Impossible to say without seeing in hand - but, just going by the pictures, it appears there might be some life left in picture two, and I might even argue that picture two is better than picture one. The problem with dipping is that you are too tempted to keep trying when you have gotten positive results.
It is clear that they are the same coin. Did Jackson, Presley, & Rivers own that coin? It is just a difference in photography, or has the coin actually changed in the past 100 years?
I assume the reference in the OP is due to all the cosmetic surgery they have undergone... out of the three.. only one has been 'dipped'.. Cheers, RickO
There are several marks that all appear on all the coins. Obvious they are all the same coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Other than the final picture, which clearly shows the coin having been trashed, do we know for sure that some of the first three aren't just differences in photography? The only "for sure" difference I see among them is an area on the three hair strands radially inward from the fourth left star.
<< <i>There are several marks that all appear on all the coins. Obvious they are all the same coin.
I agree that the marks repeat from image to image. But that doesn't prove they're the same coin. >>
The only other explanation would be the coins are all counterfeit and the marks were transfered from the false dies. Bit of a stretch.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The only other explanation would be the coins are all counterfeit and the marks were transfered from the false dies.
It's also possible that one coin is authentic and others are false. And if that's the case, the images above could represent anywhere from 1 to 4 distinct coins.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
picture 2 Still pretty nice, and may be just photography
by picture 3 it's getting ugly ... and by picture 4, an absolute crying shame
Do we know the provenance of each owner between 1 and 4???
A PM will work ... I'll keep it that way if neccesary
Because, for me at least, I would not sell to the owner who bought the #3 and produced #4, EVER, if I could possibly help it ... no matter how much money was offered.
And I think the difference between 2 and 3 there was some work as well, so I'd shun that buyer too
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
But let's say you owned it at that point and submitted it to a TPG and they called it "AT". Assuming you wanted to sell the coin for as much as possible, what would you do?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
But let's say you owned it at that point and submitted it to a TPG and they called it "AT". Assuming you wanted to sell the coin for as much as possible, what would you do?
Andy,
Good question ... as for me ... if I disagreed with the AT I would probably try again, maybe a couple times ...
or, I very well may sell it raw
BTW ... I did this with a 13-S type 2 Buffalo ... Questionable Color ... sold it raw to a specialist who loved it ... probably made it into a 58 to 62 holder on the next try
but, I am relatively certain in this case that state #1, as it were, was not AT
In fact, it is a very, very rare day indeed when I would dip a coin
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
If we take the pictures at face value, and assume that there is no photoshop or bogus coin trickery here, and if we further assume that the pictures are in chronologocal order (and I see no reason not to), then it becomes quite clear that someone (or perhaps multiple someones) have permanently ruined a piece of our common heritage. I might be inclined to agree with Coinosuarus, however, that picture #2 is the perhaps most appealing. As to Andy's question regarding what would I do if the coin were mine, that is a no brainer for me. I would never have submitted it to a TPG in the first place, their opinion regarding AT or NT would not matter, and I surely would never have dipped, cleaned, or otherwise 'preserved' the coin.
It is very sad what has happened to that coin. They're not making them any more, you know.
They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Why are so many people assuming that the first image depicts the coin in its original state? You think that it only started being messed with after Heritage took that first set of photos? Sheesh.
<< <i>Are we 100% sure that they're all authentic? >>
I see your point about the theoretical possibility of multiple counterfeits made from the same host coin, but I am inclined to believe that this atrocity is the result of stupidity rather than cupidity. TD
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 Commoncents for posting the auction appearance. I knew I saw the coin in hand somewhere, just couldn't recall where. That planchet flaw goes clear through the coin and is as struck. It never could have graded with that flaw. It also marks the coin and wouldn't be duplicated in a counterfeit made from it. It is certainly the same coin and the work done to it between #3 and #4 was on the order of tooling and whizzing, not just a "dip".
Rick, When I was at ANACS I was fooled by a low grade (Good-4) counterfeit 1796 quarter that had a planchet flaw in the right field. After Lee Minschull caught it by showing me two coins with the same planchet flaw, I found half a dozen more in various auction catalogs over several years with the same planchet flaw. Eventually somebody sent us the genuine coin with a lamination in that spot. TD
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.
Capt H, Yes, probably very similar to Regulated's chance find of the host coin of the Franklin Assay $20's with the repeating marks.
Since the flaw goes straight through the coin, I would think the counterfeiter would try to remove the massive raised spike this "hole" would cause on the fake dies. In any event I am sure the pictures are all the same genuine coin here. Just a case of extreme greed with no forthought of the history being destroyed.
Comments
-Paul
That sure has changed color over the years.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
what a shame....
ugh
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
how i see it too...but you can enter me in this giveaway anyways as i'd still love her
Are the images in chronological order?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
By auction appearance, yes.
How can you be sure?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> It is clear that they are the same coin.
How can you be sure? >>
There are several marks that all appear on all the coins. Obvious they are all the same coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i> It is clear that they are the same coin.
How can you be sure? >>
The planchet flaws are like a fingerprint. It's the same coin for sure.
Would be interesting to know the sale particulars - dates, auction houses, lot#, prices realized, etc.
I agree that the marks repeat from image to image. But that doesn't prove they're the same coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>There are several marks that all appear on all the coins. Obvious they are all the same coin.
I agree that the marks repeat from image to image. But that doesn't prove they're the same coin. >>
The only other explanation would be the coins are all counterfeit and the marks were transfered from the false dies. Bit of a stretch.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
It's also possible that one coin is authentic and others are false. And if that's the case, the images above could represent anywhere from 1 to 4 distinct coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
picture 1 Love it
picture 2 Still pretty nice, and may be just photography
by picture 3 it's getting ugly ... and by picture 4, an absolute crying shame
Do we know the provenance of each owner between 1 and 4???
A PM will work ... I'll keep it that way if neccesary
Because, for me at least, I would not sell to the owner who bought the #3 and produced #4, EVER,
if I could possibly help it ... no matter how much money was offered.
And I think the difference between 2 and 3 there was some work as well, so I'd shun that buyer too
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
But let's say you owned it at that point and submitted it to a TPG and they called it "AT". Assuming you wanted to sell the coin for as much as possible, what would you do?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I've made that mistake.
But let's say you owned it at that point and submitted it to a TPG and they called it "AT". Assuming you wanted to sell the coin for as much as possible, what would you do?
Andy,
Good question ... as for me ... if I disagreed with the AT I would probably try again, maybe a couple times ...
or, I very well may sell it raw
BTW ... I did this with a 13-S type 2 Buffalo ... Questionable Color ... sold it raw to a specialist who loved it ...
probably made it into a 58 to 62 holder on the next try
but, I am relatively certain in this case that state #1, as it were, was not AT
In fact, it is a very, very rare day indeed when I would dip a coin
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
It is very sad what has happened to that coin. They're not making them any more, you know.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
For Sale!
-Paul
correlated, it becomes very unlikely the items are not the same (rule of 7's). The alternative
explanation is the items are different, but shared a unique group of flaws when manufactured. But
I find it unreasonable that four identically flawed planchets were all struck in the same position,
then worn in an essentially identical way.
I guess they could all be identical fakes after one common original---but why pick
such an unusual uniquely identifible coin to copy?
The simple explanation of minor doctoring seems the most likely---hardly very rare in
coins that old!
<< <i>Are we 100% sure that they're all authentic? >>
I see your point about the theoretical possibility of multiple counterfeits made from the same host coin, but I am inclined to believe that this atrocity is the result of stupidity rather than cupidity.
TD
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
When I was at ANACS I was fooled by a low grade (Good-4) counterfeit 1796 quarter that had a planchet flaw in the right field. After Lee Minschull caught it by showing me two coins with the same planchet flaw, I found half a dozen more in various auction catalogs over several years with the same planchet flaw. Eventually somebody sent us the genuine coin with a lamination in that spot.
TD
Since the flaw goes straight through the coin, I would think the counterfeiter would try to remove the massive raised spike this "hole" would cause on the fake dies. In any event I am sure the pictures are all the same genuine coin here. Just a case of extreme greed with no forthought of the history being destroyed.