Options
1959-D Wheat Cent
MrEureka
Posts: 23,960 ✭✭✭✭✭
What will this coin bring?
Andy Lustig
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.
0
Comments
I used to be famous now I just collect coins.
Link to My Registry Set.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469
Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
That's nice to say, and somewhat reassuring, but would they indemnify the new owner to that effect? I doubt it.
As for value I'd guess $100K. Neat coin.
so....they say 40-50K? Id buy at that price...yes I would. If it goes into a PCGS or NGC holder the value goes up 5X instantly.
No doubt there is a old man living in Colorado who is keeping a BIG secret.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
www.brunkauctions.com
Wondercoin
The coin arrived, accompanied by an ANACS certificate from the Washington, D.C. office. Future ANACS Authenticator Ed Fleischmann and I both examined the coin, and thought that the second 9 had been skillfully altered. I contacted ANACS Director Charles Hoskins about the coin, and he checked their records and verified that they had inded authenticated the coin.
However, until I mentioned it, he was not familiar with the fact that a 1959 cent should have a Memorial reverse. He said that they received many common, ordinary coins for certification, and nobody there had realized that the coin was unusual. They just blew it through with a cursory glance and certified it. We returned the coin to the owner along with our opinion of it.
I do not believe that the Goldberg coin (which I have seen in person) is the same coin as the one I saw in the 1970s, but because of the great gap between viewings I cannot be sure.
TD
True or not, it just lends to the mystery.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Ron
<< <i>I read the same story about Hoffman claiming to have produced this mule in his basement, utilizing an explosion impact die process. He claimed to have made 16-D Merc Dimes the same way.
True or not, it just lends to the mystery. >>
I have read the book. I do not find it credible.
TD
Sure thing it can happen that way, but think about it happening in a "transitional " year where you have a complete reverse design change, the set-up man is bound to look at the die face during installation. The obverse & reverse dies are configured so they cannot be swapped, they just won't fit, also flats on the side of the die orient the dies to maintain the coin flip rotation.
Then you have some test strikes...with close examination of the product about to be produced. Is it possible to overlook the reverse not being Memorial?
If anything, this was a clandestine midnight mint creation, smuggled out of the Denver Mint, like untold 1,000's of other errors that find their way to the market place.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>FWIW, around 1975 or 1976 Coin World's Collectors Clearinghouse received a letter asking if we would like to see a 1959-D cent that had been authenticated by ANACS. I replied that we would.
The coin arrived, accompanied by an ANACS certificate from the Washington, D.C. office. Future ANACS Authenticator Ed Fleischmann and I both examined the coin, and thought that the second 9 had been skillfully altered. I contacted ANACS Director Charles Hoskins about the coin, and he checked their records and verified that they had inded authenticated the coin.
However, until I mentioned it, he was not familiar with the fact that a 1959 cent should have a Memorial reverse. He said that they received many common, ordinary coins for certification, and nobody there had realized that the coin was unusual. They just blew it through with a cursory glance and certified it. We returned the coin to the owner along with our opinion of it.
I do not believe that the Goldberg coin (which I have seen in person) is the same coin as the one I saw in the 1970s, but because of the great gap between viewings I cannot be sure.
TD >>
Interesting, I had to look. In the linked photo I see that the second 9 is thinner than the first 9. But looking at the 59-Ds in the registry sets I see that they also have the same characteristics. With the United States Secret Service Office of Investigations Counterfeit Division's report this looks like it might be the real thing.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>If anything, this was a clandestine midnight mint creation, smuggled out of the Denver Mint, like untold 1,000's of other errors that find their way to the market place. >>
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>One more thing to look for in my gallons of wheat cents - when I get the time. Cheers, RickO >>
If you find one, don't forget to share it with us.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
both standard and scanning
is that they alter the surface of
the object scanned
Maybe someOne can add on to this thought?
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>IMHO the coin has "value", BUT as I've said here before, until and unless PCGS or NGC grade this coin as genuine or give it a grade, I cannot accept this coin as a legitimate part of our coinage. To me it is like the so called matte proof 1917 cent, although this is a known and publicized example and the 1917 MPL has not physically "shown up" yet. I, too would love to see PCGS examine the coin again with their new equipment and render an updated accessment. Steve >>
So, you give more weight to PCGS saying it authentic than the US Government saying its authentic?
The Secret Service agent who filed the report
was a CURRENCY expert, not a coin expert.
(His title is Counterfeit Specialist, but it's counterfeit
Currency).
The coin was 'found' or 'discovered' in a jar of cents
in Northern California a few decades ago; I do not
believe that such a coin, if genuine, would have made
it's way into a jar of cents. I am very familiar with
coins 'made on purpose' from ALL three U.S. Mints,
and do not believe that this type of 'error' would be
in circulation for up to 5-10-15-years, and simply end
up in an accumulation of cents.
Could it have been found in a jar and be genuine?
Anything is possible, but considering the totality of the
coin itself, and how andwhere it was found, and the
strong opinions of numerousnumismatists, in my opinion,
the coin is not genuine.
I have had it in-hand and examined it closely; it does
not have the right 'look' or visual 'smell' in my view.
I've told PCGS that I would not certify it in their holder.
It's never been authenticated by any known or recognized
Authentication Service in the coin industry. The prior owner,
I've been told, spent years trying to match up the die
markers on the coin, finding another 59-D with a similar obv.,
but with no luck.
I'm sure this thread will be a long one, and another will be
started after the auction, but I am very firm in my view that
the coin is not a genuine Mule or a genuine product of the
U.S. Mint.
Fred Weinberg
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
<< <i>
<< <i>IMHO the coin has "value", BUT as I've said here before, until and unless PCGS or NGC grade this coin as genuine or give it a grade, I cannot accept this coin as a legitimate part of our coinage. To me it is like the so called matte proof 1917 cent, although this is a known and publicized example and the 1917 MPL has not physically "shown up" yet. I, too would love to see PCGS examine the coin again with their new equipment and render an updated accessment. Steve >>
So, you give more weight to PCGS saying it authentic than the US Government saying its authentic? >>
I for one do, I doubt they can match the amount of numismatic experience that PCGS has. For Minting coins yes of course, die theory & archival knowledge and resources-- no.
<< <i>My understanding of electron microscopy
both standard and scanning
is that they alter the surface of
the object scanned
Maybe someOne can add on to this thought? >>
That is not my understanding of the process, especially when imaging an object composed of conductive material.
The object being conductive is important to the process, as the idea is that as soon as the object is close enough to the anode, electrons will jump onto the object. A measurement of current confirms this. The object is rasterized and a map of the surface can be created simply by compiling the points in three dimensions.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
Interesting disclaimer at the end of the writeup.
TRUTH
<< <i>Just the fact that the obverse can not be matched to any existing die for the 1959 D would lead me to believe the coin is not an authentic mint product. >>
who said it can't be??? it just hasn't been yet. The auction write up says there are over 1,000 dies for the obverse and probably a lot more than that for the reverse (since it's not certain it's even a '58-D reverse... couldn't it have been a '57-D or earlier????). It's like finding a needle in a haystack for sure, but it may be possible.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
<< <i>Just the fact that the obverse can not be matched to any existing die for the 1959 D would lead me to believe the coin is not an authentic mint product. >>
who said it can't be??? it just hasn't been yet. The auction write up says there are over 1,000 dies for the obverse and probably a lot more than that for the reverse (since it's not certain it's even a '58-D reverse... couldn't it have been a '57-D or earlier????). It's like finding a needle in a haystack for sure, but it may be possible. >>
The reverse would be difficult, because there is no way to know for certainty which reverse die would've been used. The obverse on the other hand is a different story, as it would've clearly had to have been one of the existing dies. I'm sure the search has been exaustive to find a match for that 1959 D obverse. I know if I found it in a jar of coins that I would not stop until I found the matching die, as we are potentially talking about 100'ds of thousands of dollars if the coin could be diffinitively proven to be a mint product.
If someone told me that somewhere out there, there is a cat that speaks English, and their evidence was that not every single cat in the whole wide world has been tested for English speaking skills, I would be skeptical to say the least, and have no problem stating that there are no cats that speak English.
<< <i>It has the look of a die-struck counterfeit, which is what I think it is. >>
Not everyone has a ex-US Denver Mint press in their basement
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>It has the look of a die-struck counterfeit, which is what I think it is. >>
Not everyone has a ex-US Denver Mint press in their basement >>
PS:
One other possible scenario is this:
The supposed perpetrator (creator) of this coin claims to have done it using explosive-force techiques
(presumably for making dies). However, if it were actually a case of explosive force bonding (which is
a well-known techinique for bonding metal clad layers), then maybe the front half of a genuine 1959-D
Memorial cent was mated to the back half of a Wheat cent. If done right, this might be hard to detect.
And this could also account for the coin's flatness on the high points of Lincoln's profile.
New column on Rarities & Related Topics
As you treaverse across the field and come to a letter or other device,
the transition from horizontal to vertical appears more rounded than normal.
Lincoln's forelock (front hair curl above forehead) is mostly missing.
The space between the "L" of "Liberty" and the rim is not well defined.
"LI" of Liberty not as sharp as the other letters.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The fact that it hasn't been die matched yet is the most significant finding here. No doubt in my mind that great effort has been expended to do so.
<< <i>So.....why can't they match up the obverse with other obverses for the year similar to the way they match up fingerprints? >>
Sounds like it might not be all that easy...
"Okay, let’s do some simple math. Walter Breen states in his Encyclopedia that die life for Lincoln cents produced during this period was around 700,000 coins per die (page 233). Mintage for 1958-D cents (it being reasonable to assume the reverse die would have been a 1958-D) was 800,953,000 divided by 700,000 coins per die equals approximately 1,145 dies. Now, let’s do the obverse die, 1959-D mintage was 1,279,760,000 divided by 700,000 equals 1,828 obverse dies. Well, while daunting, the task at hand is not insurmountable! Examining circulated coins will not work (I tried that), as the die lines quickly disappear after limited circulation. Thus, this endeavor will best be completed by purchasing bags and bags of 1958-D cents (about $5 per roll of 50 coins) and bags and even more bags of 1959-D cents (about $1 per roll) and quick examination of the coins will hopefully produce an exact match to the unique die lines seen as a signature on this coin."
From here...
Looking for two particular dies out of about 3,000? Now, suppose that one or the other of the dies (or both!) *didn't* strike the average amount of coins noted above. The job gets even harder.
<< <i>If any members of the PCGS message boards strongly believe that this item is genuine, please say so and provide at least one concrete reason. Either a private message or a public post would be very much welcome. Likewise, if someone could point to specific features of the item that indicates that it is forgery, please communicate. So far, I have read many vague conjectures. If solid arguments were presented, then I may wish to write about this item and quote experts. It is odd that there is so much speculation and so little apparent evidence. I admit that I have never seen it. Have many contributors to this thread actually examined it?
New column on Rarities & Related Topics >>
I have examined this one and the one that surfaced in the mid-1970's. I may be the only person who has seen both.
I did not like either one.
TD