Anything wrong with this 09 S VDB??

On the bright side, that makes it even easier to nail them to the wall if it isn't. Things like altered mint marks are iffy under US numismatic law - it's still originally a valid US coin, so is adding that MM technically illegal? Does it fit the definition of "counterfeit?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So should I stop guaranteeing the authenticity of my items?

 

Okay, so what is so difficult about simply stating your case as opposed to alluding to your "reservations"? This little dance is getting old.

 

I assume that if you are offering an item, then you believe in good faith that it is genuine. It is up to my due diligence to make sure that I feel the same.

 

In my 1st post giving images

The 1st image shows CAD renderings (tracing) of 1909-S VDB obverse 1 (VDB-001), obverse 2 (VDB-002), obverse 3 (VDB-003) and obverse 4 (VDB-004).

The 2nd image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 2 overlaid on EBAY resource 1909-S VDB Obverse 2 and the overlay matches.

The 3rd image shows CAD rendering (tracing)) obverse 3 overlaid on EBAY 1909-S VDB obverse 3 and the overlay matches.

The 4th image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 2 overlaid on the unknown origin resource 1909-S VDB obverse 2 and it does not match.

The 5th image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 3 overlaid on the unknown origin resource 1909-S VDB 2 obverse and it does not match.

The 6th image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 3 overlaid on the unknown origin resource 1909-S VDB obverse 2 and it does indicate a match.

The 7th image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 3 overlaid on the unknown origin resource 1909-S VDB obverse 3 and a match cannot be determined.


In my 2nd post giving images

The 1st image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 2 overlaid on NGC resource 1909-S VDB Obverse 2 and the overlay matches.

The 2nd image shows CAD rendering (tracing) obverse 2 overlaid on PCGS resource 1909-S VDB Obverse 2 and the overlay matches.


So the results are as follows

The CAD rendering of 1909-S VDB Obverse 2 overlays and matches the Die 2 images provided by Ebay, PCGS and NGC but CAD 002 does not overlay and match any of the 4 images provided in the unknown origin resource.

CAD die 2 = EBAY Die 2 = NGC die 2 = PCGS Die 2 = none of the images provided in the unknown origin resource.

The CAD rendering of 1909-S VDB Obverse 3 overlays and matched the Die 3 image provided by EBAY. Although overlays of NGC and PCGS die 3 were not provided in my post it matches these also. CAD rendering of obverse 3 overlays and matches Die 2 from the unknown origin resource.

CAD die 3 = EBAY die 3 = NGC die 3 = PCGS die 3 = unknown origin resource die 2 with being equal to unknown origin resource die 3 undetermined due to quality of the image.

This is why I have reservation concerning this particular generally used 1909-S VDB resource.

 

This can be answered very simply:

1. Before the late 1960's there probably was not much known about the mint mark positions on key date coins such as this.

2. By 1973, there was.

3. Sometime after 1975, ANA authenticators in Colorado searched hundreds of negatives and actual coins to publish a guide to the mint mark positions of several coins including the 1909-S VDB. What you see in the photos provided in the article above (See Counterfeit Detection a reprint from the Numismatist Vol. II) only scratches the surface of the diagnostic info TPGS authenticators have for these coins. Take an authentication class and you'll see.

4. Times change and technology evolves. Three decades later it is possible that higher resolution and measurement will confirm that a "fifth or sixth" position exists. Congratulations to the person who does!

5. Unfortunately, IMHO it will not matter at all! That's because the mint mark positions that folks are able to resolve using high power stereo microscopes already match up with all the other known diagnostics for each die.

6. Let me play Devil's advocate: Therefore, even if there is a micro measurable difference between the "S's" and due to that these two microscopically different mint marks have been associated with one die in error, no one is going to see it while examining an actual coin under high-power magnification. Furthermore, I'll bet there is not one professional numismatist who cares!

Good luck and please keep posting your research. Even better @justafarmer, why don't you write a nice article with images of your findings and have it published.