Options
Coin doctoring of an 1871-CC Quarter?
REALGATOR
Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭✭✭
Could be a rather "interesting" purchase: This past weekend someone bought this 1871-CC Seated Liberty Quarter for over $16,000 (with the buyer's premium)
Last June someone bought what looks like the same 1871-CC Seated Liberty Quarter at Heritage in a PCGS VF Details holder (Scratched) for $7200.
The big difference is all of those scratches through the lower obverse to the right of the shield and near and on the date appear to have been smoothed in some way. I could be wrong but I think you have to be very careful if you go on safari in the coin jungle!
3
Comments
Maybe I’m missing something obvious (wouldn’t surprise me), but why do you think they are the same coin?
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
That is a lot of work but it is a big payday.
Hoard the keys.
It's the same coin. You can see remnants of the work in the denticles, in the drapery, and on the edge of the leg. The mark on the lower part of the shield is still there.
Assuming the same one, it doesn’t look like it is in a slab. I would be interested in seeing a better quality “after” image, where sold, and if it was indeed slabbed. The implication seems to be that it was certified straight graded and at a much higher grade but I find that difficult to see without more detail.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Hit through third pair of lines on shield. Hit on Liberty's shoulder. Lines base of bust. Weird toning above head. Weird denticles below 8-7 where the scratch was.
I'm guessing it's a lot more apparent in hand, the pics seem intentionally low res.
Highly probable it is the same coin.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
It does appear to be the same coin. Very good work on it.... Cheers, RickO
Just to be clear, the first coin was sold raw on Saturday by Gold Standrd Auctions on Proxibid. The second coin can be found in Heritage archives in a PCGS holder VF details.
The first coin was cracked out of the holder and automatically lost its scratches!!
@REALGATOR Obviously the scratches were on the holder.
Where and with what description, if you care to share?
Tom
This is Saturday's sale (cracked out coin "without" the scratches:
https://proxibid.com/1871-CC-100-Known-Seated-Lib-Quarter-LIGHTLY-CIRC/lotInformation/68194512
from this comparison, i'd say it isn't the same coin. the difference in dentils is pretty stark.
I disagree. Its a really good patch job, IMO. Lots of techniques involved here.
I was about to agree with LanceNewmanOCC, because the repaired coin looks to have more detail, but from a blow up of the two, one can see the scratches in exactly the same spots. So, good catch and I agree it is the same coin.
Tom
Although appears improved, also appears criminal & fraudulent.
The lower shield flaws are in exactly the same position. Looks like same coin.
I think the photos are not good enough to determine for sure of the two photos being the same coin. While many things are similar there are a couple of things not similar at all, suchas, the top of the 2nd 1 in the date and the lower denticles seem to me to be totally different shapes. Better photos would help. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
From just blowing up the images on the screen, the dentils of the two images appear that same around the coin except in the area of the date. The dentils on the scratched coin (2nd image) remain relatively the same. A rather longer and slender dentil all the way around. The dentils on the first image change in the area of the date and become a little shorter and a few fatter. Possibly due to repair?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
these blowups of the date are not taken with the same lens details and distance.
so can not be used to compare in detail.
Same coin. I highlighted two matching marks:
Which raises a couple of very interesting questions, if it is an altered coin, as follows:
Tom
I wonder how the person who paid about $9,000 more just 9 months after the Heritage sale would answer these?
My guess is if you sent this coin back to PCGS it would come back as VF Details - Altered Surface (or Repaired). Yes, the coin does look better, BUT......
The details grade does represent non-mint effects in a broad sense, IMO. Buyer due diligence of the damage should influence the value of the coin. Excellent research and analysis here! Thanks. Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall
That gives a stark example of the phrase "problem coin".
I don't think they are the same coins because of the difference in the dentils (left of date), the level of detail on the head and star radials, as well as the chatter on the left arm of Ms. Liberty on the first picture. Also, the first 1 of the date is different at the top. To my eye, the contact mark on stripe 3 of the shield is deeper and shorter on the first pic and the scratches on the legs do not appear to line up perfectly. Certainly, better pics would help. I wonder how the reverses compare?
I agree with @LanceNewmanOCC, @jesbroken, @Victa and others that these are not the same two coins. I can see how it might be confusing, but there's two much differentiation to possibly be the same (reworked) coin. Why would someone rework all of the dentilation from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock on the obverse? And the date logo type is incorrect. I see the scratch remnants ... close but no cigar.
How many dies were used for the 1871-CC quarter? One obverse and one reverse? I am not sure and I don't have time to check the books. Is the one that just sold even genuine?
With all due respect @Victa, there are some notable Numismatists and Dealers commenting on this thread and their conclusion seems to be that the coin has been tooled and smoothed for profit. Matching deep gouges that DCarr has pointed out leave no doubt.
Ok, why are we all arguing over something that could be easily solved? Where is the reverse of both coins so we can see if there are clearer matching marks there?
Currently, I'm also not convinced this is the same coin. The stars all have varying levels of detail between the two coins, and the last one (the number) in the date on both coins is different in an area where it likely was not touched, particularly the left bottom serif. What really got me was how on the first star to the left of the date has a short arm closest to the rim on the Details coin, whereas the coin in question has a long arm. There are also extra hits on the coin in question's arm of Liberty (left are to the viewer) that are not visible on the Details coin. Yes, some hits match, but there are too many differences to rule out different coins yet.
Coin Photographer.
Questions for those who think that this is the same coin:
1) why would the "coin doctor" spend a tremendous amount of labor and skill to rework the denticles from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock? Notice how all of the dentils in that area seem to flow to the right, whereas they should point to the center of the coin.
2) why did the dentilation magically grow longer on the purportedly reworked piece?
3) why would the "artisan" take the time to rework the "1" in the date, when the damage did not affect that part of the date?
I'm not saying the seller was the one who doctored the coin, or was even aware themselves what happened. But whomever did this was deceitful, caused the buyer damages, and committed a fraud. Someone had to be skilled to do this and knows coins and value. Appears PCGS sued some defendants in federal court for doctoring coins in the past, so wouldn't be the first time someone was charged with doctoring coins, just MHO.
@FlyingAl pointed out the obvious that we all overlooked: Let's see the reverse photos of each coin. Great point!
@bolivarshagnasty said: With all due respect @Victa, there are some notable Numismatists and Dealers commenting on this thread and their conclusion seems to be that the coin has been tooled and smoothed for profit.
I didn't realize that I needed to be a noted numismatist or dealer to express my opinion. Let's see the reverse!
Another real possibility is that this is a die-transfer (EDM) counterfeit with reworked dentilation. It would not be the first time that we have seen something like that. It could also possibly explain the remnants of the scratches that @dcarr pointed out with photos. For those of us that have been around for awhile, we know that this can (and has) happened.
Hopefully whomever purchased that coin will send it to PCGS for authentication.
Reverses, they're not much more help. Took some clever search keywords to bring up the non-Heritage coin though:
Coin Photographer.
The more I look at this coin, I think this may be it. We've seen this happen, and the fakes look very good, good enough to fool PCGS as we've seen with some Seated Dollars. It generally happens with Details coins as well.
Coin Photographer.
Look at the matching mark on the left side of the shield.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
The die dots under the left wing (facing), the shape of the first c in the mintmark and the shape of the upper berry seem different to me.
Whether or not the end product is that of a coin doctor, the auction company should be contacted with serious concerns about how the coin was run; no auction entity is immune from the law, especially the uniform commercial code. Also state AG and consumer affairs could be contacted with concerns possibly by someone with official capacity at the ANA.
Nice work on the reverse photos @FlyingAl. The coin that was recently sold at auction for $16,000 appears to be a die transfer counterfeit.
The die makers often rework the dentils, dates and other areas to strengthen parts of the die that did not transfer well enough. That explains the obverse scratch remnants pointed out by @dcarr.
Take a look at this blatant mark on the reverse die. The odds would have to be one in a billion to have the same obv/rev hits on two different circulated coins. Again, this is nothing new. Scary stuff though.
Yes, this coin does appear to be a very well done die transfer counterfeit. The two raised marks that @Victa pointed out are also what led me to this conclusion.
Here is the auction link to anyone interested. It's an auctioneer I've never heard of. https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/126644760_1871-cc-100-known-seated-lib-quarter-lightly-circ
Coin Photographer.
So in conclusion, we are ALL CORRECT:
This is the same coin, but not the same coin
In other words, the damaged coin was used to make transfer dies, which were then reworked to strike a counterfeit ... or two ... or three. Keep your eyes open for more VF'ish details 1871-CC quarters coming to market soon.
Well this may be an even sadder story. Instead of doctored, the coin may have been cloned.
I was going to say it's a struck copy from dies made with the original (scratched) piece, but y'all beat me to it.
Getting off on a tangent here, but I believe the 1871-CC quarter is the second rarest Seated quarter behind the 1873-CC No Arrows. I have been counting 1870-CC and 1871-CC quarters from all sorts of sources for many years now, and saving the photos. There are many more 1870-CC coins available for sale. The 1872-S and 1873-CC Arrows might be the primary challengers for the #2 slot behind the 1873-CC NA, IMHO.
This comparison seems wrong, because the lower photo is rotated clockwise, relative to the top photo.
Here is a comparison with both images straightened.
Your comparison of the dentil slopes on the left side was incorrect because of cleaning in the second photo
that obscured the spaces between the dentils.
The longer dentils might seem like a problem.
However, I think the dentils appear "wider" in the doctored coin due to cleaning between the dentils,
which makes them appear shorter.
Compare the apparent inter dentil spacing.
I don't see why the cluster of 3 raised dots suggests a die transfer.
Those could easily be caused by pits / gouges on the original die,
and appear in both photos because the original coin is the same.
The distortion of the O of DOL, which is damage received from circulation, appears identical on both coins. That, and other marks indicated above, convince me they appear to be the same coin.
Ron Guth, Chief Investigator
The Numismatic Detective Agency
Nice catch, REALGATOR.
Ron Guth, Chief Investigator
The Numismatic Detective Agency
i'm so glad to see the conversation go this direction. i wanted to say something earlier but didn't have the energy to defend the point and we discuss a LOT of coins here and i wasn't up for running this one to ground and was saving time/energy for what may be posted next.
good job getting all the images, doing the legwork and coming up with the current theory. i would go for counterfeit before saying it is the same coin.
NOW that doesn't mean that the scratched coin isn't possible the source coin even. i briefly thought of that in light of what @burfle23 has posted.
btw burfle, do you have a space at the end of your name. not a big deal but when i @ you, it puts a space at the end.
Raised dots in fields often suggest counterfeits in many cases, it's right up there with tool marks. The mint would likely not allow pits/gouges in that area and would send the die to be resurfaced and repaired before further use. I do think you probably knew this though.
It would also be caused by hits in the coin that transferred out. I don't know exactly how the counterfeit dies are made, so I am likely not the best person to ask. The denticles and other marks add up to having a counterfeit die be the most likely option.
Coin Photographer.