NGC graded my '55 Double Die Lincoln : Not encapsulated-Not Genuine

The gentlemen has an interesting approach, no doubt, and is something that could be very helpful/beneficial in certain instances, but this is really a good example of why it must be taken with grain of salt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

ed wood 654, posted:"That really sucks, Don't feel bad, this would have gotten by me too and a lot of other very experienced graders on this forum.

If that is the case Ed, I'd suggest you not start your Coin Grading business.

BTW, I've already commented on the YouTube video. Members should treat it as a very basic introduction to 1955 Doubled Dies as it's better than nothing There is more useful information around that is not posted by rookie dealers posing as coin authentication experts.

 

One would think Doubled "Dye" in the title a clue, but apparently our resident superhero missed it. Of course he also seems to always miss assigned grades when they are posted (har, har), so it's certainly understandable.

 

kill it-- twice

 

but, his opinions come down from the mountain, along with the 10 commandments.

 

That method is moot when it comes to die transfer counterfeits. The position of all of the devices will match those of a genuine coin.

 

I'm not a newbie, I am a professional grader, I just meant that would get by me because of the photos, I was on my lap top and its not a very good one because my ipad got wet when I was in Aruba just recently. My assistant is working on getting a new one just for these reasons

 

If only there were places were you could walk in and buy an ipad..........

 

Books
I had already explained when I said that statement that I was on my laptop which needs to be replaced. This would never ever get by me if it was in my hands. NO chance at all. When I got home on my regular PC, I realized my mistake.


QUOTE="BooksB4Coins, post: 2832534, member: 36230"]One would think Doubled "Dye" in the title a clue, but apparently our resident superhero missed it. Of course he also seems to always miss assigned grades when they are posted (har, har), so it's certainly understandable. [/QUOTE]

 

Lyin' Ed and crooked Illery....

 

"Oh Lord won't you buy him a shiny new "Porsh,"
"I know his assistant will wax it of course,"
"Then he'll post a real photo at his company's lot,"
"Where that fake grading service is going to pot."

 

The fact that my '55 doubled die Lincoln was counterfeit did not make me smile. And I'll say it again, you need to have a coin in your hands before you can tell if it is genuine, a picture, not matter how good, is not enough to tell unless the coin is a really poor counterfeit. It fooled me, several dealers and every coin club member who looked it over.

I posted pictures of an Athenia Owl that a good friend took and they were excellent shots. Half of the ancients guys were sure it was fake and half thought it was genuine. It caused quite a back and forth. It turned out to be genuine.

 

I'm starting to feel bad for you, Ed.

 

I had an established CAD tracing of a 1912 Lincoln Cent obverse saved in my CAD system. I imported an image of a 1955 proof into my CAD system then overlaid my 1912 obverse drawing on top of this image. I removed the “1912” date detail from the drawing and traced the “1955” date detail from the 1955 proof image onto my CAD drawing. Which created an emulated CAD drawing of a 1955 obverse. I then imported an image of an authentic 1955 DDO into my CAD system and overlaid two copies of the 1955 CAD tracing onto it creating a CAD drawing emulating a 1955 DDO. Overlaid this drawing onto the image of your counterfeit 1955 DDO for the purpose of identifying discrepancies in the spread exhibited by your coin. I noted no discrepancies in the spread between your coin and the tracing that would allow me beyond a reasonably doubt to rule your coin counterfeit.

Keep in mind the analysis I performed on your coin was for the sole purpose of determining counterfeit and the results thereof should never be construed as a test for confirming authenticity.

 

I could not get these two images side by side. I had to stack them.
One is the OP coin and the other is known to be real.
I would have called the OP coin real. I wonder what NGC was seeing.

 

I'm feeling sad for him. Maybe someday he will find the time to hang out here and post something folks will believe.

 

Thanks for posting the authentic example versus the counterfeit.
And anyone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken because errors are far from my strong suit.
But, I seem to notice slight differences between the 5's on each coin.
The top right of the (lower) first 5 on the genuine example is visible, whereas it is not on the counterfeit.
Also, where the high serif of the low 5 and middle serif of the high 5 meet, it seems on the genuine example the high 5s middle serif is stronger, whereas the counterfeit coin it seems the low 5s upper serif is stronger.
Pay close attention to the 5's, when you analyze them the ones on the OPs coin generally seem kinda clunky.
Sorry to hear it came back as not genuine Mont. But hey, what can ya do.

 

His fingers are typing, so he is lying!

[/QUOTE]

 

Again, the key markers are the die cracks on the reverse and the 10 degree counter clockwise reverse die rotation. People are fixated on the obverse, but the tell tale authentic signs are on the reverse of this coin. (Which there is no photo in this thread.)
I will repeat: Lincoln Cent Resource:"Check for two faint die scratches leading downward from the left bar of the T in Cent to establish authenticity"-The CherryPickers Guide Fourth Edition Vol. 1 pg. 122. The reverse is also slightly rotated counterclockwise about 10 deg.

I doubt the counterfeiters are getting the die cracks and the reverse die rotation correct.

 

Exactly! Why haven't we seen a picture of the reverse yet?! Mont- can you get access to the coin again to take pics?