By the way, just like a senior representative from ANACS kindly showed up here to clear up my doubts, it would be absolutely perfect if someone could invite or tag a representative from NGC into this thread. To be honest, I am not sure if that is even possible on this platform, but having both perspectives here would be amazing!
Even if it comes back as counterfeit, which seems likely, a circulating counterfeit die struck modern dollar is pretty interesting. I wouldn't hesitate to add one to my collection.
@TrickleCharge said:
Even if it comes back as counterfeit, which seems likely, a circulating counterfeit die struck modern dollar is pretty interesting. I wouldn't hesitate to add one to my collection.
@TrickleCharge said:
Even if it comes back as counterfeit, which seems likely, a circulating counterfeit die struck modern dollar is pretty interesting. I wouldn't hesitate to add one to my collection.
Hi TrickleCharge, to be completely honest, I had no idea about the advanced level and reach that counterfeiters have achieved in recent years; I was not aware of it at all. My only knowledge was about crude cast counterfeits made with molds, and I actually own one of those fake Sacagawea dollars myself.
If this Lincoln dollar turns out to be a counterfeit, the level of detail is honestly supreme. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the depth and the look in Lincoln's eyes are perfect. Either the die was crafted with extreme precision, or this coin was one of the very first ones struck before that fake die began to wear down.
If you are truly interested in adding it to your collection after the ANACS verdict drops next week, feel free to send me a private message about it. Thank you for the link and the great conversation!
@ricarf2386 said:
By the way, just like a senior representative from ANACS kindly showed up here to clear up my doubts, it would be absolutely perfect if someone could invite or tag a representative from NGC into this thread. To be honest, I am not sure if that is even possible on this platform, but having both perspectives here would be amazing!
don' expect a response from anacs that differs from ngc or pcgs. you'll get a grade or no grade and that's about it. i'm surprised someone at ngc was willing to discuss why something body bagged. they can't do this for everyone
@ricarf2386 said:
By the way, just like a senior representative from ANACS kindly showed up here to clear up my doubts, it would be absolutely perfect if someone could invite or tag a representative from NGC into this thread. To be honest, I am not sure if that is even possible on this platform, but having both perspectives here would be amazing!
don' expect a response from anacs that differs from ngc or pcgs. you'll get a grade or no grade and that's about it. i'm surprised someone at ngc was willing to discuss why something body bagged. they can't do this for everyone
Hi MsMorrisine, the beauty of living in this era is that we have the internet, where all of this numismatic history is already written and documented. And now, combined with the power of AI tools, a single precise keyword can pull up detailed breakdowns of everything that has happened in the past.
To back up my stance, here are two famous, documented cases in US numismatic history where there was a major clash of opinions or technical errors between the top grading services:
The 1796 Draped Bust Dime: PCGS initially refused to grade this piece, returning it unholdered as "altered/damaged." The owner then resubmitted the exact same coin to NGC, where their technicians certified it as a completely genuine, natural specimen, grading it XF-40 and validating an $11,000 piece.
The 1806 C-1 Half Cents (no stemmed reverse variety): Both major grading services authenticated and slabbed a deceptive group of these coins as genuine for a long time. Years later, through advanced microscopic analysis, experts discovered a tiny transfer die defect—a microscopic "plug" inside the letter 'A' of HALF—proving that highly sophisticated transfer dies had completely fooled the multi-million dollar grading rooms into certifying counterfeits.
Labs are run by humans, and discrepancies happen all the time. That is why seeking a scientific tiebreaker with ANACS makes perfect sense!
Another option is ICG, much faster on their 5 day tier and they've hired PCGS and NGC graders in the last couple years. $25 for that tier and around $10 bucks for an attribution.
Considering that the current submission is with a different major grading company than the first one, under what circumstances would you recommend his trying a third one? I don’t see the use in that.
Hi @MFeld, thank you for your input! From a strictly technical and analytical standpoint, you are completely right; it wouldn't make much sense to continue chasing opinions across a third grading company.
The main reason I sought a second opinion with ANACS was the deep frustration of receiving NGC's vague verdict. For those of you who work in this market daily, it's tough when a corporate company leaves a paying customer completely in the limbo instead of giving a clear, definitive answer—whether good or bad. I feel ANACS should have been my first choice from the very beginning.
That being used said, I know @logger7 gave his advice in absolute good faith as a helpful suggestion for the future, and I truly appreciate his kindness. But on my end, whatever ANACS officially determines next week will either be the definitive end of this story or a fascinating "to be continued." I really appreciate your common sense!
I don’t blame you for wanting a second opinion after having received NGC’s vague verdict.
That said, while I haven’t looked at very many modern coins of this type, based on its appearance, my guess is that it’s counterfeit. You’ve focused meticulously on numerous minute details that I’m not familiar with. I, on the other hand, have been looking at the coin as a whole - the big picture. And it doesn’t look right to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Another option is ICG, much faster on their 5 day tier and they've hired PCGS and NGC graders in the last couple years. $25 for that tier and around $10 bucks for an attribution.
Considering that the current submission is with a different major grading company than the first one, under what circumstances would you recommend his trying a third one? I don’t see the use in that.
Hi @MFeld, thank you for your input! From a strictly technical and analytical standpoint, you are completely right; it wouldn't make much sense to continue chasing opinions across a third grading company.
The main reason I sought a second opinion with ANACS was the deep frustration of receiving NGC's vague verdict. For those of you who work in this market daily, it's tough when a corporate company leaves a paying customer completely in the limbo instead of giving a clear, definitive answer—whether good or bad. I feel ANACS should have been my first choice from the very beginning.
That being used said, I know @logger7 gave his advice in absolute good faith as a helpful suggestion for the future, and I truly appreciate his kindness. But on my end, whatever ANACS officially determines next week will either be the definitive end of this story or a fascinating "to be continued." I really appreciate your common sense!
I don’t blame you for wanting a second opinion after having received NGC’s vague verdict.
That said, while I haven’t looked at very many modern coins of this type, based on its appearance, my guess is that it’s counterfeit. You’ve focused meticulously on numerous minute details that I’m not familiar with. I, on the other hand, have been looking at the coin as a whole - the big picture. And it doesn’t look right to me.
Hi Mark, thank you so much for your honest and respected opinion! It is a huge privilege for me to be discussing this piece with the heavyweights of world numismatics; all of you on this forum are at the absolute top of the field.
To be completely honest with you, after reading all the technical arguments shared on this thread, I actually have more doubts than certainty now. I don't close my mind to the possibility that the coin might be a counterfeit, just as you suspect. At the end of the day, ANACS will deliver the final scientific verdict. But as you pointed out, what leaves the most frustration is how NGC simply washed their hands of the situation and refused to determine what the piece truly was.
Just as a fun numismatic anecdote, let me share my original hypothesis with you, even if it sounds a bit crazy now. My technical theory was based on the coin's tapered, cónico edge (thinner on one side, wider on the other). I imagined that due to this structural planchet flaw, the coin got stuck inside the edge-lettering machine's hopper at the end of 2010. Then, when the workers did the 2011 die/roller changeover, the coin dislodged, dropped down, and mixed with the planchets that were being rolled with the 2011 edge inscription.
Since Denver already had a very similar documented precedent with the famous Zachary Taylor "traveling coin" error, that history is exactly what triggered my theory. Whether it turns out to be a genuine transitional error or a highly deceptive fake, this entire journey has been worth it just for this amazing masterclass with all of you.
If you are truly interested in adding it to your collection after the ANACS verdict drops next week, feel free to send me a private message about it. Thank you for the link and the great conversation!
Hey, keep me in mind, too! 😃
I have several counterfeit Sacagawea dollars from Ecuador and I'd love to expand into the presidents.
If you are truly interested in adding it to your collection after the ANACS verdict drops next week, feel free to send me a private message about it. Thank you for the link and the great conversation!
Hey, keep me in mind, too! 😃
I have several counterfeit Sacagawea dollars from Ecuador and I'd love to expand into the presidents.
Hi JBK, you are definitely on the list, my friend!
With the kind permission of PCGS and Mark Feld being here in the thread, maybe we should officially open the auction for this unique, highly discussed, and possibly counterfeit Abraham Lincoln dollar! Let the bidding begin! How much do I hear? Who wants to start?
Jokes aside, I will absolutely keep you in mind. It is awesome to hear that you already collect these unique circulating specimens from Ecuador. Once the official ANACS certificate drops next week, if you or TrickleCharge are truly interested, feel free to send me a private message to talk about it. By the way, the coin will be staying in the US, so that will make it much easier to handle everything once the verdict is out. Thanks for the amazing support and for keeping this thread so fun!
Another option is ICG, much faster on their 5 day tier and they've hired PCGS and NGC graders in the last couple years. $25 for that tier and around $10 bucks for an attribution.
Considering that the current submission is with a different major grading company than the first one, under what circumstances would you recommend his trying a third one? I don’t see the use in that.
I just meant in general terms. Hopefully he'll get the verdict from Anacs soon.
@ricarf2386 said:
By the way, just like a senior representative from ANACS kindly showed up here to clear up my doubts, it would be absolutely perfect if someone could invite or tag a representative from NGC into this thread. To be honest, I am not sure if that is even possible on this platform, but having both perspectives here would be amazing!
We don't get any NGC folks in these parts.
For the record, I greatly appreciate your presence, kind attitude and reasonable discussion. It is a great pleasure to have you join our little club.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Comments
By the way, just like a senior representative from ANACS kindly showed up here to clear up my doubts, it would be absolutely perfect if someone could invite or tag a representative from NGC into this thread. To be honest, I am not sure if that is even possible on this platform, but having both perspectives here would be amazing!
Even if it comes back as counterfeit, which seems likely, a circulating counterfeit die struck modern dollar is pretty interesting. I wouldn't hesitate to add one to my collection.
Some info on counterfeit dollar coins can be found on the small dollar website.
https://www.smalldollars.com/dollar/add014a.html
Hi TrickleCharge, to be completely honest, I had no idea about the advanced level and reach that counterfeiters have achieved in recent years; I was not aware of it at all. My only knowledge was about crude cast counterfeits made with molds, and I actually own one of those fake Sacagawea dollars myself.
If this Lincoln dollar turns out to be a counterfeit, the level of detail is honestly supreme. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the depth and the look in Lincoln's eyes are perfect. Either the die was crafted with extreme precision, or this coin was one of the very first ones struck before that fake die began to wear down.
If you are truly interested in adding it to your collection after the ANACS verdict drops next week, feel free to send me a private message about it. Thank you for the link and the great conversation!
don' expect a response from anacs that differs from ngc or pcgs. you'll get a grade or no grade and that's about it. i'm surprised someone at ngc was willing to discuss why something body bagged. they can't do this for everyone
Hi MsMorrisine, the beauty of living in this era is that we have the internet, where all of this numismatic history is already written and documented. And now, combined with the power of AI tools, a single precise keyword can pull up detailed breakdowns of everything that has happened in the past.
To back up my stance, here are two famous, documented cases in US numismatic history where there was a major clash of opinions or technical errors between the top grading services:
The 1796 Draped Bust Dime: PCGS initially refused to grade this piece, returning it unholdered as "altered/damaged." The owner then resubmitted the exact same coin to NGC, where their technicians certified it as a completely genuine, natural specimen, grading it XF-40 and validating an $11,000 piece.
The 1806 C-1 Half Cents (no stemmed reverse variety): Both major grading services authenticated and slabbed a deceptive group of these coins as genuine for a long time. Years later, through advanced microscopic analysis, experts discovered a tiny transfer die defect—a microscopic "plug" inside the letter 'A' of HALF—proving that highly sophisticated transfer dies had completely fooled the multi-million dollar grading rooms into certifying counterfeits.
Labs are run by humans, and discrepancies happen all the time. That is why seeking a scientific tiebreaker with ANACS makes perfect sense!
I don’t blame you for wanting a second opinion after having received NGC’s vague verdict.
That said, while I haven’t looked at very many modern coins of this type, based on its appearance, my guess is that it’s counterfeit. You’ve focused meticulously on numerous minute details that I’m not familiar with. I, on the other hand, have been looking at the coin as a whole - the big picture. And it doesn’t look right to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hi Mark, thank you so much for your honest and respected opinion! It is a huge privilege for me to be discussing this piece with the heavyweights of world numismatics; all of you on this forum are at the absolute top of the field.
To be completely honest with you, after reading all the technical arguments shared on this thread, I actually have more doubts than certainty now. I don't close my mind to the possibility that the coin might be a counterfeit, just as you suspect. At the end of the day, ANACS will deliver the final scientific verdict. But as you pointed out, what leaves the most frustration is how NGC simply washed their hands of the situation and refused to determine what the piece truly was.
Just as a fun numismatic anecdote, let me share my original hypothesis with you, even if it sounds a bit crazy now. My technical theory was based on the coin's tapered, cónico edge (thinner on one side, wider on the other). I imagined that due to this structural planchet flaw, the coin got stuck inside the edge-lettering machine's hopper at the end of 2010. Then, when the workers did the 2011 die/roller changeover, the coin dislodged, dropped down, and mixed with the planchets that were being rolled with the 2011 edge inscription.
Since Denver already had a very similar documented precedent with the famous Zachary Taylor "traveling coin" error, that history is exactly what triggered my theory. Whether it turns out to be a genuine transitional error or a highly deceptive fake, this entire journey has been worth it just for this amazing masterclass with all of you.
Hey, keep me in mind, too! 😃
I have several counterfeit Sacagawea dollars from Ecuador and I'd love to expand into the presidents.
Hi JBK, you are definitely on the list, my friend!
With the kind permission of PCGS and Mark Feld being here in the thread, maybe we should officially open the auction for this unique, highly discussed, and possibly counterfeit Abraham Lincoln dollar! Let the bidding begin! How much do I hear? Who wants to start?
Jokes aside, I will absolutely keep you in mind. It is awesome to hear that you already collect these unique circulating specimens from Ecuador. Once the official ANACS certificate drops next week, if you or TrickleCharge are truly interested, feel free to send me a private message to talk about it. By the way, the coin will be staying in the US, so that will make it much easier to handle everything once the verdict is out. Thanks for the amazing support and for keeping this thread so fun!
I just meant in general terms. Hopefully he'll get the verdict from Anacs soon.
We don't get any NGC folks in these parts.
For the record, I greatly appreciate your presence, kind attitude and reasonable discussion. It is a great pleasure to have you join our little club.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.