MULE or NO MULE? 1959-D Lincoln Cent with Wheat Ears Reverse 1 1

[WoodenJefferson]

The 1959-D Wheat Ears Reverse Cent is one of the most controversial coins to appear on the market in decades. Many experts who have examined the coin are at a loss to explain its existence. Several experts have stated that they believe the coin to be counterfeit, although they are unable to give specific reasons why. On the other hand, the Secret Service has given the coin their stamp of authenticity - on at least two occasions! The coin was scheduled to be sold in Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc. "The Pre-Long Beach Auction", September 23-24, 2002 (see description below), but the coin was pulled from the auction at the eleventh hour when convicted forger Mark Hofmann claimed to have made the coin. Subsequent investigation failed to confirm this claim and the coin was re-consigned to the Goldberg's "The Benson Collection Part III", February 24-25, 2003, Lot 159. As of February 23, 2003, no major grading service had chosen to certify the coin as genuine.

 

 

Another area involves fakes of mint errors. According to Bob Campbell, there are still mint error fakes floating around the Salt Lake City area. Maybe the most famous item claimed by Hofmann is a US 1959-D Wheat Ear Reverse Cent, supposedly found in circulation in 1986. Two times autheticated by the Secret Service, but denied by all grading services. There are a number of reasons to doubt its validity: according to engraver Frank Gasparro, the mint was very concerned about producing such a mule, and therefore was extremely careful during striking; and no such mules showed up in circulation in 1960 during the hunt for small date cents. This piece sold for $48,300 in 2003, and Bob considers it Hofmann's greatest error forgery.

 

Another (aledged) forgery by Hofmann:

One of his first altered coins was a 1916 US dime with an added D mintmark. The D was added using electroplating, by selectively adding silver in the mintmark area while the surrounding area was masked; pronounced genuine by the Treasury Department. Some doubters question how thoroughly Treasury checked the mintmark, while others who have tried that procedure have not produced good results.

 

 

 

 

Recourses: www.coinfacts.com

http://www.chicagocoinclub.org/chatter/2006/Mar/

[TomB]

I believe the reluctance on the part of the TPGs is driven by liability more than any other factor. Since no discernible die characteristics to match the obverse to a known 1959-D die or the reverse to a known 1958 or before die (most likely 1958 or 1958-D) are available, the TPGs would need to perform analytical techniques such as spectroscopy, x-ray and metal analysis to give an educated guess. If the coin were to be slabbed and sold for an extraordinary amount of money only to be proven fake later on then the TPG in question would be on the hook for a substantial amount of money. In the opinion of the TPGs this is apparently not a good gamble.

[Dcoin]

Great post... problem is that if it will never be certified as authentic it will never realize its true value. It will forever be a great conversation piece but not a true numismatic rarity.

 

Dcoin

[Hoot]

Since no discernible die characteristics to match the obverse to a known 1959-D die or the reverse to a known 1958 or before die (most likely 1958 or 1958-D) are available

 

This is exactly the problem. Someone with a lot of time on their hands needs to do an analysis on the dies. This would be exceedingly difficult for a modern coin, but for Denver minted coins, there would at least be a place to start - the mint mark. Since mint marks were still being placed by hand punches at the time, this might be one approach to proving authenticity or lack thereof. The obverse and MM would require comparison with several years. The reverse may be discernable in terms of die state and the subtleties of die fatigue evidence, particularly in the wheat ears.

 

Personally, I can't imagine doing this. The process would be ugly, at best.

 

As for the spectroscopy, the only things I'd imagine that would reveal would be that the coin is struck, and that it was struck on a genuine planchet, which would not have been tough to get a hold of.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't believe certification has even the slightest influence on the value of this coin. It's like an 1804 dollar in that respect. It's not like the grade is of any import, here .

[Dcoin]

I was not referring to grade but rather to its being genuine or fake. This is the difference between rarity and really expensive forgery. Everybody knows the 1804 is genuine (whether restrike or original) and therefore is recognized as a true rarity. There is a good chance this coin will never attain that status.

 

 

Dcoin

[James_OldeTowne]

Personally, I believe the coin is fake. It may be a very good fake, but nonetheless, I don't believe such a genuine mule was ever produced from within the walls of the Federal mint.

[braddick]

I agree it was Mark Hofmann who forged the coin.

[Denver Dave]

 

Kind of strange no one can prove it's a fake

 

Biggest red flag I see is the fact there is only one example, if this were a mint error surly others would surface...

 

If Mark Hoffmann faked the coin, he sure wasted his god given talent...

 

Here's a thought, your searching shotgun rolls and find a full roll of mules all in MS65RD or better...

 

What do you do...?

 

In this day and age I suspect the first thing would be hiring a Lawyer...

[Die Varieties]

"Biggest red flag I see is the fact there is only one example, if this were a mint error surly others would surface..."

 

There in lies the rub. With many years and all the rolls/bags searched and as far as I'm aware of only the one example -- I have to go with thumbs down.

 

Billy

[Hoot]

"Biggest red flag I see is the fact there is only one example, if this were a mint error surly others would surface..."

 

A reason to doubt this notion is in thinking of all of the unique mules that came out of the safe deposit boxes in San Francisco (?) California. I do not recall the specifics, but there were a number of reverse-reverse mules, etc. that were unique and considered smuggled out of the Mint. It's entirely possible that a Mint employee made this as a fantasy piece for himself and let it go into circulation just for the sport of it. Perhaps others were made that were not released and still reside in someone's private stash. Only a rigorous analysis will suggest anything concrete.

 

Hoot

[BillJones]

I don't care the general appearance of this coin at all. It looks like a counterfeit to me. Going by the wheatears, the coin appears to grade at least EF-45 or AU-50, brown. But when you look at the obverse the Lincoln is poorly defined for the grade and rims are very weak and mushy. That indicates to me that the coin is not a U.S. mint product.

 

Some might argue that given the design change, the metal flow may not have been right to yield a stronger strike with the 1959 – wheat back design pairing. But this coin has the look of a piece that was struck or pressurized molded from copy dies that were fashioned from two genuine coins.

[WoodenJefferson]

I read somewhere way back when, that Hofmann used a technique called "explosive impact copying" to produce a large quantity 1916-D Standing Liberty Quarters. Shooting a cast hub into annealed dies through a .12 gauge shot gun seemed to fool even the best of examinations. Perhaps that is how this cent came about...a mint produced planchet, two homemade shot gun dies...waa laa, one 1959 Lincoln cent with a wheat reverse.

 

I would think you would not want to be in the same room when pulling the trigger on the shotgun.

[Tradedollarnut]

I'd pay $10k for it and take my chances....

[slickpick-migration]

This coin is the basis of Charles Larson's book "Numismatic Forgery". The book is a great read and shows how easy it would be to create superb forgeries if one had the motivation and resources. Also goes into the probabilities of there being multiple forgeries of high quality such as this already on the market.

[rjbice]

I have one. But I am new to coin collecting and dont know what to do now or how much it would cost. Please help. And I will take better pics if you need me to. Oh and it weighs 3.30

[rjbice]

Just now, rjbice said:

I have one. But I am new to coin collecting and dont know what to do now or how much it would cost. Please help. And I will take better pics if you need me to. Oh and it weighs 3.30

rachaelhbice@gmail.com

[kbbpll]

It's fake. Look at the 5 and 9, among other things.

[MarkFeld]

7 hours ago, rjbice said:

I have one. But I am new to coin collecting and dont know what to do now or how much it would cost. Please help. And I will take better pics if you need me to. Oh and it weighs 3.30

 The weight is off, the surfaces do not look like those seen on a genuine coin and as already mentioned, the digits in the date are wrong.

In the future, if you have a coin which you think might be of value, do not hold it the way you are in your photo, as you can fingerprints on the coin. Hold it just by the edge.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/21/2006 at 11:21 PM, WoodenJefferson said:

I read somewhere way back when, that Hofmann used a technique called "explosive impact copying" to produce a large quantity 1916-D Standing Liberty Quarters. Shooting a cast hub into annealed dies through a .12 gauge shot gun seemed to fool even the best of examinations. Perhaps that is how this cent came about...a mint produced planchet, two homemade shot gun dies...waa laa, one 1959 Lincoln cent with a wheat reverse....

Unsolicited Editorial...

To the OP:  Remember this oldie but goodie? "Explosive impact copying." One of your earliest posts.

To you, gentle reader: please do not begrudge those of us who revel in re-reading retread-threads, such as this well-choreographed number from 15 years back.  Moi, a distraction? I beg to differ!

You, who post your "most recent U.S. acquisition," routinely, on a thread whose threadmaster hasn't been seen or heard from in 11 going on 12 years. You, who prefer mastery of granular details and hallucinatory fantasies to plain old story-telling.

As Hamlet said to Horatio:  "there are more things on heaven and earth.... than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Thank you, @WoodenJefferson for a swell read!  Oh, "how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus!"

Happy holidays to all!

        😉  🐓 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing: s-p-a-c-i-n-g of emoji.

[Dave1384]

Indeed. Without QA posting I’d have missed it too. Can’t beat the wheat ear, no matter where you find ‘em. 

[RWB]

1959 Production began January 2nd at both the Philadelphia and Denver Mints.

At 9.35 A.M. - today - the 1959 Lincoln Cent - with the new reverse design - was struck - as we watched with excited pride and pleasure! Each one of us was handed a coin. We examined it - 'drooled' over its beauty - and smiled! Each one of us tossed our coin into the bin - the press started to roll - at the rate of 140 coins a minute; we smiled again - and returned to our desks!

No coins of the old design were manufactured after December 31, 1958.

[Henri Charriere]

@RWB  Probably the most non-bureaucratic sounding letter, pardon memorandum, I've read since the one I got in 1968 from a General Hershey, addressed "Greetings!"  

[RWB]

On 1/1/2022 at 10:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@RWB  Probably the most non-bureaucratic sounding letter, pardon memorandum, I've read since the one I got in 1968 from a General Hershey, addressed "Greetings!"  

Gen. Hershey wrote a lot of those sweet letters!