How difficult would it be to identify counterfeit coins in G-VG ?

[DonHeath]

Just a passing thought, but I was wondering, how hard could it be to create enough wear on a good fake to present a real problem. Once most of the diagnostics were destroyed, wouldn't it be hard to distinguish a clever fake from an original piece? Put another way, wouldn't it be easier for a counterfeiter to create a credible G4 dollar than an MS piece?

[TomB]

I think it would be easier to pass off a well made, circulated fake than an MS fake. I also think that that is why we see so many fake 1916-D Mercs in low grades.

[JadeRareCoin]

Don, struck (or cast) counterfeits are often artificially circulated to reduce diagnostics. To answer your question, it is more difficult to identify a counterfeit in G-VG than MS. I have heard that some have even buried counterfeit copper coins to induce corrosion. A couple of years ago, a guy submitted a 1796 Half to SEGS. He told SEGS that it was inherited from his grand father and he wanted to get it into a protective holder for safe keeping. Larry Briggs identified the coin as a Gallery Mint product that had been scratched up a bit and then artificially worn down to throw the graders off. Nice try, but the Gallery Mint products are not exact duplicates of known varieties, so Larry quickly knew that the coin was fake. I believe that SEGS notified the authorities in that particular case and there was even an article in Coin World.

 

We have a current client who bought several coins from a scum-bag dealer in Coin World in November of 2002. Several of the coins turned out to be counterfeit, and they were all circulated counterfeits. I am reading his file now and will print the specifics here for your information:

 

1652 Oak Tree Shilling, Noe-5, EF-AU, paid $2,250

1793 Chain Cent, S-3, VG, paid $900

1793 Wreath Cent, S-11b, VF with rev. dig, paid $800

1794 Half Dime, F/Vf, scratches/bent, paid $550

1796 quarter, B-2, F/VF, bent, scratches, clip, paid $2,000

 

Our client is still out most of his money, since the slimeball dealer skipped town, although I heard last week that he is back in business and had an ad in Numismatic News recently, but he has been shut down.

 

The point to printing the list above is to illustrate that Don is on to something by wondering about circulated counterfeits. Notice that most of the above coins are damaged, in addition to being circulated. Also, none of the coins matched the actual diagnostics of the varieties listed. Notice how the prices seem to be very attractive? If it's too good to be true, ............well, you know the rest of the saying.

 

Dennis - jade Coin

[Hoot]

Hell of a story Dennis. Goes to show the potential for liability with the grading/authentication services. I wonder about how deep the liability goes in the case of a valuable coin when/if it were demonstrated counterfeit but in a service's holder?

 

Hoot

[JadeRareCoin]

Hoot, from what I have been told, the top 3 or 4 grading services will make good on a counterfiet coin. I was just talking to a dealer yesterday about this. His friend submitted a small planchet Pine Tree Shilling to PCGS. The coin was certified, but later was determined to be a counterfeit. In fact, the coin was actually PLATED as an example of a counterfeit in a popular book on the subject. PCGS compensated him $500 less than his purchase price of $3800. We don't know why or how they arrived at that figure, but we assume that they wanted the collector to share in the loss. There are other examples of the guarantee coming into play at the major services. I have heard that one of the "bottom of the barrel" services is not so willing to make good on their services if they slab a counterfeit.

 

Here's another problem: some of the services are so inexperienced in certain areas (i.e. colonial coins) that they will bag a coin if they are not immediately certain that it's genuine. This covers their butt, but it costs the submitter time and money and is unfortunate, imo. One of my customers submitted a couple of colonials to PCI, but they were both returned as counterfeit. The collector then submitted the coins to SEGS and they both slabbed. Briggs is very knowledgeable in the area of US colonial coins, so he was not afraid to call the coins for what they were (btw, they were both legit).

 

As you may know, we are currently fighting with PCGS over a similar type of mistake. They slabbed a high-end colonial coin with the Norweb pedigree, but we later determined that it is not a Norweb coin. We are out a couple thousand dollars as a result of the loss of the provenance, which we paid a healthy premium for. In our opinion, the coin was slabbed as a fake.....not a fake coin, but misrepresented in order to realize a financial gain. PCGS has basically washed their hands of the whole mess and we are left holding the bag. So, in this case, a major grading company did not honor their guarantee. I guess it must have to do with who you are and who you know..........

 

One last point of clarification: the coins that I listed above in my first post were ALL counterfeits. Some of the coins that our client purchased were the real thing, but overgraded and problems were not revealed. For example, he also bought an 1803 half dime that was holed/plugged, but not revealed. The 1793 Chain Cent, 1793 Wreath Cent, 1794 F/H Half Dime, 1796 quarter and Pine Tree Shilling were all blatant fakes. All coins were sold as raw (not slabbed). Notice that the fakes were all early American coins. Early American coins were relatively crudely made and are also mostly found in low grades. These two factors make them prime candidates for counterfeiting. In other words, it is easier to make a counterfeit Chain Cent than a counterfeit, high grade Walking Liberty Half.

 

Dennis

[James_OldeTowne]

TTT, in case those with an interest in "pop-bot" registries may enjoy reading.

[Merc]

Most of the fake 1916-D are in low grade because most of the real 1916-D are in low grade too. They are either in AG or G or are MS. A real Fine to AU 1916-D is unusual. These higher grade ones are a red flag for an added D on a 1916 Philly.

 

I have seen low grade 1916-D fakes too. Usually it is a chased D or and added D. The D is of the wrong type or position or even the wrong grade. You see a tall new looking D on an AG coin and it just looks wrong. The mint mark should be worn and flat like the rest of the coin.

[okbustchaser]

TTT, in case those with an interest in "pop-bot" registries may enjoy reading.

 

By the way, James, I never did hear how you and Dennis finally came out on that non-Norweb Norweb. I see from your sig line that you no longer have it but did PCGS ever make you guys whole?

[MAULEMALL]

TTT, in case those with an interest in "pop-bot" registries may enjoy reading.

 

By the way, James, I never did hear how you and Dennis finally came out on that non-Norweb Norweb. I see from your sig line that you no longer have it but did PCGS ever make you guys whole?

I don't believe that James can comment on the out come but that in itself says a lot.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't believe that James can comment on the out come but that in itself says a lot.

wink wink !

[MAULEMALL]

I don't believe that James can comment on the out come but that in itself says a lot.

wink wink !

[BillJones]

Even experienced collectors can get caught by this.

 

I think it was perhaps five years ago, an Early American Coppers collector proclaimed that he had discovered a new variety of large cent. The piece was worn down to VG or so ,and its die work was different from any known variety. The story got enough traction to make to the numismatic press, including I think Penny-Wise, the EAC magazine.

 

It was finally determined that the "new" variety was actually a Gallery Mint copy that had been worn down to a low grade with the word "copy" filled in. Some dealers have warned that people were going to do this Gallery Mint stuff, and I guess this is an example of that.