Re: Importing Coin Photo's onto Post

[Smilie Puss]

Purchased raw 1932-D AU-55 WQ from a recent STACK's auction.

 

Item received and I submitted the WQ to my local TPGS TGS.

 

Item was returned with the following remarks:

Altered Surface Added Mint Mark. Mint mark high and visiable seperation at base.

Surface debris or brown coating surrounding "D" suspect covering to obscure attachment to coin surface.

 

I then took the following photos (see below) and compared the suspect mint mark against a 1935-D that I knew was genuine and was verified by my locale TPGS. The 1935-D measured 0.18 mm and the suspect 1932-D measured 0.24 mm side view angle. I did not have a 32-D to compare but I did see a faint line seperation at the base of the verticle bar of the "D"

 

Item was returned to STACK's for verification of my TPGS finding and the photo's with measurements.

 

Now the question to responders to this message is, with your observation of the photo's, was the MM added? Difficult to see the faint line but with the photo's shown is there enough evidence for a reasonable conclusion for this 1932-D?

 

Photo order:

1935-D Top View

1935-D Side View

1932-D Top View

1932-D Side View

Cal. Std. Dot 0.6mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Schatzy]

Wow....well at least you can send the coin back to Stack's!!

 

I have a 1932-D and mine doesn't look like yours.

[physics-fan3.14]

Definitely no doubt mintmark added.

[RareSov]

Absolutely. Wrong size and shape ? looks like a mess not a D

[rrantique]

What is this?

[Schatzy]

What is this?

 

A crazy looking blob of metal!!

[WoodenJefferson]

Since the Branch Mint Marks were hand punched into the dies during this time frame and with the number of different “D” mint marks recorded on coins of this era, I do not think it was accurate to compare a 1932 Mint Mark with a 1935 Mint mark. Even the same year coins display different characteristics because of the human element of the equation. Even with the exact same mint mark punch, two different sinkers will have two completely different mint mark depths, tilt, position…etc. In other words, it was not an exacting science until they were added to the hub dies.

 

Hard to say what exactly is going on here, it appears as though the “D” is sitting in a slight depression, but that could very well be an illusion. You have to go with the experts on this one, they are probably 99.99% correct that it was somehow added to this $20 Philadelphia minted coin.

 

PS: it would not make much sense to remove a “S” or change an “S” into a “D” but stranger things have been done.

 

 

[Smilie Puss]

rrant:

 

Not sure. Could be silver solder used to attach the "D". If the coin were heated the "D" would most likely fall off. What other way could the "D" be attached?

Epoxy?

 

If this coin was in fact altered someone went to a lot of trouble to put that "D" in place and then try to hide the seam with that brown substance.

 

I wonder if it was worth the time and effort for an AU-55 32-D? Perhaps my grader and I spent as much time in evaluating and showing this deceptive coin as it took to make it. Maybe the reward is pulling off the deception itself. Interesting!

 

The next question is how many more are out there in somebodies collection or inventory? Caveat Emptor!

[Smilie Puss]

JW:

 

Yes. I did think the same thing about using a 35-D but that is all I had to compare and thought this evidence would not hold up.

 

Yes. The MM is in a depression. Not sure I understand the significance of this unless it was done inorder to prepare the surface to accept silver solder. Usually joints to be soldered are prepared in this manner to remove surface contaminates or oxides.

 

However, if there is a faint line at the mint mark base I think this would be the most conclusive evidence. The brown residure around the MM may be flux from the soldering. It resembles the residue often observed on old circulated coins.

 

Also there may be evidence of silver solder on the right side base of the "D". Its now up to Stack's to verify this evidence.

 

I will know for sure if and when I receive a refund check in the mail.

 

Interesting!

 

If this a correct call it will be my first "Added Mint Mark" and information to share with you all.

[RareSov]

Could be where an old mint mark was removed

 

Or sloppy preparation of the area for attaching the mintmark

 

Or something used to attach it

[Conder101]

Could be the depression was made deliberately because that is one feature of genuine 32-D quarters, the D usually appears to sit in a depression.

 

It is also possible the "blob" at th side of the mintmark is glue. Many of these added mintmarks are not soldered on, they are just glued there.

[Mark T]

Did you see this coin before you bid?? If it is the coin I think it is Stacks did not post a picture.

 

http://www.stacks.com/lotdetail.aspx?lsid=AN00000673&asid=&lrid=AN00122349

 

$ 449 for this coin uncertified is to much , especially in this market. You can get these from Heritage already certified for the same price and less.

 

I would not purchase any Raw coins from Stacks unless you saw them in hand first.

 

[Smilie Puss]

Mark:

 

Now I would agree. When I researched this I found from Heritage the ave. auction price to be $477.25. NumisMedia wholesale $465 and retail 558. Yes more recent were available at a lower price but I thought I could trust Stack's graders and the price was not that far out of line. Lets see if they will verify it to be 'added mint mark' and refund what I paid. Its a lesson to be learned. As it is said "once bit twice shy"

 

No picture available now but it might have been during the auction. It is pictured in the catalogue. However, if the mint mark was added I doubt if anyone could have detected it unless you examined in hand.

 

Any raw coins I buy are always verified by my local grader. If they are not in the ballpark they are returned ASAP. Usually the seller refunds the purchase price unless he or she wants to experience a buyer from hell.

 

Thanks for your comments

[Smilie Puss]

Conder:

 

Yes. I have examined other 32-D's on Heritage and there does seem to be a depression on some of these photo's. The question is the only sure way is to determine if it is a 32-D is by die polish marks or marks from the master hub.

 

Yes. Glue, epoxy or solder. Only a fire assay will determine if it is genuine or an added MM.

 

I have looked closely at the suspect 32-D and no die polish marks were evident. Perhaps some where else on the reverse they may verify it to be genuine.

 

Lets see if Stack's will verify my TPGS findings. Interesting!

 

[TomB]

Absolutely terrific images. The D on the 1932 reverse certainly looks as though it could have been adhered to the surface instead of struck.

[fishfinder]

 

 

 

Or something used to attach it

maybe the heat of soldering pooled a depression when cooled

[Smilie Puss]

Mark

 

And you would be just as impressed with the images of a Jeffferson nickel with full steps. You can almost see Jeffersons foot prints.

 

If interested I could post these. I have them in photobucket. Do you collect FS Jeffersons? I can show you the difference between a '38' and '40' reverse for the 1939 mintage.

[WoodenJefferson]

Mark

 

And you would be just as impressed with the images of a Jeffferson nickel with full steps. You can almost see Jeffersons foot prints.

 

If interested I could post these. I have them in photobucket. Do you collect FS Jeffersons? I can show you the difference between a '38' and '40' reverse for the 1939 mintage.

 

Please post these images of full step Jeffy's...I would like very much to see them, start a new thread on the US Coin forum

[Smilie Puss]

Fishfinder

 

No soldering (or heat) would not deform the surface in this way . Only an abrasive compound could deepen the depression. If you want to solder something the surface must be clean and abraded to accept the solder and bond to the silver alloy surfaces.

[World Colonial]

Did you see this coin before you bid?? If it is the coin I think it is Stacks did not post a picture.

 

http://www.stacks.com/lotdetail.aspx?lsid=AN00000673&asid=&lrid=AN00122349

 

$ 449 for this coin uncertified is to much , especially in this market. You can get these from Heritage already certified for the same price and less.

 

I would not purchase any Raw coins from Stacks unless you saw them in hand first.

 

Just curious, did you do this before? I bought two raw coins from them once but I actually was able to observe it in person for a change. I happened to be in NYC during their 2006 world coin sale. The coins I ended up buying were a 1932 penny and 1935 half penny, both from South Africa. They were listed as proofs which have a mintage of 12 and 20. I paid about $2500 for the pair.

 

When I got them back from NGC, they came back as business strikes. When I looked at them, I thought they did not look like other proofs for the issue (King George V) but I did not question it (which was a mistake) because I relied upon their description. I was more focused on whether they appeared to have other problems such as cleaning.

 

They ended up taking them back with no questions asked even though they disagreed with the NGC opinion. (They resold them in a subsequent auction though I do not know who the buyers was.) So while I would still go with the NGC opinion, I give them credit for standing behind their coins and I would expect them to do the same in this instance.

[Smilie Puss]

WJ

 

Enjoy

 

Go to: Jefferson Nickel Reverse Full Step Photo's Review

 

Or

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=2943133

 

 

[Smilie Puss]

JW:

 

Also there may be evidence of silver solder on the right side base of the "D". Its now up to Stack's to verify this evidence.

 

I will know for sure if and when I receive a refund check in the mail.

 

Interesting!

 

If this a correct call it will be my first "Added Mint Mark" and information to share with you all.

 

Just received word from Stack's that a refund check is in the mail. Appearently they agreed with the TPGS TGS findings and the photo's I sent.

 

The lesson here is to avoid raw coins if unable to see in hand and Stack's did refund the money.

 

Wahoo