Counterfeit 1804 cent, DLRC kudos

lkeigwin · October 5, 2011 9:21AM

This arrived yesterday. I learned from Conder that the reverse was from an 1803 S-260 die. Nice.

DLRC was very accommodating and quickly agreed to take it back, even though it had been cracked.

I know that sometimes folks here are divided about David Lawrence and their auctions, pictures, etc. But I figured they deserved a little good press for this one.
Lance.

Frankcoins · October 5, 2011 9:34AM

How is the coin counterfeit?

PerryHall · October 5, 2011 9:35AM

That altered date is scarey good.

roadrunner · October 5, 2011 9:39AM

Good that you were able to get a refund on that.

I'm not so sure the selling dealer would agree that overall this is good press.

roadrunner

lkeigwin · October 5, 2011 9:40AM

<< How is the coin counterfeit? >>

Here is a real reverse. Look at the ends of the wreath at 12k and note where the gap between them is, relative to the letters in STATES. There was only one die marriage for 1804.
Lance.

Broadstruck · October 5, 2011 9:41AM

<< I'm not so sure the selling dealer would concur that this is good press. >>

Slabbed no big deal, but taking it back after it was cracked out they deserve some praise

roadrunner · October 5, 2011 9:50AM

<< 

<< I'm not so sure the selling dealer would concur that this is good press. >>

Slabbed no big deal, but taking it back after it was cracked out they deserve some praise

>>

I don't disagree. But if I were in the seller's shoes, I would have just passed on the public kudos.

If the coin were bought raw, should it have made any difference if the buyer discovered it was ng right away?
Once cracked it was arguably still the responsibility of the selling dealer. Though if left slabbed the responsiblity would shift back to NGC.
Sometimes we all forget that the TPG is just an opinion. You still have to look at the coin, especially key dates.

roadrunner

DavidLawrence · October 5, 2011 10:51AM

Lance, thank you for recognizing us on this. It was a no brainer for us to accept the coin back. Cracked out or not. Frankly, the coin had me fooled but I'm glad you figured out that it was not, so we could resolve it quickly.

John

erickso1 · October 5, 2011 10:55AM

Wow, I learned something new today. Very cool info Lance, and glad DL is standup and stand behind.

Moldnut · October 5, 2011 11:04AM

Wow, that was a great job. Can you see any evidence of chasing the 4?

pcgs69 · October 5, 2011 11:05AM

possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety?

STONE · October 5, 2011 11:20AM

<< 1 point for DLRC! >>

...and a BIG -1 for NGC!!!

fcloud · October 5, 2011 11:23AM

<< possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety? >>

That is what I was thinking. If there is no evidence of altered date.... Hmmmm

AnkurJ · October 5, 2011 11:57AM

Kudos to DLRC!

AUandAG · October 5, 2011 12:23PM

<< possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety?

>>

stealer · October 5, 2011 12:25PM

<< 

<< possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety? >>

That is what I was thinking. If there is no evidence of altered date.... Hmmmm >>

Quick, cancel the refund!

BigE · October 5, 2011 12:33PM

NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE

lkeigwin · October 5, 2011 12:34PM

<< Wow, that was a great job. Can you see any evidence of chasing the 4? >>

joebb21 · October 5, 2011 12:58PM

4/3?

lkeigwin · October 5, 2011 9:36PM

Every real example I have seen has a 4 with the base extending below and past the crossbar. But of course the giveaway was the reverse.
Lance.

Barry · October 5, 2011 10:06PM

<< NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>

Will they, since it's been cracked out?

shorecoll · October 5, 2011 11:42PM

Again, any evidence as to how long ago it was faked? Would be cool if it was a 19th century fake that well done.

messydesk · October 5, 2011 11:49PM

Does the obverse (other than the 4) match 1803 S-260?

BillJones · October 6, 2011 12:04AM

Wow! That is one heck of a forgery!

The classic test for genuine 1804 cents is that the "0" in the date should line up with the "O" in "OF" when you flip the on its horizontal axis. That does not apply 100% of the time, but it's a start.

I think this one should be shown to an early large cent expert to make sure that it’s not a new variety. Chances are against it, but it would not hurt to check. The alteration is good enough to make that review mandatory.

chumley · October 6, 2011 1:21AM

not sure which impresses me more...discovering the fake or the way DLRC handled it....cudos all around

JBatDavidLawrence · October 6, 2011 2:01AM

Thanks for the kind words everyone! In our minds, there wasn't any other way to handle this situation.
It's certainly an interesting piece and I have a feeling it will be on my desk for 6 months, once it arrives until we can find out something on it.

Frankcoins · October 6, 2011 2:02AM

A lot of old alteration work is very deceptive. I have seen alterations where nothing stands out as wrong even under a stereo
microscope, but the punch styles and die marriages are unknown.

TPRC · October 6, 2011 2:15AM

Kudos to DLRC.
So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me.

PerryHall · October 6, 2011 2:42AM

What should DLRC do with this coin? Would it be ethical for them to sell it to another dealer or collector with full disclosure? I know what I would do with it---donate it to the ANA for their counterfeit reference collection and for use as a training aid in their counterfeit detection courses.

BigE · October 6, 2011 2:46AM

<< 

<< NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>

Will they, since it's been cracked out? >>

Yes!---------------BigE

KeyLargoRareCoins · October 6, 2011 2:53AM

<< NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>

NGC does not have to do anything because the coin was cracked. IMO had the coin been left in the holder of course however once cracked NGC should not do anything. If NGC got in the habbit of refunding money for coins that were cracked they would be out of buisness very very soon. I believe the OP and all parties involved but honestly images can be played with so NGC cannot base a refund on an image. Once cracked all bets are off.

lkeigwin · October 6, 2011 4:27AM

<< 

<< NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>

NGC does not have to do anything because the coin was cracked. IMO had the coin been left in the holder of course however once cracked NGC should not do anything. If NGC got in the habbit of refunding money for coins that were cracked they would be out of buisness very very soon. I believe the OP and all parties involved but honestly images can be played with so NGC cannot base a refund on an image. Once cracked all bets are off. >>

Ordinarily this would be correct, and the sensible position to take. But there are other factors to consider. E.g., A large, well respected dealer (DLRC) has detailed images of the coin in its original NGC holder; NGC keeps pictures of coins it grades too. It would not be very difficult to verify with certainty that this is the same coin.

Sure, NGC could put its foot down, recite policy, and refuse to do anything. But I don't see it happening. Those of us who run companies know that sometimes the right decision comes from good business instincts and common sense, not from the book. NGC has offered to reholder cracked out coins before, once for me, when the issue was clear and compelling. And I hope they show the same good sense and flexibility for DLRC in this case.
Lance.

DavidLawrence · October 6, 2011 4:41AM

I have always found NGC and PCGS to be extremely honorable and responsive in situations like this. I don't think it will be an issue on our end to work with NGC.

messydesk · October 6, 2011 4:48AM

<< So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me. >>

All we've been told is that it's an S-260 reverse. The obverse hasn't been confirmed as being S-260 yet.

rainbowroosie · October 6, 2011 6:09AM

The counterfeit is a work of art....how is something like that done so well???

KeyLargoRareCoins · October 6, 2011 11:35AM

<< 

<< 

<< NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>

NGC does not have to do anything because the coin was cracked. IMO had the coin been left in the holder of course however once cracked NGC should not do anything. If NGC got in the habbit of refunding money for coins that were cracked they would be out of buisness very very soon. I believe the OP and all parties involved but honestly images can be played with so NGC cannot base a refund on an image. Once cracked all bets are off. >>

Ordinarily this would be correct, and the sensible position to take. But there are other factors to consider. E.g., A large, well respected dealer (DLRC) has detailed images of the coin in its original NGC holder; NGC keeps pictures of coins it grades too. It would not be very difficult to verify with certainty that this is the same coin.

Sure, NGC could put its foot down, recite policy, and refuse to do anything. But I don't see it happening. Those of us who run companies know that sometimes the right decision comes from good business instincts and common sense, not from the book. NGC has offered to reholder cracked out coins before, once for me, when the issue was clear and compelling. And I hope they show the same good sense and flexibility for DLRC in this case.
Lance. >>

I agree with your post and understand that there are several factors. I also run a buisness and if it were my coin I would issue a refund and do what was needed to make the situation right. On the other hand I have had nothing but bad experiences with ngc and have little to no faith in them.

crypto79 · October 6, 2011 11:46AM

<< 

I agree with your post and understand that there are several factors. I also run a buisness and if it were my coin I would issue a refund and do what was needed to make the situation right. On the other hand I have had nothing but bad experiences with ngc and have little to no faith in them. >>

Have you ever considered that maybe it was not indicative of NGC's business but more a reflection on you and or the niche you deal in? If 99 out of 100 people say NGC is fair and able to be talked to, well..........

lkeigwin · October 7, 2011 2:14AM

<< 

<< So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me. >>

All we've been told is that it's an S-260 reverse. The obverse hasn't been confirmed as being S-260 yet. >>

I am on the road for a few days and can't look into this. It's a curious question, although I think the odds are very high that the obverse is from an S-260 marriage.

Any large cent collectors out there who can check the obverse picture in the OP to see if it matches an 1803 S-260?
Lance.

mkman123 · October 7, 2011 2:38AM

Send it back to ngc.....could be a new.variety like someone said.

KeyLargoRareCoins · October 8, 2011 1:55AM

<< 

<< 

I agree with your post and understand that there are several factors. I also run a buisness and if it were my coin I would issue a refund and do what was needed to make the situation right. On the other hand I have had nothing but bad experiences with ngc and have little to no faith in them. >>

Have you ever considered that maybe it was not indicative of NGC's business but more a reflection on you and or the niche you deal in? If 99 out of 100 people say NGC is fair and able to be talked to, well.......... >>

A reflection on me? The niche I deal in ? You have no idea what type of coins I have sent to ngc so how could you make such a silly comment. You dont even have any idea what types of coins I send in for grading or crossover, or regrade. You dont even know the problems I have had with ngc. The more I think about your comment the more shocked I am, What an ignorant comment. 99 out of 100 people? did you just throw that out there for the heck of it? I can assure you that is not the case.

crypto79 · October 8, 2011 3:31AM

My comment was more a commentary about disdain that a lot of tone heads have for the 3rd party graders and their reliance on them to legitimatize the coins in their specialized niche to prevent the assumption of AT and the synchronous devaluation of the assets void of the graders positive opinion. It wasn't as much a shot at you but I did say it and you are welcome and encouraged to interpret it as you wish.

As for the 99% of dealers and collectors I know hold NGC in very high regard. While they may prefer PCGS and the increased liquidity they bring or disagree with NGC standards from time to time that is different then an assault on the company's professionalism or integrity. Once again that comment was in line with the classic "consider the source".

LoveMyLiberty · October 8, 2011 10:49AM

<< 

<< 

<< So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me. >>

All we've been told is that it's an S-260 reverse. The obverse hasn't been confirmed as being S-260 yet. >>

I am on the road for a few days and can't look into this. It's a curious question, although I think the odds are very high that the obverse is from an S-260 marriage.

Any large cent collectors out there who can check the obverse picture in the OP to see if it matches an 1803 S-260?
Lance. >>

The OP coin appears to be the 1803 S-260 obv die 11 & rev die P.
On this example the base of the I in LIBERTY is higher than the base of the L.
The right lower serif of the T is shorter than the left. The T extends past the forelock.

The 8 in an 1804 cent leans right with the left side of the 8 under both the hair
and the bust. In the 1803 S-260 the 8 is more upright and is further to the right
under the bust.

It would help to show a better image of the date & LIBERTY, as well as the orientation
of the zero to the O(F) upon your return if you could.
It seems the coin may warrant some further study. It's an interesting piece.

KeyLargoRareCoins · October 8, 2011 12:32PM

<< My comment was more a commentary about disdain that a lot of tone heads have for the 3rd party graders and their reliance on them to legitimatize the coins in their specialized niche to prevent the assumption of AT and the synchronous devaluation of the assets void of the graders positive opinion. It wasn't as much a shot at you but I did say it and you are welcome and encouraged to interpret it as you wish.

As for the 99% of dealers and collectors I know hold NGC in very high regard. While they may prefer PCGS and the increased liquidity they bring or disagree with NGC standards from time to time that is different then an assault on the company's professionalism or integrity. Once again that comment was in line with the classic "consider the source". >>

Crypto,

Thank you for the response. My issues with NGC have nothing to do with toned coins. I personally do not submit toned coins to any grading service, I prefer to purchase them already graded as to avoid any issues and debates over AT vrs NT. I will submit 50's double mint sets from time to time but even that is rare for me. My personal issues with NGC are in regards to copper, there so called guarantee on color (RB-RD-BN) and what they deem to be original. In my personal opinion I find too many coper coins that I find not to be original housed in ngc holders. I have had several issues with ngc over copper coins with PVC damage and I find the action they take to be laughable at best. Anyway not to drag this out to far, thatnks again for the well written response.

BaseballAbs · October 8, 2011 12:50PM

Is the obverse real? Why would someone fake the reverse? Why would someone cut an 1804 in half ? makes no sense to me. Id say new variety, needs to be checked.

lkeigwin · October 9, 2011 11:35PM

<< Is the obverse real? Why would someone fake the reverse? Why would someone cut an 1804 in half ? makes no sense to me. Id say new variety, needs to be checked. >>

I am confused by your questions.

The coin is an 1803 with an altered date.

Only one die set was used for 1804, S-266. This coin has an 1803 S-260 reverse. The obverse, ignoring the alteration, matches the S-260 (obverse 12).
Lance.

DavidLawrence · October 10, 2011 10:43AM

Thanks to this thread, I received an unsolicited call from NGC today asking me about this coin. They offered me full reimbursement at my cost on the coin. It was a pleasant conversation that took less then 2 minutes. The system works.

By the way, I studied the coin's date today carefully and I really couldn't see any signs of tooling but the wear on the coin was likely inflicted deliberately to hide such marks. If the coin does turn out to be a new, rare variety (a very long shot, unfortunately) DLRC will donate 100% of the proceeds we get to a charity of Mr. Keigwin's choosing.

Thanks again everyone for your valuable insight.

-John

crazyhounddog · October 10, 2011 11:10AM

I've purchased a few Buffs from DLRC and I can tell ya they are a 1st class outfit all the way, this is just another example. Thanks for sharing this as I learned something about this "counterfeit" I didn't know. Way to go Lance and DLRC....Joe

lkeigwin · October 10, 2011 12:18PM

<< Thanks to this thread, I received an unsolicited call from NGC today asking me about this coin. They offered me full reimbursement at my cost on the coin. It was a pleasant conversation that took less then 2 minutes. The system works.

By the way, I studied the coin's date today carefully and I really couldn't see any signs of tooling but the wear on the coin was likely inflicted deliberately to hide such marks. If the coin does turn out to be a new, rare variety (a very long shot, unfortunately) DLRC will donate 100% of the proceeds we get to a charity of Mr. Keigwin's choosing.

Thanks again everyone for your valuable insight.

-John >>

Wonderful, John...thanks for passing that along. I'm impressed all around.

Something like this happens to you and it's a sinking feeling. But when the best and the brightest get together and do the right thing it restores your faith in human goodness.

If only our political process worked so well.
Lance.

Counterfeit 1804 cent, DLRC kudos

Comments

Leave a Comment