| Author |
 Replies: 35 / Views: 5,816 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Interesting the toning is probably a warning sign -- unusual to have a G-6 type coin with near uniform tone and coloring on both sides.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
 good observation, and noticeably free of the usual grime in devices. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
I thought one of the major functions of PCGS is to determine authenticity, not tell you it might be fake.
This blows my mind. They're all questionable authenticity until you send them in and you find out for sure.
I thought these guy's were the elite of coin graders?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
476 Posts |
Pretty sure the "Questionable" part would be legalese for them to avoid getting sued by any dealers or coin owners for incorrectly labeling something a counterfeit.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4085 Posts |
It would be nice if they were more descriptive with the reasoning behind the rejection code - i.e., "altered mintmark" would tell you a lot more than "questionable authenticity". "Added mintmark via suspected electro-deposition and recolored" would even be more helpful.
Still, credit to PCGS for catching this one. The knowledge bar is pretty dang high on this one!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
So that's their way of saying it's not authentic - "questionable".
I'm not impressed.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
476 Posts |
This is from their definition on the website, was just looking for it: "Questionable Authenticity - Fee not refunded. The coin is either a known counterfeit or exhibits characteristics of known counterfeits and is therefore highly suspect. This category includes otherwise genuine coins which have been altered to simulate rarities (re-engraved dates, added mintmarks, removed mintmarks, etc.)"
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
Edited to add: the hole in the side is where the electrode was attached. Interesting...I had not heard of that for just a mintmark. People are sure resourceful making that buck.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
Quote:
This is from their definition on the website, was just looking for it: "Questionable Authenticity - Fee not refunded. The coin is either a known counterfeit or exhibits characteristics of known counterfeits and is therefore highly suspect. This category includes otherwise genuine coins which have been altered to simulate rarities (re-engraved dates, added mintmarks, removed mintmarks, etc.)"
Well I guess it's not so bad since they define it. I still don't like the semantics though.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
Wow. That is a very good fake. It kind of makes me a little sick to my stomach...  |
|
Valued Member
United States
476 Posts |
Quote:
Wow. That is a very good fake.
It kind of makes me a little sick to my stomach...
What will really make you sick is the fact that this was in my Dad's collection for nearly 40 years...ie. they were that good that long ago. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1081 Posts |
Quote:
I thought one of the major functions of PCGS is to determine authenticity, not tell you it might be fake.
This blows my mind. They're all questionable authenticity until you send them in and you find out for sure.
I thought these guy's were the elite of coin graders? "Questionable" essentially means fake. It helps avoid liability but also is useful for coins that actually may be real, but exhibit some sort of characteristic that they can't 100% guarantee. It's so hard to say for some coins that it is 100% fake, it leaves a little wiggle room. I would say PCGS is an elite grader though b/c they did catch this. It should be some comfort that they were able to identify this as not being genuine. I would be much more pessimistic if it was in a genuine holder. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4085 Posts |
I guess the problem is that they assign a code rather than give you a more detailed analysis specific to the coin submitted. I understand why they do that from a liability standpoint, but not from a coin standpoint. If my coin were rejected, I wouldn't want to be wondering why.
And sorry about your Dad's coin. That just stinks.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
476 Posts |
BTW - with questionable authenticity, it comes back raw not in a slab...of course I wouldn't have the cool edge shots that Rick identified as the electrode connections if it were in a slab either.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
That is a better than average mintmark. However besides being in the wrong position (Thanks DVCollector for the pictures of the two correct positions), it is also the wrong shape. It's close but not quite there. Look closely at the shape of the insides of the two loops. They do not match the shape of the inside of the loops of the genuine pieces.
As to the "hole" on the edge of the coin, if they made an embossed mintmark from there the reverse must have a heck of a rotation. Electrode connection points I could believe.
Edited by Conder101
01/20/2011 11:45 am
|
| |
Replies: 35 / Views: 5,816 |
First Page
Posted 01/19/2011 4:17 pm
