Yeah, that's what I plan to do. I was thinking that since NGC has more photos of fakes, and appear to have done a good deal of research on the matter, they could possibly give me a more definitive assessment of the matter, thanks.
It is counterfeit as an altered date Cashdude it's not struck it would be and altered date you can see the discoloration around the date and I'm not talking the black marks. Look at the pictures in post 9 and 12 you can see where it was cleaned to get a good surface. The 4 isn't doubled and the one is crooked and too far into the 2
I think the discoloration around the date is from the OPs cleaning to remove the black gunk. But the more I look at it and look at struck counterfeits ,it looks more like a struck counterfeit. The IGWT and the position of the date, plus look at how thin the rim is and the reeding looks very poorly defined . But looking at pictures is not the same as looking at the coin in hand. The only way to be sure is have an expert look at the coin in hand.
Folks it looks to me like that you may be missing something about this coin . is it just my poor eyesight or does the coins edge look different about halfway down on the rim. even the reeding looks different that it should in the photos. Sometimes a coin is taken apart by removing the top or bottom section or splitting them apart in the center then a extra design is added by putting a letter or number or whatever under the thin section of the coin and pressing down to add this extra design then the coin is put back together. This is the way that the D mintmark is sometimes added to the 1916 D merc. coin and sometimes about impossible to detect. The owner of this coin should closely examine it for any signs of seams. I'm not going to say i'm right like some on here does others because I'm not sure. It is about impossible to authenticate a coin from photos because photos don't come out looking like a coin really looks.
I know I have already said this...but has anyone else noticed that authentic 1942/1 have strong doubling in the 4 and this coin does not. That alone should be enough to show this coin is a fake.
Now THAT is some good information. I did not know this and the rim DOES look thinner..a LOT thinner than the real coin. You would think that with all the wear on the coin, the rim would be much more spread out then it is, good eye, thanks for the observation.
Yeah, I've come to the same conclusion, thanks. But check out my other thread, I found another coin in my dad's collection he left me and that one has the doubling of the date and the thicker rims, so I posted a couple of pics to see what you guys think. As always, I appreciate constructive comments and criticisms because it helps me figure out what I have, and so your comments are always greatly appreciated, thanks.
Taz: First: Here is a close up of a ligit 1942/1 Philly overdate: I checked your other post, and will try to find a closeup of the Denver overdate
I'm only echoing what others have said that it is a fake. By the way, David Lange at NGC, is the author of a book on the Mercury dime, and his discussion of the legitimate 42 over 41 provides a detailed explanation with photos of the legitimate coin. Some things that stand out to me about your coin is that 1) the serifs on both numeral "1" are blunted on your coin where they are pointed on the legitimate coin, 2) the obvious notch at the base of the "4" from the doubling on a legitimate coin is not apparent on your coin, 3) the tail of the "9" on a legitimate coin is pointed where yours is blunt and 4) there is a raised lump between the bases of the "4" and the "2/1" on the legitimate coin that is not apparent on your coin. I think you'd be wasting your money submitting this for authentication. Chris
Yeah, thanks Chris, I'm gonna see on Monday if it's even silver, if not, it's going in the trash. But the other coin in my other thread really has me confused and any help there would also be appreciated too, thanks.
Don't take anything to heart that all of us tell you on here and go by your own gut feelings. You have the coin in hand and all we are looking at is your photos. There have been many a valuable coin ruined by cleaning it or taken back to the bank because of bad opinions . Sometimes ones own opinion can really hurt so it is best to wait until totally sure befrore pulling the trigger. I know a few of you non believers that still don't know me very good will say I'm lying but I will tell you the truth about what happened to me a long time ago that really learned me a lesson the hard way. This was back in 1984 before I even had a computer , I had near a quarter to half a million dollars worth of the awesome 1983 DDR #1 doubled die cent coins and believe it or not I kept them in a old shoe box for about 6 months . One day I said to heck with it these coins are just machine doubled and took them to a local bank and give them away. I got the coins by stopping at a bank in Virginia and got 40 rolls of cents to look thru when I got home. I didn't want new coins but this is what the bank teller gave me. every roll had twice more of the doubled dies than the normal coins so I'm sure that I had at least 1200 of them. The big shoe box was filled up at least two inches deep with them. I found out a year later what I had done and I have wore my local banks out and never did find one , I did find some other awesome coins that are in my collection . Since then I have been lucky enough to discover more great doubled gie coins such as the extra tree Minnesota and Oregon quarters and this time I knew to check them out better. they were found just like I found the 83 cent coins a long time ago. The rolls that did contain the DDR #1 Mn. quarters had on the average about 6 to 8 of them to the roll. this was no where near as many as the rolls of 83 DDR cents contained but I was very happy to find them.
