Options
GTG 1955 Doubled Die Lincoln
JDark
Posts: 93 ✭✭✭
Off to the graders and waiting for it to return:
4
Comments
That is AWESOME !
62 BN
Au details
Light cleaning maybe?
The lighting reflection is throwing me off, so if it isn’t Details/Cleaned/ Polished, I’ll say AU55 CAC.
If it straight grades I'll guess MS63, possibly RB
"Another day, another Collectors Universe forum scrolling session."
- Someone, probably
AU Details - Altered Surfaces
Counterfeit?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Something with the color and sheen in the picture that doesn't look normal to me. If it doesn't details, I'm in the AU55 group.
Awesome coin. I would love to know the story on how you came upon it . Good luck on your submission!
Questionable color AU details.
Au details, looks cleaned
Curious what you see!
Cleaned Unc. Details
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If you load the image into Google you’ll find that they agree with TomB’s concern. They cite mushy details and suspicious surface texture/color among other things. They also mentioned that there are surprisingly similar examples available on the internet.
Edited to add: if you submit only the reverse to Google, it does not identify it as suspicious. So Google’s opinion, maybe an extra extrapolation based on the number of fakes out there. Still to me the surface texture does look odd.
62-63RB if it grades. The sheen looks odd so they may call it cleaned/burnished.
Collector, occasional seller
Looks cleaned and smoothed over
It appears to be genuine from the photo, would need a close up of the rev around the T in cent to confirm. But as others have noted the color and glossy surfaces look off, AU details QT/Alt surfaces is my guess.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I was going to give it a good grade before I saw what far sharper and more experienced dealers and collectors had to say. It looks like someone ruined a good coin.
I’ve submitted a few of them and have to agree with those who say cleaned. I’ve yet to get a straight grade out of any I’ve submitted
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody.
BU Cleaned. Too glossy.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
My gut reaction as well. I know these can come with oily toning from being distributed under the cellophane in cigarette packs, but the color on the obverse looks messed with, especially around the legends and the date. I would not be shocked at an "UNC Details Artificial Color" result.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I WOULD be surprised if it came back as that. PCGS doesn't state "Artificial Color" on the insert. (They go with Questionable Color).
Is that even real? No way it straight grades
Something seems off to me. The first image of LIBERTY below is from the OP’s photo; the five images that follow are from genuine CoinFacts examples.
@JDark did you use AI to enhance, improve, create, manipulate, or adjust your images in any way? That might explain it. If not, it may very well not be a genuine example.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
@PocketChange - thanks for these images. I think the nine in the date also looks off. I really suspect it is counterfeit.
Does it have the vertical die scratch between N and T in CENT?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Sell it on ebay for $500 to a buddy then when it ships it will go through the authentication process.
The resolution of my image is poor for that comparison. I will take closer images when received back from the TPG
You didn’t answer my question. It doesn’t look like a resolution issue to me. In any case, I look forward to the forthcoming photographs.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
And if it's real, it'll cost you more in the vig than just sending it to our hosts.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The fields look to have very few contact marks compared to the devices. Combine that with the pebbly texture and I'll say AU Details Smoothed. I'm not sure based on the photos if that was done to make a genuine AU coin look MS or to mask any identifying marks of a counterfeit.
The IGWT doubling compared to a real one also seems off. Hope it is just the pics.
how far along in the process is it?
That's why I said sell it to a buddy on Ebay. List it at a normal price (for a real one) with a make offer, have him make an offer of $500 and accept it.
Sorry, no there was no AI involved in the image. The friend I received it from had tried to conserve it from this starting point:
Change the title to: “Will this cleaning fool a TPG?”
And failed. Pity.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
That is a real shame, I think it might have straight graded before he messed with it.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Inference to an earlier post of mine. Others mess with coins, not me.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody.
I think the second photo helps to confirm that this is some sort of die transfer type counterfeit. The 9s in the date are the most obvious sign to me but certainly there are others. On a real coin, the lower tip of the upper 9 projects slightly through the lower 9. This does not show up in either image. It doesn’t seem to be a problem with the image, but it seems to be a reflection of the “coin” in question.
I think I see what you're talking about. I looked at the CoinFacts images and the other thing on the 9 that's troublesome is the "crescent moon" formed in the upper loop of the upper 9. Sharp corners on the CF picture, not so much on the subject coin. Of course, depending on how the coin was futzed with, shapes of things can change a little.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution