely.
Genuine.
Pete