Are these the same coin?
I know it's very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to "accurately" photograph a coin. I also know that True Views are really "glamor" shots. But are these photos really the same coin? The first is the True View:
And here is an image of the obverse from an auction:
In the auction photos, the reverse (which I did not post) is even whiter than the posted obverse. To me, at least, the difference is stunning. I'd really like to hear from others to learn if I am missing something or your opinions. Thanks.
Comments
-
Idk. It's really hard to line up the spots.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
0 -
It does not look like the same coin to me, thank goodness. Something is odd here with the cert numbers.
Where's the dark spot to the right of "LIBERTY" at the apex of the cap?
1 -
They have the same cert number but I agree that they are not the same coin
Higashiyama1 -
Ignoring the toning, I think you can find a dozen marks on one coin that you cannot find on the other, and vice versa.
Higashiyama6 -
The L in "centennial" looks different..
The court jester does not play, but gently pulls the strings…
1 -
The 6s in 1836 are different
0 -
Very distinctive spot right under the right side of the 9 that is not pictured. Different IMHO.
0 -
Possible that the wrong pic was associated to the coin though....
0 -
They ARE the same coin. This is why Great Collections does not use True Views and only use in house photos, so you get the coin without the makeup. I consigned some wicked toned War Nickels but without the True Views I wound up taking quite a bath on the coins. Those who think the coin is a fraud should contact GC with their concerns much like we do when a fraudulent slab turns up on Ebay and the listing is asked to be removed. Right now the coin is listed on GC and there are 2 bids. The coin has a bid of $1050.00, I think it will go much higher.
0 -
@RLSnapper said:
They ARE the same coin. This is why Great Collections does not use True Views and only use in house photos, so you get the coin without the makeup. I consigned some wicked toned War Nickels but without the True Views I wound up taking quite a bath on the coins. Those who think the coin is a fraud should contact GC with their concerns much like we do when a fraudulent slab turns up on Ebay and the listing is asked to be removed. Right now the coin is listed on GC and there are 2 bids. The coin has a bid of $1050.00, I think it will go much higher.Very well may be. That said, I had no clue where the coin was posted or from. It's always a good lesson in seeing both sides. I had a CBH I posted the true view on this forum some months ago and everyone was almost dead wrong - including the best - and had you bid on jit based on just the true view you would have been disappointed.
0 -
Doesn't look like the same coin to me.
2 -
@BigJohnD I did not post the reverse because it identified the auction house (but you can find it if you want to make a comparison between it and the True View reverse) because I think it is in bad taste to question a coin that is being auctioned. @RLSnapper may be correct but I have not noticed such a drastic difference between GC's photos and True Views. However, @RLSnapper has first-hand experience which, again for at least me, definitely carries some weight.
Mark0 -
They are not the same coin; there seems to be a problem with the True View. Based on the reverse, it seems to be the image of a 1936-D, while the GC coin is a 1936-S.
Higashiyama5 -
It doesn't look like the same coin to me although the cert number is the same. BTW, GC has NO incentive to show the coin without highlighting the beautiful toning as this is the biggest selling point. Remember that all auction companies are aligned with the sellers. The more the coin brings at auction the more both parties make.
0 -
Both pictures show the same coin, It was last sold at GC on October 6, 2013 for $2,860. The reverse PCGS labels tell the story. GC provided two sets of their own pictures for the 2013 auction. The TrueView included in this posting pictured the coin at it's best. Subsequently, the coin was conserved and it kept the same serial numbers. Most likely the current GC listing accurately represents the coin today. Note it did not have a CAC at either time.
1 -
If you check the surrounding certs, there's lots of Arkansas Commems. 130, 131, and 140 no longer work. The other certs around those still do. Appears to be a large sub of high grade commems. They probably swapped trueviews with one of the pulled ones.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
1 -
To reiterate: they are not the same coin.
One is a 1936-D and the other is a 1936-S
Higashiyama5 -
Since the TrueView coin has a D mintmark and the GC coin has an S mintmark we can definitely state these are not the same coin. Of course, you can lead a horse to water...
5 -
Insert idiot here,,,,
0 -
GC coin on the left and TrueView on the right...
5 -
@Higashiyama said:
To reiterate: they are not the same coin.One is a 1936-D and the other is a 1936-S
100% correct👍
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.2 -
Look different to me.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
0 -
Tiny mintmarks are often difficult to recognize and open to interpretation without having the coin in hand. The PCGS CERT VERIFICATION of #27942134 showing the TrueView lists the coin as having a S mintmark.
0 -
didn't read the other comments, just looked at the photos. they are not the same coin. there are marks on the jaw that are present on the toned example but not on the dipped example.
0 -
@DisneyFan said:
Tiny mintmarks are often difficult to recognize and open to interpretation without having the coin in hand. The PCGS CERT VERIFICATION of #27942134 showing the TrueView lists the coin as having a S mintmark.It's not a tiny mintmark if you go to the source for the images and blow up both the GC and TrueView pictures. It's clear. GC image on the top and TrueView on the bottom-
7 -
@TomB said:
@DisneyFan said:
Tiny mintmarks are often difficult to recognize and open to interpretation without having the coin in hand. The PCGS CERT VERIFICATION of #27942134 showing the TrueView lists the coin as having a S mintmark.It's not a tiny mintmark if you go to the source for the images and blow up both the GC and TrueView pictures. It's clear. GC image on the top and TrueView on the bottom-
You are the recognized photography expert!
It won't be the first time PCGS got the mintmark wrong on a commemorative half dollar.
What is interesting here is that the exact same PCGS serial number with different reverse labels was used for the D and the S coins.
Have you seen GC's pictures from the 2013 auction?
0 -
@DisneyFan said:
@TomB said:
@DisneyFan said:
Tiny mintmarks are often difficult to recognize and open to interpretation without having the coin in hand. The PCGS CERT VERIFICATION of #27942134 showing the TrueView lists the coin as having a S mintmark.It's not a tiny mintmark if you go to the source for the images and blow up both the GC and TrueView pictures. It's clear. GC image on the top and TrueView on the bottom-
You are the recognized photography expert!
It won't be the first time PCGS got the mintmark wrong on a commemorative half dollar.
What is interesting here is that the exact same PCGS serial number with different reverse labels was used for the D and the S coins.
Have you seen GC's pictures from the 2013 auction?
The GC auction of 10/13/13 had the 1936-D sell for $2,750 ($3,025 with BP) and it was in a previous slab labeled as "Young Collection". It appears that upon getting regraded and newly holdered with the "JFS-Young" pedigree that the TrueView associated with it was mistakenly coded in-house as the 1936-S. Old GC auction with the coin in the Young pedigree holder-
5 -
There's something off about her nose and brow in the GC coin. Just doesn't look right. IMO
USAF (Ret.) 1985 - 2005. E-4B Aircraft Maint. Crew Chief and Contracting Officer.
✓ Everyman Mint State Carson City Morgan Dollars (1878 – 1893)
✓ Morgan Dollar GSA Hoard (1878 – 1891)
✓ Everyman Mint State Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1958)
✓ Matte Proof Toned Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1916)0 -
@TomB said:
The GC auction of 10/13/13 had the 1936-D sell for $2,750 ($3,025 with BP) and it was in a previous slab labeled as "Young Collection". It appears that upon getting regraded and newly holdered with the "JFS-Young" pedigree that the TrueView associated with it was mistakenly coded in-house as the 1936-S. Old GC auction with the coin in the Young pedigree holder-
Yes, the 1936-D GC picture matches the later incorrect 1936-S True View.
In this case, the 1936-D GC pictures are much better than the original 1936-D TrueView #27942133. Wait a minute - are my eyes deceiving me - there is no mintmark on the True View #27942133?0 -
27942132 1936 Young Collection
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/27942132 (This has the wrong TV as it is for a S)
.
27942133 1936 D Young Collection
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/27942133 (This has the wrong TV as it is for a P)
.
27942134 1936 S JFS Young
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/27942134 (This has the wrong TV as it is for a D)
.
.
And similarly but the TV are correct:27942135 1937 Scher Young
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/2794213527942136 1937 D Young Collection
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/2794213627942137 1937 S Scher Young
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/27942137https://youtube.com/watch?v=OwZlYz2V4AM Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover Paranoid (Black Sabbath)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fbEW8BrNctI Haley Reinhart, Don't Know How To Love You Live (direct to record)
RLJ 1958 - 2023
3 -
For @ianrussell
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
0 -
It appears that our host has made an error in associating the TrueView with the coin at auction at GC. The winning bidder will get a coin that looks exactly as GC pictured it. This limits any liability GC may have had for misrepresenting the lot. Of course the winning bidder may well return the coin per GC return policy which allows for a return if GC notified within 24 hours of the coins receipt. I have noticed that another auction house, SB, does use TrueViews in their listings. I wonder if they would have picked up this error?
0 -
Clearly, the coins in the OP are two different coins.... Different mint marks and several other 'tells'... The mint marks though, are all that is required to deem them different. Cheers, RickO
2 -
Last night I probably should have tagged
@PCGSPhoto
but the music was playing and....See my post above as it appears the TV (3) are 'associated' with the incorrect cert number (or incorrect mint mark).
My above comment for ease of locating.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13448205/#Comment_13448205https://youtube.com/watch?v=OwZlYz2V4AM Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover Paranoid (Black Sabbath)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fbEW8BrNctI Haley Reinhart, Don't Know How To Love You Live (direct to record)
RLJ 1958 - 2023
1 -
Don’t think so
👍BST's erickso1,cone10,MICHAELDIXON,TennesseeDave,p8nt,jmdm1194,RWW,robkool,Ahrensdad,Timbuk3,Downtown1974,bigjpst,mustanggt,Yorkshireman,idratherbgardening,SurfinxHI,derryb,masscrew,Walkerguy21D,MJ1927,sniocsu,Coll3tor,doubleeagle07,luciobar1980,PerryHall,SNMAM,mbcoin,liefgold,keyman64,maprince230,TorinoCobra71,RB1026,Weiss,LukeMarshall,Wingsrule,Silveryfire, pointfivezero,IKE1964,AL410, Tdec1000, AnkurJ,guitarwes,Type2,Bp777,jfoot113,JWP,mattniss,dantheman984,jclovescoins,Collectorcoins,Weather11am,Namvet69,kansasman,Bruce7789,ADG,Larrob37,Waverly, justindan0 -
@lilolme said:
27942132 1936 Young Collection
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/27942132 (This has the wrong TV as it is for a S)
.What mess! GC in it's 10/20/2013 sale shows a picture of the correct coin - from the Philadelphia mint. Sold for $6,050.
0 -
Not the same coin.
1 -
Not the same coin, the top one is a "D" and the bottom, though we can't see the reverse, is labeled as an "S" Mint coin. Also, looking at various marks scattered about both coins, they don't match up.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
1 -
I am no expert by any means, but it was quite obvious as @Higashiyama pointed out that these were not the same coin based on the mintmark alone. What I found fascinating, however, was that there was a well established member that continued to argue against the obvious. Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on all the newb's and their parking lot finds after all.
Philippians 4:4-7
2 -
I find it amusing that all those late to the party find it so "obvious". After @TomB did all the leg work and detective work sure it was obvious. Makes me wonder how many similar mechanical errors with TrueViews are out there. I know I will be looking more closely.
2 -
I find it amusing that all those late to the party find it so "obvious". After @TomB did all the leg work and detective work sure it was obvious. Makes me wonder how many similar mechanical errors with TrueViews are out there. I know I will be looking more closely.
Before I saw the comments pointing out the more obvious mint mark, I noticed the trueview coin has deep scrapes in the reverse rays that are not visible in the GC photos at all. You can’t tell much from the photos in the op post but if you visited GC to look at the coin, there was no question about it.
0 -
This meets my definition of obvious.
They can be fixed as well.4 -
@RLSnapper said:
I find it amusing that all those late to the party find it so "obvious". After @TomB did all the leg work and detective work sure it was obvious. Makes me wonder how many similar mechanical errors with TrueViews are out there. I know I will be looking more closely.I find it peculiar that you find it amusing. @Higashiyama pointed it out first, and while @TomB did provide irrefutable evidence, all one needed was the pictures in the very first post. The TrueView clearly shows a D mintmark, and the label states that that the coin in question is a 1936-S, which was proven to be true. So maybe it was obvious to some of us that were paying attention, even if we were late to the party...
Philippians 4:4-7
1 -
@RLSnapper said: I find it amusing that all those late to the party find it so "obvious". After @TomB did all the leg work and detective work sure it was obvious.
Maybe you should stop laughing and consider that some of us actually investigate things and form conclusions before we read replies.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
4 -
@Maywood and @UpGrayedd I would hazard a guess the whoever consigned this coin to GC didn't find the error "Obvious" or he/she would have had our host fix it. I apparently have much to learn about Commemoratives and for being blind to the obvious.
0 -
@RLSnapper said:
@Maywood and @UpGrayedd I would hazard a guess the whoever consigned this coin to GC didn't find the error "Obvious" or he/she would have had our host fix it. I apparently have much to learn about Commemoratives and for being blind to the obvious.Well... as pointed out by you GC doesn't use TrueViews. I also don't claim to know or understand the coin collecting habits of whomever consigned the coin in question. Maybe they never looked at the TrueViews or knew that there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
Accordingly, my original comment that you found so amusing wasn't directed at you. At first glance, the OP's was an honest question, one that could be debated. However, after two members pointed out the different mintmarks there were still some (once again not you) that claimed that it was the same coin i.e. arguing against the obvious. My point was that we often chastise newbies for refusing to accept the opinions of experts, while in fact we have long time members who do the same.
Philippians 4:4-7
0 -
I don't buy much from Great Collections but have learned not to "risk" buying anything based only on their images --- AND --- absent an opportunity to check a TrueView.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
0 -
Late to the party, but even with only the photos in the OP, I'd be a no on this.
1 -
Has the correct TV been located? I'd like to compare it for myself to the auction image (which I like).
0 -
@wozymodo said:
Has the correct TV been located? I'd like to compare it for myself to the auction image (which I like).See my post above. It looks like they are associated to the wrong mint mark. Here is the link to the specific post.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13448205/#Comment_13448205
The OP GC S mint photo is the TV P mint as it has an S mint photo. (However, I think this coin has been conserved since this photo)
You can see from TomB post of the previous GC auction of the D mint coin and how it compares to the TV which is the TV S mint coin in my post above as it has a D mint photo. These two compare fairly well.
TomB D mint photo
The TV for the S mint which is actually the D mint.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OwZlYz2V4AM Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover Paranoid (Black Sabbath)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fbEW8BrNctI Haley Reinhart, Don't Know How To Love You Live (direct to record)
RLJ 1958 - 2023
2
Leave a Comment
Categories
- All Categories
- 520K Coins and Currency - PCGS
- 328.5K U.S. Coin Forum
- 14.8K PCGS Set Registry Forum
- 5.2K Q & A Forum
- 41.4K World & Ancient Coins Forum
- 3K U.S. & World Currency Forum
- 96.4K Buy, Sell, & Trade - U.S. Coins
- 7.3K Buy, Sell & Trade - World & Ancient Coins
- 1.5K Buy, Sell & Trade - Currency
- 60 Random
- 246.2K Trading Cards, Autographs and Memorabilia - PSA
- 90.3K Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
- 1.7K Autographs Forum
- 16.4K PSA Set Registry Forum
- 22K Sports Talk
- 115K Buy, Sell & Trade - Cards & Memorabilia
- 663 Buy, Sell & Trade - Autographs
- 2.2K Stamps
- 1.5K Stamps Forum
- 670 Buy, Sell & Trade - Stamps
- 83 Coin Shows
- 83 General Coin Show Information and Discussion
- 11.9K Misc
- 11.9K Testing Forum