| Author |
 Replies: 112 / Views: 11,140 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Germany
1852 Posts |
Breen describes in his book that "obverse 1 (used in S-1) is always weaker that on variety 2, most of all at the date".
Whomever did this was probably not aware of this feature, (or of what S-1 is supposed to look like), and proceeded to enhance the '3' such that it no longer resembles the '3' in S-1.
It is probably recommendable to check and compare with other coins of the same variety, specially when dealing with early copper due to the multitude of varieties.
Edited by GERMANICVS
10/17/2021 05:26 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Agree this deserves media exposure.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5683 Posts |
Wow, that is an amazing bit of restoration on that coin. Regarding the restored 3 in the date, not only is the shape slightly off, but the distance between the 9 and 3 is different than in the known example. Still, pretty remarkable that they were able to get it by the graders at PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9796 Posts |
I'm sure it will happen, our own CCF Jack Young is now on the case, word is out at with more of the big copper collectors, that are even more knowledgeable than I am. Jack just posted a link to his first 1793 S-5 fake in a PCGS holder https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/c...ution-guide/I'd love to be able to clearly see the edge on this S-1 as that is possibly the key to is it all fake, all real, partially fake? I still am holding out hope it's all good but had surgery, though if that is the case then that says there is someone able to move metal (a lot of metal) using techniques that don't show any metal moved, that scares me. But as I mentioned, new technologies, lasers, able to lock down the source and use computer controlled tools, lasers, water jets, etc. to move things around at a micron level is at least alarming. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440Edited by westcoin
10/17/2021 10:59 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4680 Posts |
Quote:
Whomever did this was probably not aware of this feature, (or of what S-1 is supposed to look like), and proceeded to enhance the '3' such that it no longer resembles the '3' in S-1. Exactly! And then some. In hindsight, looking at that 3, it appears quite obviously off. Point being, it's slipped past PCGS, and it shouldn't have. Yes, mistakes happen, but on an example like this, you'd think an expert or experts, with ample time/research should not miss something like this. Curious to see how this plays out  Edit: grammar Edited by Ty2020b
10/17/2021 4:30 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
There appears to be significant tooling around the L and a couple of new deep marks left of it - was metal harvested here? They also made a deep gouge in the I disappear. I like playing "image sleuth" I guess.  The Jack Young article - could this be the same doctor? The article seems to say that an original 1793 was doctored, counterfeit dies were made, counterfeits were made, and meanwhile the original coin was passed around to TPGs trying to get it into a legit holder. I suppose we should be on alert that the same thing happened with the OP coin. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7636 Posts |
Frightening scenario . Just in time for Halloween!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4470 Posts |
Quote:
The Jack Young article - could this be the same doctor? The article seems to say that an original 1793 was doctored, counterfeit dies were made, counterfeits were made, and meanwhile the original coin was passed around to TPGs trying to get it into a legit holder. I suppose we should be on alert that the same thing happened with the OP coin. I am wondering if the coin in the PCGS holder could be a fake as there so many alterations. If someone was going to tool the NGC coin, the goal would be to get the coin into a straight holder with as little tooling as possible. The mount marks were making the NGC coin grade details, and to get the coin into a straight holder the 3, L, or I does not need to be changed. There are pit marks, raised bumps, scratches that are different between the NGC and PCGS coins. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
With respect to @numismatic student's knowledge and scholarship, this is not a coin I would want to own at the imagined price.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
I'm curious how the PCGS guarantee works in this scenario. If the coin is genuine, would they reslab it with the correct details grade and reimburse a price difference, or do you have to surrender the coin in exchange for full price paid, or what? If OP gets to keep the coin plus some cash, that could be a winning situation.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
That a good question.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
202 Posts |
Despite OP being happy with the coin, I think the right thing to do is to send it back to PCGS for reexamination. If genuine, I'm sure they would be happy to get it in the appropriate details holder for no charge. If counterfeit they can body bag it, note it as such for their records and send it back to him unholdered, again probably for free. In the current holder this coin only has the potential to eventually deceive someone else in the future.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
The question is not what PCGS would charge for reholdering or return postage. The question is their potential liability for misjudging the authenticity of a very expensive coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4692 Posts |
Assuming the coin was tooled, no doubt the "doctor" is doing this with other high value coins. Whoever it is needs to be exposed, and appropriate action taken against others in on the fraud. Since PCGS has a vested interest in this, if they were smart they might take note of the coins submitted as part of this submission as well as all coins submitted by the submitter within several months. Common sense, says the submitter of this coin is likely part of the fraud.
Edited by jimbucks
10/17/2021 8:25 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Pretty safe assumption.  Edited by Coinfrog
10/17/2021 8:43 pm
|
| |
Replies: 112 / Views: 11,140 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 10/17/2021 10:49 am
