| Author |
 Replies: 29 / Views: 5,585 |
|
Valued Member
United States
149 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
My first thought is that it is genuine, and agree with your analysis without digging into. The seriffs look appropriately parallel too. Mine is the same location/position.
The "vdb" is also important though, to make sure the middle leg of the "B" is slanted. If that was the case, I'd have a reasonable confidence of authenticity, though I would not purchase a coin like this without certificationn
Edited by johnny54321
04/02/2010 4:02 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
IMO the S has been added, The position seems to me to be too far to the right of the zero.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
IMO the S has been added, The position seems to me to be too far to the right of the zero. hmm, maybe. Here is my ANACS certified one for comparison.  The date and mm are thicker on the OPs coin I think due to wear so they look a little bit closer together, but the alignment seems pretty close to me. It's tough to tell, because if the coin is tilted slightly, it makes the alignment look a little different. The "gunk" around the mintmark would be suspicious, except that it appears to be the same residue that is on the date and the rest of the coin. Can you post a picture of the reverse? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2600 Posts |
Unless the camera angle is throwing this one off, echizento is probably correct. The vertical line established by the left serif should be more or less in between the first 9 and the 0. It appears to be even with the left edge of the 0 and that would make it fake. I would be worried about this coin.
Jim
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
Unless the camera angle is throwing this one off, echizento is probably correct. The vertical line established by the left serif should be more or less in between the first 9 and the 0. It appears to be even with the left edge of the 0 and that would make it fake. really? Not according to this illustration of a genuine mm position 4. Edited by johnny54321
04/02/2010 9:02 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1490 Posts |
What about the high concentration of gunk around the mint mark? That appears troublesome to me. It may be perfectly ok but I wonder if its some sort of solder or glue.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2600 Posts |
johnny,
If you go up to the top of the original post and pull up the second of the two links you will find another example of the mint mark location we are talking about. In your example, the vertical line is slightly canted to the right, probably following the flat on the serif. The example in the post shows a true 90 degree vertical and we will see that the line splits, more or less the 9 and the 0. To my eye, the MM looks too far to the right. I may be all wet as this is obviously subjective. Still, I would not want to take a chance based on a pic alone.
Jim
Edited by Jim1953
04/02/2010 9:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2150 Posts |
I am no expert but I am leaning towards added mint mark. I have been looking at these for a month thinking about buying 1. Quote:
What about the high concentration of gunk around the mint mark? That appears troublesome to me. It may be perfectly OK but I wonder if its some sort of solder or glue.
That was my first impression too, solder flux. I played with the pics abit, the first one looked OK but the second didn't look right.   Edited by jokingjoker
04/02/2010 10:20 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
What did you pay for it? The obverse appears VG10 might go F12. Looks okay to me but TPG is a must on this key. swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
I kind of see what you guys are saying. It all depends how you draw the line though since it could go either way. If fake, they sure worked hard on it getting the right mm shape with the die chip. I think a picture of the reverse would clear it up for good though. If it's an added mm, the central "B" leg would be parallel with the top and bottom legs, on an svdb, it would be slanted.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
In my unprofessional opinion I think it is real. I don't think the lines drawn by jokingjoker are correct in aspect with the bottom of the 9's; which would rotate the x,y axis giving it correct position. Also the "Gunk" is corrosion build up, the amount which corresponds with the corrosion on the date (more or less). Lastly the wear in the date and mintmark are relatively even. If it is an added mintmark it was done a long time ago for the corrosion and wear to be consistent.
I have been out of coin collecting for a long time until the last year or so and was not aware of the prolific illegality occuring in this hobby. I believe many pro's and dealers on this site have seen many of these illicit coins throughout the years and tend to be skeptical and suspicious which is certainly a good thing for the rest of us. In other words I tend to be naive and optimistic but lets hope I'm correct in this case.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
149 Posts |
It really does depend on how the line is drawn.
With that die chip in the S, I do lean towards it being real, but I don't know if that mintmark was used for 1909-S pieces as well as the VDB.
The initials on the back are very weak, and only the periods can really be seen. You can slightly see the other letters, but any sort of magnification washes that out.
In the picture that shows the four positions, the line is off of the S a little bit in for the 4th position. I am going to send this in to NGC and see what they say...
A question on what I have in this... $100 from another dealer. I bought it as a 1909-S. So I do not believe the mintmark to be added... who would add an S to a very weak VDB... that's my thought process at least.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
It really does depend on how the line is drawn.
With that die chip in the S, I do lean towards it being real, but I don't know if that mintmark was used for 1909-S pieces as well as the VDB.
The initials on the back are very weak, and only the periods can really be seen. You can slightly see the other letters, but any sort of magnification washes that out.
In the picture that shows the four positions, the line is off of the S a little bit in for the 4th position. I am going to send this in to NGC and see what they say...
A question on what I have in this... $100 from another dealer. I bought it as a 1909-S. So I do not believe the mintmark to be added... who would add an S to a very weak VDB... that's my thought process at least. Very interesting. So you bought it as a 1909-s, obviously a lot less risk than buying as a 09-s vdb. I still think you should post the reverse, they do have a "weak vdb" 1909-s variety that commands a slightly less premium than a strong "vdb", but significantly more than a standard 09-s. I would still say there is motivation for an added mintmark though, for the exact reason you state that people might be "less suspicious" on a weak vdb....though the gain would still be quite significant. However, I still think its a good chance that you have a winner here. I'd send it to a TPG. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1080 Posts |
Quote:
who would add an S to a very weak VDB Well, I have a 1916-D mercury that is in G-8 condition, but turns out the mintmark was added. I thought the same thing... "Who would alter a G-8 coin?" |
| |
Replies: 29 / Views: 5,585 |
Posted 04/02/2010 4:24 pm
