1794 Soda 8R C/S George III PCGS Genuine?

That's a bogus countermark. PCGS on left, one from my collection on the right. By the way, the lot has been withdrawn.



The host coin details look pretty mushy so it may be a modern forgery -- certainly not contemporary.

Partially correct JGenn and 20021sc. This is another case of PCGS getting the call completely wrong. The host is counterfeit (Sheffield Plate), the stamp is counterfeit.

JGenn The host coin is counterfeit but it is not modern. It is actually one of the more common contemporary counterfeits that I know of. It is listed in my Book. I have now seen over 15 of them and the coin has been encapsulated several times at least twice by NGC (one from the Eric Newman collection). Numerous raw examples have been observed being sold as genuine.

The Newman coin is posted below. Look at that coin who can not see the copper exposed by wear?



The George III punch is definitely a contemporary counterfeit. There are at least two different counterfeit stamps applied to this counterfeit. The way to tell is to compare the stamp to the correct privy punch used on silver table wear. A spoon from 1794 is far less expensive and counterfeiters did not make fake sterling spoons.

Based on a comparison with other known counterfeits I have assigned this coin to Birmingham. It is a thin Sheffield Plate but very successful. It uses a matrix set that is not a match to Chile.

I own several of these which show the copper through the silvering. The dies are all the same.

Here are a few comparisons to show that the punches used on the PCGS graded coin are simply incorrect. Starting with the date. The brighter picture is a genuine example the grayer is from one of the encapsulated counterfeits - they all match.



Note the shape of the 1 totally different. The 7 on the counterfeit is too thick around the angle. The 9 on a genuine Chile coin is recurved - this is a Spanish standard. The 4 is closer to correct but the crosslet is a different shape at the terminal.

Next a comparison of the word Gratia.



Note in particular the incorrect A. The counterfeit uses a pointed A without the truncation which was the style used on most Spanish colonial coins - that one letter was all I needed to suspect the coin as bad. You certainly do not need to be an expert to know that A is wrong. The G on the counterfeit is typically an English font not Spanish. The R here and in Carolus is out of balance a very poorly executed letter punch.

Next the face - look at the shape of the elements. This portrait was used on several counterfeit varieties. The fact that the counterfeit used a matrix for punch creation shows the counterfeiting ring was similar to operations in Birmingham - basically a factory meant to turn out thousands of counterfeits.

Perfect example of"buy the coin not the holder"
John1

Even expert auctioneers have been known to get it wrong by - their own admission. Looks like the same can happen with TPGraders.

So where does one stand, who considers themself less expert than the experts - which is almost all of us ?

With British counter stamped Spanish dollars, the coin and the counter stamp have to be assessed for authenticity and grade separately.

interesting case indeed; also worrisome as the mixup of real and fake coins in auctions (with tradition and good reputation) may hurt the numismatic field

Really nice example for one of those 1792/94 Santiago BOE CCs...

This coinage is of much more interest/relevance to the Brits... and even their auctions miss some that are clearly contemp. counterfeit. I don't get it, myself... the stylistic differences should be obvious for someone who knows their stuff.

Bob, if I you recall a few years back, there was the vintage (ca. 1900) fantasy imitation of a Lima "Royal" version of a cob - one that was stylized and not at all to be confused with a genuine regal emission - that PCGS slabbed as an actual genuine Royal. Such a piece in that type condition with that quality of execution would have been easily in excess of a $10,000 piece - a much bigger muff than this would be, and FAR more blatantly wrong.

Clearly, they eff up occasionally, particularly, as John noted, outside the realm of standard U.S. coinage (and that particular case was 110% inexcusable). Any intelligent coin person gets that they are not God and have flaws, especially in diverse world material that presents a wide array of minting technology.

realeswatcher I agree with you, it is essentially impossible to be an expert in all series. I certainly admit that I am not.

I do not expect that level of perfection from any TPG but at the same time the TPG's represent the results of their process as "certain" by offering a guarantee. They do not disclose all of the loopholes in this "guarantee" except in the fine print of the agreement which they know most folks don't read in detail.

One serious problem with what they are doing is that they could avoid a great number of the errors (in particular those that I have spotted) by following three simple things.

1. Check the standard references on forgeries or originals to see if the coin looks right.
2. Weigh each coin accurately and compare it to standard weight.
3. Test the density of the coin and compare that to alloy.

I would add weight and SG to the label because that is valuable information that is not available after the coin is holdered. The tabulation of thousands or millions of such weights would be a valuable future authentication tool that all collectors would benefit from.

Some coins (10% tops) might need more than that for absolute certainty but even XRF needs to become a standard. Avoiding science only continues to produce and protect errors. The TPGs make tons of money when grading US coins and common modern world series because authenticity is less of a concern, so why not introduce scientific testing for older pre-modern foreign coins? Too costly? Hardly.

Perhaps it would be better for them to grade only when there is some uncertainty of authenticity and to return the bulk of the fees charged for older foreign material that they can not grade or guarantee.

Reliance on their absolute guarantee of authenticity WILL in the end cost many collectors a lot of money when they or their estate sells their coins. This is because most of the graded coins are safely tucked away as an investment. Many may not be resold for years. They become a time bomb that will continue to damage innocent people for decades.

In cases where I know the buyer of these forgeries (JUNK TYPES not valuable contemporary counterfeits) I have discovered an odd fact. Most of the buyers feel some level of shame at being duped and would prefer to hide these mistakes and eat the costs.

In one specific case where a buyer had spent well over $1,500 on a modern (likely Chinese) forgery, he did not get a refund because the TPG planned to contact the dealer who originally submitted the coin for grading so that they could recover the value from that party. The buyer did not want the TPG to do this because the buyer also had a reputation to protect. So the buyer ate the cost (or at least $1,500 of it). I bought the coin as an example of a flagrant error.

Does that make sense to anyone? If a dealer gets a rare coin, one he has never encountered before what does he do? If he sends it to a TPG that takes a fee and guarantees the coin is genuine why should HE REMAIN ON THE HOOK?

The answer seems to be yes, unless you want to lose access to grading. Why? Because the TPG says so that's why. Not fair. Just a way of protecting the image of the TPG.

Say the coin sells several times in prestigious auctions over a few years due in large part to it being slabbed and then it is finally discovered that it is a fake; should the original dealer be expected to pick up the cost?

This seems to me to constitute a "legal" form of extortion. The buyer has a choice of getting damaged monetarily by eating the TPG's error or, if they are a dealer, they will get damaged monetarily by not being allowed to submit any more coins?

Has anyone seen this stated clearly in the "boilerplate"?

Shame on all TPGs that follow this system.