Archraz I guess I am showing my age. As a kid coin collector, Virgil Hancock was a "Big Name". He was one of the guys if not THE guy responsible for our present coin grading system and the instigation of all
TPG outfits. Back in 1970, before he was
ANA President (1975-77) he proposed that a book of grading standards be published. That book got everything going - they adopted Sheldon's grading scale and the rest is history.
Hancock was a
Counterfeit Detection specialist and wrote a periodic column for the Numismatist starting at least back in the 50's - it was my Bible as a kid. I read every one I could find at the local coin dealer (that was back before I could afford more than the
Red Book). He was along with Clyde Hubbard one of the two guys who took on Mel Fisher regarding the 1732 Pillar 8R coins.
He collaborated with Larry Spanbaur on the Standard Catalogue of US Altered and Counterfeit Coins - published in 1979.
He used to give lectures on
Counterfeit Detection at
ANA conventions. I have several of his original exhibits from one held in New Orleans back in 1972.
He unfortunately did not age well himself and at the end of his life he was chastised for calling everything counterfeit. I think he had some form of dementia at the end of his life which unfortunately tarnished his career. But in his hay day in the 1960's his word was second only to GOD with regard to the authenticity of any coin.
I bought part of his counterfeit collection after his death. The way I heard it, the better material is all in the
ANA collection including his examples of Riddell coins.
Regarding the reason for using real Centavos - weight and composition would be my guess. The host coin in this case was circulated and discolored which makes the under type very visible. Using an MS host with full luster left few traces visible causally. I expect that these coins were quick sales made at shows in poor lighting to unsuspecting people. Think about being offered a $500 rarity for $5. A greedy buyer will be caught. Also that kind of person would be unlikely to admit being taken because taking such an under priced rarity would violate
ANA rules.
DVCollector In this case the rim is BAD. But that is at least partially due to extremely high striking pressures being employed. The higher the strike pressure - the fewer details of the original coin remain. That is essential when re-coining. Think of the 1828 Manilla over strikes or the Bank of England Dollars of 1804 or the entire series of 960 Reis from Brazil. The under type is often unseen. So in many cases, the under type here is likely obliterated. I can see NO TRACE of the date. The reason the lower ribbon shows is because of the poorly aligned dies. Pressure shifted to the upper portions of the dies and was lost at the bottom. The rim distortion is proof of the pressure distribution. The seller does not seem to know the coin is a re-strike at all. At least he does not mention it.
Posted 09/17/2009 3:05 pm
I'm only about half-way through it, but so far the section on flow lines and how you can use them to tell the amount of luster (and even an added mintmark) was very informative. Sounds like he was extremely knowledgeable - I'm now even more glad this is one of the titles I bought.
