Two key Lincolns, one is counterfeit. Which?

My guess is a code 91 : Questionable Color

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Was going to say the same thing

 

Second guess for the problemed '09-S VDB would've been "Obv Surface Damage" for the numerous nicks and hits that maybe appear deeper in hand than in the photo. Other than that, the coin looks good to go.

PS- I'm typing this before venturing to Page 2 of this thread... Let's see what you said, Lance (if you've even let the cat outta the bag yet).

-Brian

 

Ok I will go for XF40 on the 09 and before reading your post I was thinking the mint mark looked low and kind of doubled.

 

Ok, from what I can see from the picture, there is no wear on the 1909 s VDB. Although there are tons of smaller nicks and hits scattered evenly and a few distracting spots, I will step out and say it is an MS coin. The color is right for a gradable coin, but the problems make it a MS 61.

Matt

 

Artificial toning

 

Here is what PCGS had to say (pix below).

Funny, isn't it? We always say a key, especially a highly counterfeited one, should be sent to the best TPG's for a determination on authenticity (and a grade).

What if the TPG scratches its head and replies, "Gee...we just don't know...that one is too hard."

If you owned it, what would your next step be? Yup, that's just what I did: I sent it to NGC.

Bonus question: What was NGC's verdict?
Lance.

 

P.S. I'm assuming that everyone knows the TPGs never say "counterfeit". They say "questionable authenticity".

I asked PCGS about this one time and David Hall said they do that on the advice of counsel. Lawyers were concerned that known counterfeits might have to be confiscated and the Secret Service involved. Messy.
Lance.

 

Does not surprise me at all about not saying "counterfeit". I still think that coin has been cleaned and/or recolored.

 

I think it has to do with the higharchy of grading. If it cannot be determined to be authentic they stop there.

 

It would have been nice of PCGS to include a note as to why they questioned it's authenticity. I'm scratching my head as I don't see anything wrong.

 

nevermine

 

The 14-D is definately fake, the portrait is too sharp, it looks like a Philly cent. In general, the relief and details on a Denver issue are not that strong. However, the MM is actually fairly well done, it has the triangular shape in the middle which is a common diagnostic used. I'd say this coin probably fooled a lot of people over it's life.

1909-S VDB is questionable because the date and MM look smashed. I didn't compare the MM position, so I can't comment on that. However, the TPG's like to use the little die chip in the upper loop of the S as confirmation....you cannot see it on this coin.

 

Still curious what NGC had to say about the '09. Are you going to leave us hanging forever?:smile

 

Thanks for asking. And following the thread!

Who would have thought the two TPG's could finally agree on something? NGC said "beats me" too! LOL.

I stopped there. Neither company would say it was fake and neither was about to guarantee its authenticity.

I put it in an album for my heirs to sort out.
Lance.

 

That is just too funny! I have not heard of such a thing! Those TPG's are getting paid to tell us whether our coins are authentic or not, so if they're unable to provide that service... Then... Then... Well, I guess we all just get refunds. LOL. Simply comical.

-Brian

 

Well? Then do you have an idea what their problem(s?) are? The damaged mint mark?

 

That's it. I spoke with NGC when, after three months, they hadn't rendered a verdict. I was told the hits and wear to the mintmark made it impossible to make a decision. NGC felt it was likely authentic but wasn't willing to guarantee it.

PCGS gave me a refund. NGC would only issue credit which I'll probably never use.
Lance.

 

Interesting. Looking at the pic again after hearing what NGC said I guess I see what their talking about. Thanks for getting back on this Lance, it had me wondering. Kudos for an educational thread.

 

after only reading the OPs original post I'm going to say the 14-d has an altered mintmark, and the 09-s was between EF-30 and XF-40. I feel comfortable saying 35. Now I'll see what everyone else thinks....