WoodenJefferson

7 hours ago, JohnnyRios said:

Thank you W Jefferson. Is it worth getting it checked? 

Sorry no, it would not be prudent to send this replica to a grading service as they would just return it to you as counterfeit and your out the shipping/grading fee. Feel free to take it to a reputable dealer though and let them give it the once over. Save your money though if they ask for an appraisal fee.

Note: A poster to your thread, Mr. Mark Feld was an ex-grader at NGC, had his own coin business on-line and now works for Heritage Auctions (coin section) so with that said, I would be satisfied my question was answered by an expert in the field.

Not all replica coins are made poorly where someone with little experience can immediately distinguish one from the other. In the case of the coin you posted, there are what appear to be blobs of raised metal on the rim, a genuine example (looking at images on the internet of real examples) this anomaly should not be evident. The overall look in general is off which makes it suspect, that and the known quantity making it EXTREEMLY rare makes it doubtful it is genuine.

Note: If MarkFeld claims it's a fake, the I'm 99.99% convinced that it is a replica.

If you 'think' you have a small date Denver minted coin, it would be easy to determine, after all, how do you think the 70 Philly & Frisco small dates were found? But, and that's a big but, after 48 years I'm certain they would have been found already, but stranger things have happened like the 1919 doubled die dime that was just recently discovered.

,,,but there are some 'experts' here....you need to listen and learn and it will save you those grading fees that don't work out so well.

With good images, 1970-D small dates are pretty easy to ascertain when you know the PUP (Pick Up Points)

I make plenty of mistakes that are brought to my attention, I consider it a learning experience and not offended.

Here's your culprit

14 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Actually, those are 1982 cents, not 1983.

7 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

The obverse looks borderline PL, but keep in mind that NGC is very strict. There is no video of the reverse. I think it should at least get a Star.

If not visible, left click the obverse video frame which will reveal a arrow to view the reverse video.

Our resident PL expert Physicsfan appears to be on hiatus, I trust robec's opinion also, so probably a yes.

The master nickel counterfeiter, Henning, used a reverse die that had no mint mark.

22 hours ago, Metalmomma2011 said:

How about this, replica as well? 

I'm certain an example exists with a complete set of beads/dentils around the rim, but far and few between come like this, so I would be suspect immediately until proven elsewise. 

Looking at images and guessing why this particular cent is somewhat over weight is a fools game. Back in '42 the mint rolled it's own stock and although 99% of the stock was rollled to the correct thickness, perhaps an end was sometimes a few millimeters thicker and created these 'odd ball' cents.

If you feel strongly that this was a thick planchet I would get it submitted under the error service with the denoted weight and let it get examined, until then it is pure speculation, like say, improper alloy mixture, etc.

Good luck either way, looking for more answers myself on this one.

They are still around, click on the users name, they are in the Gallery. I for one only see a worn 1970-D Washie

54 minutes ago, allmine said:

this isn't that video...

Well of course not, but it looks like there is different minting processes for different metals, this one happens to be proof platinum. The proof silver eagles are struck twice with 2 blows, this I know. 

...and the part about the proof coinage turning 'liquid' is horse manure. For a millisecond the surface of a planchet might flow like a liquid but it instantly solidifies. The word 'liquid' in this context is an adjective to describe the devices floating on what appears to be a 'liquid' surface, the mirrored surface.

I count one stroke and then as much as 4 successive pressure squeezes for the platinum. 

Is there a faint outline of the Canadian details that remained after the coin was struck with US mint dies?

6 minutes ago, t-arc said:

=================================

          1936       USA     5 cents

             matte proof  PR-60

=================================

Is this what the grading service is saying?

1 hour ago, allmine said:

not to beat a dead horse, but the inherent foreleg "bag marks" belie any notion that it is Proof strike

You've never seen an 'impaired proof' of PR-58 or below?

That 1898 half is off the hook!

I'm by no means an expert and buffs are not my thing, but if you were to ask me what I think about the 1936, I'd say it was nothing more than a 'sintered planchet' with a nice strike.

Why would a grading service deliberately stick it's neck out and call it a 'proof' if no Mint historical records exists? Not gonna happen.

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 7:45 PM, RWB said:

No sympathy for the greedy or hucksters.

 

Even with this revelation, the hucksters will figure out a way to make you believe this is all disinformation to confuse and disorient the collector.

What a mess...

Lots and lots of nice eye candy.