Another skillful repair.
Alltheabove76
Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭
Alltheabove76
Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭
Alltheabove76
Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
Wow, it’s like nothing happened. Would TPGs notice it was repaired?
Always buying nice toned coins! Searching for a low grade 1873 Arrows DDO Dime and 1842-O Small Date Quarter.
That is the same coin ?????????
Wow . . . . .
Drunner
Don't know if it's THAT skillful, since even I can see that the fields don't look right on the "fixed" coin....
Added: Well, I'm going to amend that, since it's a photo. I'd say "suspect", and I wouldn't be comfortable damning the coin on the photo alone.
But I'm not sure it raises to the level of "expert repair" that the PCGS discovery apparently reached.
It definitely looks a lot better. You can tell that the obverse is worn a little more since the repair. I wonder what the crudely effaced engraving said.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I imagine so, and if not, the fact that one of the TPGs has the before and after pictures posted on their forum would be a bit awkward.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Did they add the mark to the right Obv. field???
This was the work of Allen Stockton about 8 years ago. He was terrific, not sure if hes still around, but when I saw the PCGS article I was thinking it may have been his work.
My Early Large Cents
Amazing !!!
https://coins.ha.com/itm/gobrecht-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1836-p-1-name-on-base-judd-60-restrike-pollock-65-r5-graffiti-repaired-ngc-proof-vf-details/a/1138-1215.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
My Early Large Cents
My Early Large Cents
Definitely looks less worse.
Looks better, but it is still easy to see that it has been worked on.
Not a fan.
Both the before and after are damaged. But one is inauthentic.
--Severian the Lame
Had to move the metal from somewhere
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......
Maybe used metal from a piece of a bust dollar to repair this, just a guess. Although the "new" reverse looks much worse than the old reverse. This coin reminds me of the 1870-S Seated $1 that was very poorly "repaired" many years ago from a probably very nicely engraved love token. I wish there was a picture of it before it was "fixed". Similar thing happened to the 1870-S $3 Gold piece, although not as severe. The OP Gobrecht was already messed up similarly and needed some TLC to look better. The coin doctors just aren't there yet for this extent of damage, and Allen is one of the best. Obverse looks a lot better, reverse looks worse to me.
With so little of the original surfaces remaining, how sure can we be that it's not a copy made from the repaired coin? I say that not because I suspect that this particular coin is fake, but to illustrate the point I made in the other thread.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
While the work certainly improved the general appearance of the coin, to the discerning eye, it is still obviously a reworked coin. Cheers, RickO
Doesn't look like the same coin to me. The shield is very different and the "C.GOBRECHT.F" wording on the pedestal appears different. Hard to believe it's the same coin.
Successful BST transactions with lordmarcovan, Moldnut, erwindoc
I haven't seen a frame up restoration like this since MTV canceled "Pimp My Ride"
HMMMMMM.... I am not so sure I want to be the buyer of this coin. This is some coin doctor s**t. Are you serious?
Hate me for posting this but here is the thing from someone who looks at coins closely. Remember, we all see things differently based on our experience so this is not a smack down to any other member!
On a scale of one to ten where a 10 is a repair that goes undetected through several major auctions and then is straight graded by a major TPGS and a decade later in an attempt to get an upgrade, the repair is detected... I'll say WOW!
At the other end (a 1 on the scale), my blind sister can tell the surfaces are uneven when she touches the coin.
This coin is a 1. Any experienced TPGS employee and even our secretary (an ex school teacher) can tell from just the OP's original image that the coin is repaired.
Now, thanks to @Alltheabove76 let's post reasons why this is a bad "job." What do you see?
Which is it?
IMO, Mr. Stockton never touched this coin! My blind sister would agree.
Look at the little black mark coming out of one of the stars over the eagle's tale. It is the same coin. Now for fun game that will help train your "eye-for-detail", see if you can find another mark that is the same on both coins. It should be easiest on the reverse which was not repaired.
I see a few marks on the reverse that are the same. One between the eagles wings at its 'shoulder' and another next to a star near its tail feathers. I'm sure there are others.
Successful BST transactions with lordmarcovan, Moldnut, erwindoc
I am sorry to disappoint you but, he did. The Gobrecht Dollar. I have no idea on the Washington Cent.
My Early Large Cents
Well, since you were the person who actually paid him to do the work rather than some one who "heard" he did I cannot disagree. Yes, I'm very disappointed. I've heard he does excellent repairs - possibly in the 5 to 6 range on my scale. Although the repaired coin looks better than the original, IMO, this repair is a ham-fisted, across-the-room abomination! Even the best at their trade get old someday.
Anyone wish to tell us how to detect the repairs on this coin?
Whatever man. It looked far better at the end than it did at the beginning. If there wasn't graffiti on the coin that had been scratched out, I would have not touched it. The NY engraving was kind of cool. But those scratches were about as distracting as it gets. It came as NGC VF details, after his work it was upgraded to NGC XF details.
My Early Large Cents
And I'll be honest, I have wrestled with the question of whether or not I am being hipocritical by denouncing the work done on the Washington Cent yet had work done on a coin myself.
It is possible I am, but in my mind messing with copper is a whole different ballgame than silver. The surface of copper to me is a sacred thing because in its color lies the character of the coin. To mess with a coin of that rarity and to alter it so radically feels like a fraud.
To remove scratches and an engraving is a restoration I feel.
My Early Large Cents
To my unskilled, untrained eye, it looks like an excellent repair job.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
@DoubleEagle59 We all start that way. Now if you wish, take a look at just the image in this post. It looks like a circulated coin, right? Now describe what you see. Two things should "pop" right out besides the loss of detail from wear. There are no wrong answers!
Do I get to play? If I saw it, and it wasnt mine, I would say
Wow, thats Gobrecht Dollar, man those are pretty. I wish I had one.
Hmmm 1836..I wonder who won the world series that year.
My Early Large Cents
Thanks for posting this example. It provides some good discussion for the new collectors.
And he said there were no wrong answers!
My Early Large Cents
part of the repair was probably done by burnishing
Sapphire burnishing tool
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Thanks, and what on the coin looks like it has a burnished surface?
Let me put it this way........
If I only saw the repaired coin, I would think the surfaces just don't look right and I would probably pass on purchasing it.
But seeing the coin in its initial state, I'm still amazed the coin could be repaired to look fairly decent.
That's why I thought it was an excellent repair job.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
LOL, I look at crap like this all day long. Since YOU took the time to post this repair for us, I thought it may be a great exercise for those who are not as skilled as you to describe the things they see to detect the repair. In this case, they have the original coin to know where to look. Perhaps, you would like to get the ball rolling and post one of the clues you see.
This is not criticism, just wishing to make it more educational for those who will not take a guess.
So..."I would think the surfaces just don't look right..." That's right, but what do you see that makes you think that?
@DoubleEagle59
@WoodenJefferson
@Alltheabove76
We're talking about two different coins. The PCGS article was not about the Gobrecht.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thanks!
The Washington Piece was a good job. I'll bet that coin would have gone undetected before the "Computer Age" when everyone can play detective. Back then, there would have been no need to remove any of the "tells" that were left on the edge that make the ID easy today.
Here is a before and after from some of Allen's work. Better but still easy to detect the repair.
To answer the question about how to recognize that the coin has been repaired, without the benefit of seeing what the coin looked like before the work, the fields have a soft waviness and the bagmarks and scratches have had their edges softened, the result of the original surfaces being heated and smoothed.
Now my question to the master authenticator Insider2 and anyone else that cares to answer: How would you go about proving that the repaired piece is authentic and not a copy of the authentic repaired piece?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said: "To answer the question about how to recognize that the coin has been repaired, without the benefit of seeing what the coin looked like before the work, the surfaces have a soft waviness and the** bagmarks and scratches have had their edges softened**, the result of the original surfaces being heated and smoothed."
Well, since you are the only one replying and none of this is difficult for a numismatist such as you and many others here...I'll answer also.
When anyone looks at this coin, two things should jump out: The continuous hairlines and discoloration in the field. Especially on the left and as Andy wrote, the "brownish-gray" area is sunken-in and wavy. Next to the arm there is an edge where the level of the surface is changed. Additionally the marks are rounded. I cannot think of any case I have seen where these characteristics are on an original worn coin.
As to the most important question, I'm going to say nothing and I'll explain why. Up until about 2008, authenticating US coins was fairly easy. Not as easy as during the 1970's and 1980's but still pretty easy. I believe I can say that because I had been examining the surfaces of coins for decades using a stereo microscope. Then things began to change around the time the fake Trade dollars hit the market. Previously, I could authenticate a Trade dollar in a matter of seconds. Today, it takes several minutes in many cases. That goes for copper coins too.
It is a two fold problem. It has always been more difficult to authenticate any coin without any part of its original surface intact. Many years ago, there were not any really deceptive coins around and a coin such as this would be passed without a second thought. Here is where the other part comes in... Counterfeits have become so deceptive that many almost defy detection. "They" are still leaving "tell-tale" characteristics on their fakes; however, if these were to be exposed and then removed from the fakes it would almost be "game-over." All that would be left is to match up "repeating marks" and without the imaging being done over the last decades - good luck. So, take a really deceptive fake and either circulate it, add some corrosion, make a fake repair or repair the host, or just clean it up really good and authentication becomes very difficult. It also makes what I do fun and challenging.
In 1985, I told one of my students in class - a scientist - that the days of the hand lens for coin authentication were over. I was about ten years too early. I told the class that he could start looking at coins using a scope and he would never be able to eclipse my experience. Yet, if he went back to his lab and started looking at the surface of genuine coins with his electron microscope, no one would be able to surpass him! It is a real shame someone has not been doing this as sometime in the future we can toss our stereo scopes in the can with the hand lenses.
I think I can understand the value of an electron microscope in authenticating coins if it's backed up by a huge database of previously seen coins and a computer program to compare all of the images. However, I'm going to need some help understanding how an individual authenticator with an individual coin would need that level of magnification. How about a quick explanation?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Do you believe the stars on the reverse look the same on both pictures? Am I crazy in saying the first photo has much more detail in the center of some of the stars. This would lead me to believe the reverse has had some work done as well. Look at the star under the A in states.
It is the same coin. The reverse of the coin has been "doctored" in order to get it to resemble the repaired obverse closer.
I'll use an example. When a person with good eyesight looks at the "Pleiades" there are 7-8 stars. Take out Binoculars and there are perhaps 10-12 visible. Get the 8' Celestron and there are hundreds. It's the same way when we examine a coin. Eyes, 5X, 10X, 20X, 8X with two eyes and florescent light, then crank the power up to 40X. Each view of the coin's surface will look different.
The US mint prepares its dies and planchets just so, the press is set just so. All this produces a coin that looks "just so." The counterfeiters can come close but the majority of their products are not close. However, the "super fakes" appear genuine! Nevertheless, as the magnification goes up, differences although few can be seen. If I can see them at 40X they must be even more obvious at 100X IF THE PERSON LOOKING AT 100X HAS BEEN STUDYING THE SURFACE OF GENUINE COINS and the super fakes.
The only database needed is our individual brain that knows what the surface of a coin looks like at the chosen magnification. You have it. It is the "gut reaction" you get when something does not look "right." A database of images (something PCGS and NGC are forming) is good enough to match marks but you need to have seen several fakes. Long-time authenticators with a photo memory (mine is not as sharp as it once was) can have examined a coin in the past, see a different coin with an identical defect that jogs the memory and do some research. I photo the marks on any suspicious coin. In the 1970's I would draw the contact marks that were not fresh and save that diagnostic sheet. There have been a few discussions of "new" C/F's posted online with the "markers" circled.