Options
Part 2: Are these real?
Numismaphile
Posts: 63 ✭✭
Helping a local senior with his collection, looking for opinions on the authenticity of these key dates and semi keys. I numbered the photos for communication. Thanks in advance;
Don’t know what I’d do without you all. 
Tagged:
0
Comments
Are you helping this local senior with the 1937-D 3-legged buffalo nickel as well?
If so, why did you abandon that effort after several members expressed to you that the coin may be genuine and merits further investigation?
Also, what is your role in all this? Might you be buying these collections in order to resell them?
Whatever your role, you've stepped in and offered to help this person. Don't you think you owe it to him to find out for sure if his 3-legged buffalo nickel is genuine?
s vdb def no good, others might be ok
Exactly what I was thinking.
What brings the S VDB to "definitely" level for you? I don't love the look of it either. The shape of the mintmark looks wrong to me, but I'm not definite when the picture quality could be distorting the appearance.
I agree that the others look ok. At the very least, they're not obviously bad.
Answered within your question.
I agree. the mintmark is wrong.
+1
s vdb mintmark is wrong and I think it was added. I always use the n in united as a marker.
i imagine pic 6 & 7 go together? the 09svdb is definitely counterfeit
Ikes, I didn’t “abandon the effort,” I made a judgement call based on the generous help from members here, and colleagues elsewhere. As for reselling, I’m acting as an agent in a consignment arrangement. I want to be careful not to sell counterfeits or misrepresent anything.
An agent or the seller? If you're just acting as an agent, the actual seller would be expected to authenticate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
OK, walked away from it.
Actually, you didn't make a judgment call; as you said before, you went with what you thought was the consensus of opinion. What you fail to take into account is that those with the opinion that the coin is counterfeit either a) did not provide evidence, b) erroneously determined that the die markers were absent, or c) erroneously determined that the coin was altered. The problem with relying on a consensus of opinion is that you will only be correct when the consensus is correct. Variety attribution and counterfeit detection are both specialized fields that even many seasoned collectors and professionals struggle with at times; for that reason, doing a random opinion poll is not a reliable way to make a determination of this kind.
If you represent the coin to the consignor as a counterfeit without any further investigation, that may be a misrepresentation in itself.
The 1909-S VDB has the "Deep N" - All S-VDB's had the "Shallow N"
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Check your Mintmark locations on the 14-D cents
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
I would like to gently steer the conversation back to the coins and relevant diagnostics, rather than the business of selling them. Re. 1909, yes 6 goes with 7, sorry I didn’t articulate that. The diagnostic that rules it out for me is the “B” in VDB. In genuine specimens, the middle horizontal line has a distinct angle, it slopes at about 20 degrees. This one slopes a little but looks too level. The “S” looks applied. The others, all 14D and 31S, strike me as real. What gives me pause with those is the darkness around the mint marks, especially the S’s. Hoping just dirt.
Respectful Suggestion:
1916-D Merc Dime, 1937-D 3-Leg Buffalo, 1914-D, 1909 SVDB and 1931-S Lincolns are all well known as highly counterfeited coins. As a result, they are much easier to sell certified. Submit all five and any other worthy coins to PCGS, CACG or NGC. I personally would never purchase any of those raw. Too many are available certified. Why make an expensive mistake?