Question on this questionable 1875-CC Trade; PCGS apparently said "Unverifiable"...
burfle23
Posts: 2,417 ✭✭✭✭✭
Currently for sale, not in my wheelhouse but I have a decent attribution guide to help, but not sure this one attributes to a genuine variety.
Curious the thoughts of the Trade experts out there!
1
Comments
I would agree with PCGS. I can't match it to any of the known dies but wouldn't say it is counterfeit for sure (due to poor surfaces making it difficult to attribute).
For anyone with better eyes than me, here is the high res photo:
I agree; the CC mint mark position isn't a match for any of the documented Cox varieties (see below):
http://registry.ssdcvams.com/Trade/1875-CC_Trade.html
OP mint mark:
Maybe it was hard for the PCGS graders to see through the mold.
What is the weight?
I am leaning toward counterfeit as the date and mint mark are not a match for a known genuine example, and the denticles are off. I agree with PCGS Authenticity Unverifiable.
Seller has now listed a different 1875-CC Trade, this one back bodybagged by NGC:
Images of the 2nd one in comparison on the right:
Liberty incomplete. Cotton bales detail missing. Reverse dentils off the rim....it's a clear fake to my eye.
bob
Looks like these got bounced from eBay as I could not find either example. After viewing the NGC example, they are both counterfeits. They appear to come off the same die, then altered.
They kind of look like some of the ones I saw in China...counterfeit of course...over a decade ago.
Make them close, alter their surfaces so it is harder to tell, and then sell them...people may think they are authentic problem coins then.
I don't like their looks nor surfaces.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
So, does this example actually certed look like the same non-variety?
"Authenticity Unverifiable" seems wrong to me, the reason we pay and submit coins to the EXPERTS is for an opinion on authenticity. If they can't render that opinion I believe a refund should be issued.
I once submitted an HK-4/US Semi-Centennial White Metal medal to NGC. They gladly kept all the fees and returned the medal to me in a body-bag. The insert read "Unable to Verify Authenticity" much like the OP. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sure does! The date is pretty easy to align by eye; the mint mark is harder to see, so I aligned the images:
While that is an unsatisfying opinion, they did assess the coin and issue an opinion. Force them to issue a more definite opinion, they are just going to say counterfeit to protect themselves.
Cool!
One member posted that there are no die matches for this coin. Have you found repeating contact marks?
Isn't that verbiage used to protect the TPG when returning a "counterfeit" coin to the submitter?
If they declared the coin a counterfeit, there could be legal implications when returning the piece. That is what I heard in the past.
PCGS has returned coins labeled counterfeit.
Here are some die marking on the two body bagged by NGC and PCGS that are the same. Stars 5,6, and 7 are flat on both examples and the I in America has the top serif missing. My guess there will be some more of these showing up with the same die markings. I looked on eBay and could not find any of these sold or listed.
I am not sure what to make of the PCGS AU details coin. It does not have the flat stars and the top I serif is a little different. I am leaning toward counterfeit, but I guess it could be a new variety. I could not find any other known type 1 reverse dates that had the same CC position.
The date position and the broken "I" nail down the die match. I'd also like to know if anyone can find repeating marks. I cannot with the images here.
Well if the ref (our hosts) said the catch is out of bounds, it is what it is. Better luck on your next play.