Is this coin misattributed, or is the slab a fake?

[satootoko]

Can someone with access to the confirmation site check this coin, labeled (and listed) as Y#522.

 

That designation is for a 1940 Reformed Government of China chiao (10 fen), dated Republic of China Year 29. Krause has that number listed for both bronze and copper-nickel versions, with different designs, but neither one matches the subject coin, which is actually a Manchukuo Y#10 copper-nickle.chiao dated Kang Te 7.

 

The seller hasn't had time yet to respond to my notification regarding the attribution.

 

BTW the Krause value for an Unc cu-ni version of Y#522 is $400, and Japanese-occupied China coins have been regularly selling well above their Krause valuations!

 

Y#10 is cataloged at $25 Unc and based on recent trends if correctly identified a slabbed MS63 might be expected to go for no more than $50-100.

 

 

[Conder101]

If the slab is fake it's a new generation of fake, and they have corrected one of the major flaws they had with the shell. I don't think it is fake for reasons that will become clear.

 

Krause doe not have the Y522 two differnt coins, YA522 is a bronze one fen and Y522 is the coppernickel 10 fen. I would agree though that there is no reason why they should not have had more different numbers. The $400 value in Unc that you mention is for the bronze YA522 not the Y522 that NGC says it is. Krause only lists the copper nickel Y522 at $7 in Unc.

 

I agree with your attribution that the coin is a Y10. Krause lists it at $50 in Unc.

 

So what you have here is a $50 coin in a slab pretending to be a $7 coin. I think this is probably just another example of a misattribution by NGC. Never trust the attributions listed by the TPG's. They should ALWAYS be double checked. (Of course it doesn't help that Krause either has the reverse pictures of A522 and 522 swapped, or the descriptions swapped. I think the descriptions are swapped.)) But I don't think a chinese fake would be trying to pass off a scarce coin as a common one, so it is probably real.

[satootoko]

Apparently Krause has made some corrections in its listing since the 2008 edition, which I was relying on in my original post.

 

You have verified my primary concern about attribution vs. fake slab, which I had figured as a 99%-1% probability ratio.