@CaptHenway said:
I am not making any comment on any coin illustrated in this thread. I am merely making a comment, based upon personal experience, on repeating marks and how they can appear on both counterfeit coins AND one genuine coin.
In my time at ANACS (early 1980's) we got in a 1796 Quarter that was basically a textbook Good-4 for the type, except that it had a "scratch" in the right obverse field. I kicked it out of the normal flow for additional study, and after looking at it a few times over several days could not find any reason to condemn it. We issued a photo certificate and returned it to the submitter.
About a year later I was at a show and Lee Minshull came up to me and handed me that coin and that certificate and another 1796 Quarter in Good-4 with the exact same scratch. I said "oops" and asked if we could borrow both coins, which Lee graciously agreed to. I took them back to Headquarters, did some research in auction catalogues in the ANA Library, and found several more that had been auctioned over the years. I photographed both pieces and wrote an article about them for the ANACS page in The Numismatist.
Over the next several months we got in 3 or 4 more from people who had seen the article, and wanted us to confirm that it was bad so that they could ask the sellers for refunds. Then a piece came in with a letter from a collector saying that his dealer had seen the article and, remembering the piece, contacted the collector telling him to send it in, and if we said it was bad he would refund the collector the price of the coin and the fees. Absolutely doing the right thing.
Well, I studied the piece and saw that the "scratch" was actually a small lamination in the surface, that you could see under if you tilted the coin up. After studying that and other features I determined that this was the genuine coin that the counterfeiter made his dies from. We certified the piece, and I wrote a long letter to the collector on ANA letterhead explaining that this coin shown on certificate number xxxxxx was the genuine coin that the counterfeit coin shown on page yyyyyy of the zzzzzz issue of The Numismatist was copied from, to help his sell it some day.
So, repeating marks ARE a very strong indicator that a coin with them MIGHT be a counterfeit, but always remember that the genuine coin with those marks might turn up someday.
TD
P.S.: I tried to trace the genuine coin's history back to find the counterfeiter, but the dealer said that he had bought it from some guy at a coin show for cash and there were no records of the guy's name.
With the number of matches posted to this thread, why do you think the subject coin is the one that’s genuine (and thus, that the others are the copies)?
I did not get that from the CaptHenway post especially in light of this point - "I am not making any comment on any coin illustrated in this thread."
Somewhere there is still a genuine one. I do wonder if it could be the @Nysoto example as it appears to have the most detail, but it could be another still unnoted coin or maybe a listed one could be the original. Still work to be done.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@CaptHenway said:
I am not making any comment on any coin illustrated in this thread. I am merely making a comment, based upon personal experience, on repeating marks and how they can appear on both counterfeit coins AND one genuine coin.
In my time at ANACS (early 1980's) we got in a 1796 Quarter that was basically a textbook Good-4 for the type, except that it had a "scratch" in the right obverse field. I kicked it out of the normal flow for additional study, and after looking at it a few times over several days could not find any reason to condemn it. We issued a photo certificate and returned it to the submitter.
About a year later I was at a show and Lee Minshull came up to me and handed me that coin and that certificate and another 1796 Quarter in Good-4 with the exact same scratch. I said "oops" and asked if we could borrow both coins, which Lee graciously agreed to. I took them back to Headquarters, did some research in auction catalogues in the ANA Library, and found several more that had been auctioned over the years. I photographed both pieces and wrote an article about them for the ANACS page in The Numismatist.
Over the next several months we got in 3 or 4 more from people who had seen the article, and wanted us to confirm that it was bad so that they could ask the sellers for refunds. Then a piece came in with a letter from a collector saying that his dealer had seen the article and, remembering the piece, contacted the collector telling him to send it in, and if we said it was bad he would refund the collector the price of the coin and the fees. Absolutely doing the right thing.
Well, I studied the piece and saw that the "scratch" was actually a small lamination in the surface, that you could see under if you tilted the coin up. After studying that and other features I determined that this was the genuine coin that the counterfeiter made his dies from. We certified the piece, and I wrote a long letter to the collector on ANA letterhead explaining that this coin shown on certificate number xxxxxx was the genuine coin that the counterfeit coin shown on page yyyyyy of the zzzzzz issue of The Numismatist was copied from, to help his sell it some day.
So, repeating marks ARE a very strong indicator that a coin with them MIGHT be a counterfeit, but always remember that the genuine coin with those marks might turn up someday.
TD
P.S.: I tried to trace the genuine coin's history back to find the counterfeiter, but the dealer said that he had bought it from some guy at a coin show for cash and there were no records of the guy's name.
With the number of matches posted to this thread, why do you think the subject coin is the one that’s genuine (and thus, that the others are the copies)?
I did not get that from the CaptHenway post especially in light of this point - "I am not making any comment on any coin illustrated in this thread."
Somewhere there is still a genuine one. I do wonder if it could be the @Nysoto example as it appears to have the most detail, but it could be another still unnoted coin or maybe a listed one could be the original. Still work to be done.
Thank you. I was confused by the “Genuine” at the top of his post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
...
Thank you. I was confused by the “Genuine” at the top of his post.
An out of date vote before more info came in I assume.
Exactly. That was my vote in the original poll. It will no doubt reappear with this comment.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Thanks for all the replies! I have learned a lot and I hope others have also. These are quite deceiving. And yes I paid a lot for it many year ago!
Unforunately (for me) here is PCGS reply:.
@rec78 I believe you mentioned you have had it for around 20 years- do you remember the date you purchased it? The NCS example appears to have many of the matching marks (poor resolution images) but not the 2 prominent scratches on the neck and was in the 2007 HA auction.
Comments
I did not get that from the CaptHenway post especially in light of this point - "I am not making any comment on any coin illustrated in this thread."
Somewhere there is still a genuine one. I do wonder if it could be the @Nysoto example as it appears to have the most detail, but it could be another still unnoted coin or maybe a listed one could be the original. Still work to be done.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Thank you. I was confused by the “Genuine” at the top of his post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
An out of date vote before more info came in I assume.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Exactly. That was my vote in the original poll. It will no doubt reappear with this comment.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks for all the replies! I have learned a lot and I hope others have also. These are quite deceiving. And yes I paid a lot for it many year ago!
Unforunately (for me) here is PCGS reply:.
@rec78 I believe you mentioned you have had it for around 20 years- do you remember the date you purchased it? The NCS example appears to have many of the matching marks (poor resolution images) but not the 2 prominent scratches on the neck and was in the 2007 HA auction.
I'm no expert but it looks genuine to me.