| Author |
 Replies: 32 / Views: 4,853 |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
4849 Posts |
one thing to find a counterfeit/altered coin on ebay, but Heritage is a reputable auction house for high end certified material! The auction doesn't end until 4 days from now. Any suggestions as to what to do? Here are photos:   Edited by johnny54321
06/11/2010 9:58 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1490 Posts |
If PCGS holdered this incorrectly then they will be on the hook ultimately correct?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
161 Posts |
Post it on the PCGS forums.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
Oh my. Even in my short time here, this doesn't look right. Seems like I recall the top of the head should pierce the beaded rim at the edge - correct?
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15392 Posts |
Quote:
added date Laffa .... again you jump in early with an off-the-cuff comment without an explanation of your opinion. I would appreciate hearing your reasons why you believe this is an 'added date' ...... Seems to me that the visual date of the coin is not the question ..... it is worn away! What is in question is the known diagnostics for a 1916 T-1 SLQ ...... sooooo .... By what evidence in the photos do you justify saying 'added date'  Please tell us how you came to that solid conclusion. David |
|
Valued Member
United States
278 Posts |
For once, Laffa is all over it. The date on a dateless 1917 has been scribed to look like an 1916. The typical diagnostics for the 1917 are all there, with an obvious "6". I too think PCGS will have something to say about this before it is all said and done. And I really cannot believe if Heritage is aware of this, that they will let it trickle through their system. Selling obviously mislabeled coins knowingly is borderline criminal...
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
The cert checks out at PCGS.com
PCGS would not certify an "added date" which this is not.
It's legit IMO.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
OK, 1st I'm no an SLQ expert but I've seen them and the position of the 6 looks wrong to me, and it is very possible to add a loop of a six onto a metal surface. also, PCGS would most likely, on possible 1916 SLQ's, would look at the date. and if they find a 6 at all, they wouldn't focus on all of the diagnostics, like the head DOES NOT break into the beads and the "scarf" DOES NOT go behind the "wall"
there's no such thing as a t-1 1916 SLQ.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1409 Posts |
Uh - actually laffa - I think you might have meant to say there is no such thing as a t-2 1916. All 1916's are T-1's.
It's tough to tell if the scarf is behind the wall or not, but head position is off to me, as is the loop of the gown at the bottom. PCGS graders can make mistakes.......they are human.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
The cert checks out at PCGS.com
PCGS would not certify an "added date" which this is not.
It's legit IMO. The fact that the cert checks out doesn't mean anything, since all a counterfeiter needs is to know the cert number, grade, and type of a genuine slab to reproduce it. I can't tell by looking at the slab as to whether it is fake or not, but I can say with certainty that the coin inside the slab is not a 1916. So it either has to be misattributed by PCGS, a counterfeit slab, or someone found a way to open and reseal the slab. Quote:
OK, 1st I'm no an SLQ expert but I've seen them and the position of the 6 looks wrong to me, and it is very possible to add a loop of a six onto a metal surface. also, PCGS would most likely, on possible 1916 SLQ's, would look at the date. and if they find a 6 at all, they wouldn't focus on all of the diagnostics, like the head DOES NOT break into the beads and the "scarf" DOES NOT go behind the "wall" I hear what you're saying, but I would like to think the PCGS checks the diagnostics regardless of whether a date is visible. If the date was all they checked for, everyone would be altering the dates of 1917s and getting them in slabs. I'm honestly not sure what went on here, but something sure is fishy. I also brought it up in CU (046) This link is not allowed by the Staff &threadid=778167&STARTPAGE=1 Edited by johnny54321
06/12/2010 11:43 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Wowser. Somebody at PCGS dropped the ball hard on this one. At least, of the possibilities, that would be my default opinion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
Definitely a 1917 with the date altered. Can't believe PCGS made this big of a mistake.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2224 Posts |
I have been following with keen interest all of the threads in recent weeks regarding the diagnostics of dateless 1916 SLQ's, to the point that I'm hunting for them now too! That so-called "6" on the coin looks really interesting, but it is plainly obvious that the visible diagnostics of the coin don't fit a 1916. Will be following this thread with high interest waiting to see what Heritage and PCGS might do about this.
|
| |
Replies: 32 / Views: 4,853 |
Posted 06/11/2010 9:05 pm
