My "questionable Authenticity" Submission - 1909-S Indian

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Author	Replies: 35 / Views: 5,815	Page: of 3
DylansDad Valued Member United States 476 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 11:30 am I have for your consideration a 1909-S Indian that I just received back from PCGS yesterday labeled "Questionable Authenticity". The coin came from my late father's collection and was one of a couple dozen Indians and Lincolns that he had actually purchased during his collecting days (most of which involved circulating coinage). The 2x2 was labeled as "Good" with a price of $63, which IMHO would be a good indication that he had owned it for MANY years prior to his death in 2009. Before submitting the coin under last quarter's PCGS CC special I recognized that it wasn't a coin without issues, the color on the obverse is fairly presented in the photos below and is significantly different from the even milk chocolate color of the reverse. I don't dismiss the opinions of the PCGS experts, but it does seem unlikely to me that my Father's coin from 1970(ish) would have been a counterfeit. In fact it had never even occurred to me before submitting that "questionable authenticity" was a possibility. So for the sake of education, I'd appreciate some input from the many copper experts here as to what specifically would indicate the "QA" verdict; and perhaps whether there is anything that screams "counterfeit" that I've missed. Are there die markers or other identifying characteristics that collectors should look for in purchasing a key date such as this? Left: 7 o'clock on Reverse, .........................Right: 4:30 on the Reverse That's my MM on the left, not sure it's any bigger than it was in the original pictures, but just cropped a bit more with an authentic 1909-S mintmark. Report this Post to the Staff

biokemist6 Bedrock of the Community United States 12437 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 11:40 am Quote: it does seem unlikely to me that my Father's coin from 1970(ish) would have been a counterfeit. Why would you think that? Counterfeits have been around as long as money has existed. There are many unsuspected counterfeits in old collections accumulated before the age of widely disseminated reference books and the Internet. With a mintage of only 309,000 there could not have been more than a few dies used to mint them. This makes the specific mintmark position very important. 1909-S VDBs can be easily authenticated by mm position- four dies with four specific mm positions were used. If the mintmark does not match one of those four positions, the coin is most definitely counterfeit. An improper position means one of two things- the mintmark was added to a genuine 1909 or the entire coin is a fake. With that said, I do not know the proper positioning for a 1909-S IHC but I am sure someone here will Report this Post to the Staff
Moe145 Pillar of the Community United States 8904 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 11:49 am Well, I don't see anything questionable except, like you said, the obverse color is off (but there are many factors that can influence a copper coin's color). Here are some pictures of a 1909 S IHC. Report this Post to the Staff
MINT_MARQ Pillar of the Community United States 1000 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 12:19 pm Do they charge for a label like "Questionable Authenticity"? It seems like them saying I'm not sure on this one. The customer would prefer the glass is half full approach.... Why not "Might be Authentic" ? Report this Post to the Staff
BH1964 Bedrock of the Community United States 10982 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 12:20 pm I saw Rick Snow's comment on CU Forums about this coin. He said your reverse does not match either of the 2 reverses for 1909-S IHC. Rick said it was an altered 1909 IHC. ANA #R3154474 Report this Post to the Staff
DylansDad Valued Member United States 476 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 12:22 pm That's no fun bherring...I was gonna hold off on that comment for awhile and see what everyone here thought without putting the kabosh on the discussion by telling what Snow thought. ;) But yes indeed, Rick did believe it was an added MM. Report this Post to the Staff
fenton Pillar of the Community United States 4989 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 12:43 pm Details are all accurate. Mintmark looks good. One thing that sticks out is the weakness of the "T" on States. 1909-S pennies are known to be weakly struck in some areas but I'm not sure that is one of them. Anyone familiar enough with the issue to comment? Are there other examples out there w/ weak T? Report this Post to the Staff
DVCollector Bedrock of the Community United States 10045 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 12:45 pm Quote: He said your reverse does not match either of the 2 reverses for 1909-S IHC. Rick said it was an altered 1909 IHC. I had written something that wasn't quite so succinct or accurate. Rest assured, Rick Snow knows what he's talking about. Judging by that mark on the rim, the S on your coin may have been carefully worked up using a tool and a fake mintmark die. Report this Post to the Staff
DVCollector Bedrock of the Community United States 10045 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 1:06 pm Nowhere approaching Rick Snow's experience, I turn to photographs for answers. The far left is your mintmark postion, and the right shows the two 1909-S mintmark positions on certified coins. Carefully compare where the S begins in relation to the denticles. Report this Post to the Staff
Bryan1315 Bedrock of the Community United States 14454 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 2:00 pm it looks to me like the one on the right is different than the other two if you are going by denticles but it could be camera angle that causes it to look different I guess Report this Post to the Staff
DVCollector Bedrock of the Community United States 10045 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 2:17 pm To my eyes the two on the right are different positions. I thought pictures would say more than my own interpretation; adding lines or overlays can easily force a wrong conclusion. There is an S which starts about mid-denticle, and another which is closer to the gap. I have posted a clearer pic of the S which begins mid-denticle. The coin in question has an S which begins slightly right into the denticle, which to my eyes differs from the 2 verified rev dies. Edited by DVCollector 01/19/2011 2:18 pm Report this Post to the Staff
DylansDad Valued Member United States 476 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 2:19 pm Rick had also discussed the MM position in relation to the denticles indicating that genuine examples the left serifs is lined up with the right side of a denticle, and on mine it's on the left edge. Obviously, I'm in no position to question either Rick or PCGS's opinions on it, but let me assure you it's an outstanding fake, as I have no indication that the MM is not original to the coin based upon examination under a 16x loupe. Report this Post to the Staff
DVCollector Bedrock of the Community United States 10045 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 2:36 pm Quote: I have no indication that the MM is not original to the coin based upon examination under a 16x loupe. Yes, based on what I see too. That's why I suspected the mm was worked up from the actual reverse of an 1909-P. From what I've read of the process, a fake mintmark punch is created. Then, using a fine tool inserted into a hole from the rim, pressure is exerted in the direction of the reverse field, against the fake mintmark punch. However it was made, suffice to say there isn't a reverse die #3, so the actual process is moot--imo. Take my opinions with a grain of salt--Rick Snow can always take a look for a small fee. I'm sure he knows what to look for. Report this Post to the Staff
fenton Pillar of the Community United States 4989 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 3:05 pm Wow that is a scary good forgery makes one curious how many slabbed 1909-S IHC's are floating around where the forger got the placement of the Mint Mark correct. Report this Post to the Staff
SHAFTA9a Bedrock of the Community Canada 10743 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 4:05 pm I'll tell you, if that's a fake.. it's a real good one. I can see where a lot of collectors would get taken with that coin.. Report this Post to the Staff
DylansDad Valued Member United States 476 Posts	Posted 01/19/2011 4:09 pm On the CU board someone had asked Rick Snow this question: Could you describe how the electro-depositon process would be done on a coin/cent to add a mintmark without effecting the rest of the coin. Rick's response was: By running a current from a copper source to the cent you can deposit copper on the coin. if you cover the area of the coin with wax except for the mintmark, you can deposit metal in the shape of the MM on the coin. Then the coin is retoned brown. They missed the obverse on the color a bit. Edited to add: the hole in the side is where the electrode was attached. I found it very interesting that the rim damage was where the electrodes were attached. Report this Post to the Staff
	Replies: 35 / Views: 5,815	Page: of 3

Last 15 Replies

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

All Forums Category: US Coins and Currency Forums Forum: US Classic and Colonial Coins

Silver Gold Bull US is the United States leading bullion dealer. We deliver gold coins, gold bars, silver coins, silver bars and precious metals to your door. Order today!

The First Dollar, your premier source for bullion and rare coins. See our bullion list on the site and the coin inventory on ebay.

View Last 100 New Topics

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum

It took 0.42 seconds to rattle this change.

My "Questionable Authenticity" Submission - 1909-S Indian