| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 3,169 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
The fact that the seller sold mostly ICCS graded coins, yet this one was NOT ICCS graded, should have been a major red flag, telling you something is defintely wrong with this coin, either it's a fake ot it's real but with surface problems.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 1844 Posts |
Double....Im still wondering why no one thinks being off a full gram would not be a weird thing ? The true weight should be 11.6 give or take a very slight .00 ? but not 1 full gr + the fake toning.. As I said I had doubts but until having it in hand the pics were at best ? This is why I bought it... If it would have been real( which I doubted ) It would have been a great type set piece for the book... The seller will refund but asked me to return via regular post..We all know that is a NO NO when dealing with Paypal......
|
|
Rest in Peace
Canada
12 Posts |
For a type set piece, the 1932 would be the last date to choose (outside of the 1921 of course). And yes, mailing it back via regular mail would be a No-No if you suspect a seller may say that it was never returned.
|
|
New Member
42 Posts |
Hi to you Mr artdio, I do not sure think that this might be faker, as I have look at it close and with the other pcture it look to me that it is same, and I have look at many coins like this one that has been damage by some little bit of corosions and get tone like that. And also, it look that the strike it might be little bit soft around that Canada A... But maybe you should checked your scale too? Here is one that looks like exact the same 1 number and 9.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
carpman, not that I suspect the seller would try that but having been stung before I learned the hard way... Now why would you say the 32 would be the last date to choose ? oH and welcome to the forum
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
Salut Gilles, in this case my scale is 100% accurate..I weigh coins everyday. Been collector for 35 years ..Now the tone is not the same..In hand the coin I have is clearly 100 % added...You can see the oils still in the devices , so who ever done it did not wipe it or rinse it enough to remove the excess...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1192 Posts |
Absolutely fake. The most obvious should be the shape of the numbers in the date and the lettering. Denticles are bad, grainy surfaces, general lack of detail. Llook at the leaf on the reverse in the closeup picture, it "fades" away into nothingness.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
Pokerman, thats why I put the pics to show others ..If there is one then I'm sure there will be others..I hope we can spot them before they get sold.... I sent some great pics to MM in case its a new one....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2301 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9870 Posts |
Quote:
Llook at the leaf on the reverse in the closeup picture, it "fades" away into nothingness. Look at the seller's pics, leaves are more defined, denticles much clearer etc. "Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
DBM, are you saying the sellers pics show a different coin ? because I have them on ebay and this is the exact coin I bought from him |
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
nickelsguy , thanks for the confirmation..Thats exactly what I thought.....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9870 Posts |
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1844 Posts |
DBM , yup same coin but but I still dont see what you are saying..His pics are blurred mine are clear..You cannot see the denticles disappearing in his but in mine you can.... So you think the coin is genuine ?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
Thanks for the added info artdio...
.....your above pics do present this piece well and there are many aspects that do not look right with that 32. Thanks for bringing it to out attention.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 3,169 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 11/13/2013 1:27 pm
