Any '59-D Lincoln Wheaties Slabbed Out There?

InternetJunky · March 27, 2009 11:29PM

The 1959-D Wheat Ears Reverse Cent is one of the most controversial coins to appear on the market in decades. Many experts who have examined the coin are at a loss to explain its existence. Several experts have stated that they believe the coin to be counterfeit, although they are unable to give specific reasons why. On the other hand, the Secret Service has given the coin their stamp of authenticity - on at least two occasions! The coin was scheduled to be sold in Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc. "The Pre-Long Beach Auction", September 23-24, 2002 (see description below), but the coin was pulled from the auction at the eleventh hour when convicted forger Mark Hofmann claimed to have made the coin. Subsequent investigation failed to confirm this claim and the coin was re-consigned to the Goldberg's "The Benson Collection Part III", February 24-25, 2003, Lot 159. As of February 23, 2003, no major grading service had chosen to certify the coin as genuine. Source

Anyone ever had one of these in hand? Or has anyone ever seen one slabbed? I guess its kind of like the '43 Copper with rarity. Are TPGs afraid to grade the one described above as genuine in fear that it truely isn't genuine which would cause a tarnished reputation?

LanLord · March 27, 2009 11:40PM

I thought a couple years ago, the guy that made it discussed it. Even though the SS decided it was real, I'm pretty sure it's been debunked.

Too bad, I'd really like a bunked one

savoyspecial · March 27, 2009 11:51PM

Mark Hofmann claims to have made it......no one is sure however

(he did counterfeit some darn convincing 1914-D's that i know for a fact got in top plastic)

ambro51 · March 28, 2009 12:11AM

I 'made' one for Ira about a year ago.

Use my Unimat 3 to make a 'cup and insert'.

Looks pretty decent if you squint a bit

The 'mule' is a bit different from the 43 coppers, which are a very understandable mint error.

To do a 'mule' would involve a dishonest mint employee, dishonest supervisors, and a Die for the reverse somehow existing after December 31, 1958, which is probably not possible.

crazyhounddog · March 28, 2009 12:24AM

Very cool post!!

stinkinlincoln · March 28, 2009 12:28AM

I read in 1987 the Treasury Dept, said it was legit. As did the Secret Service in 2002.

So even if someone "claimed" they made this, I think with both those parties saying its legit, maybe a tpg should closely examine this piece.

FredWeinberg · March 28, 2009 12:38AM

The coin has been very closely examined, and it's not genuine.

The "Treasury" official who looked at it many years ago was in the
Paper Money/BEP division, and had absolutely no qualifications to
authenticate a coin.

Every TPG co. has seen the coin (I've examined it myself) - and it's
not genuine, in everyone's opinion.

Folks can speculate all they want about it possibly being real, but it
isn't. End of case, as far as I'm (and many many others) concerned.

kranky · March 28, 2009 12:45AM

Fred, what is it about the coin that convinced you it was not genuine?

coppercoins · March 28, 2009 1:00AM

Just from the images above it appears to be struck that way - unless someone is REALLY good at cup and insert coins. If struck that way it has to be false dies...which usually have lower relief and softer details than the real thing. And the details on both sides look genuine.

Whatever method used to create this coin and whomever created it was VERY good. The simple fact that there is but one known example (to my knowledge) would immediately mark it as suspect in my opinion. If these two designs had been paired at the mint there would be thousands of these things...not one.

CaptHenway · March 28, 2009 1:03AM

I have examined the Goldberg coin, and believe it to be counterfeit.

I also examined another piece at Coin World back around 1976, and felt at that time that it was not genuine.

I am 99% certain that they are not the same piece.

TD

FredWeinberg · March 28, 2009 1:15AM

The coin didn't have the 'look' or 'feel' of a
genuine struck coin like it should have had.

It just didn't 'smell' right whatsoever. It
was, in all probability, struck, and I do admit
it was a good job.

Tom D. saw it too, as he mentioned, as well as
every TPG authenticator.

ambro51 · March 28, 2009 1:15AM

I'm getting 'inspired' to do a 2009 memorial. Ill fire up the ol unimat someday when Im bored.

But...I don't think there is any way a cup and insert coin, no matter how good, could pass careful scrutiny. They don't "ring" when dropped, and I'm sure the exact weight would be 'off'.

InternetJunky · March 28, 2009 2:38AM

<< <i>I'm getting 'inspired' to do a 2009 memorial. Ill fire up the ol unimat someday when Im bored.

But...I don't think there is any way a cup and insert coin, no matter how good, could pass careful scrutiny. They don't "ring" when dropped, and I'm sure the exact weight would be 'off'. >>

Let me know when you make the 2009 Memorial, that'd be pretty interesting to see.

ambro51 · March 28, 2009 2:46AM

A few years ago...in one of my 'moods' I planed down a 40's cent, and planed down an indian.

using just a teeny drop of solder, joined the two together.

..............spent it.

wonder where it is today??

Steve · March 28, 2009 6:28AM

<< <i>

Every TPG co. has seen the coin (I've examined it myself) - and it's
not genuine, in everyone's opinion.

>>

This is why I personally will not accept any of these "controversial" coins as genuine unless and until either PCGS or NGC slabs one. Another example of this is the supposed 1917 Matte proof Lincoln cent. Steve

InternetJunky · March 28, 2009 7:21AM

There seems to be a lot of speculation that in fact this coin isn't genuine, and was deemed not genuine by many TPGs. Does anybody have any documentation from any TPG stating they viewed the 59-D Lincoln Wheat Reverse and came to the conclusion it wasn't genuine? I've found This link in my searches, which although is quite a read, goes into detailed steps on how a 59-D Wheat was examined and deemed authentic. The link also states how the coin was submitted to the Secret Service knowing if it was found to be a counterfeit, it would be destroyed. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to bash anybody or have a negative mind about others opinions, I'm just looking for more details with an open mind.

SanctionII · March 28, 2009 7:55AM

So if the government (Secret Service or other agency, including the mint) looks at the 1959 wheat cent and announces that it is authentic, is that the final say on the issue? TPG's and knowledgeable dealers have looked at it and refuse to slab it and refuse to agree that it is authentic. And the coin remains unslabbed and a subject of controversy.

In the meantime, 101933 double eagles are transferred to the Mint so the Mint can determine if they are authentic. The Mint looks at the coins and announces they are authentic. The coins are now in litigation and if the outcome is that the winner (the Langbords or the government) submit the 10 coins to a TPG for grading, do you think the TPG would body bag one or more of the ten coins, declaring that the coins are not authentic? Probably not. All ten would be slabbed and graded.

What is the reason for the difference in the two above scenarios? Is it merely because the 1959 wheat cent did not show up until 1986 in Walnut Creek, Cal., that there is only one of them known and that its "provenance" is unknown while the multiple examples of the 1933 double eagles and the provenance of these coins is well known?

Any '59-D Lincoln Wheaties Slabbed Out There?

Comments

Leave a Comment