I start a suspect coin review with ATTRIBUTION & the NOT 1796 half cent

In my process for review of authenticity of a particular example I always start with trying to attribute it to a known variety. I maintain that many of the errors made in authentication especially by a TPG could be prevented by just comparing the coin in question to images of known genuine ones!

The process I developed and follow is as follows:



I'll start with the 1795 "C-6" half cent, a fairly common for the date variety; this coin is distinctive for a couple of reasons- 1st is struck without a (cap) pole, so it is called a "no pole" variety, and 2nd for its distinctive reverse. It is the only reverse in the series with a leaf tip just below the "I" of AMERICA.

1795 no-pole C-6 image as follows:



Now to the subject coins!

The 1st is an example currently in a HiBid auction listed and certed as a 1796 no-pole half cent, one of the rarest and most valuable half cents in the series.

Images include the NGC on-line cert and combination image as well as a comparison image of its reverse to a known 1796. Just like the 1795 C-6, the 1796 half cent (both varieties, pole and no pole) share a unique reverse. So, one should be able to see "what's what" just by comparing the images to each other...






Not even close!

After being contacted with the fact they certified a 1795 C-6 half cent as a 1796 the on-line cert was updated:


I imagine there is a pretty hefty value drop as a "mechanical error".

But wait, there's more!

The 2nd example is also a 1795 C-6 certified as a 1796 no pole, this time by PCGS. I understand the owner returned it for proper recertification and have no details on any $'s involved in this one, BUT I am aware PCGS does guaranty attribution.




Which brings me back to always take the time and start with proper ATTRIBUTION...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Unfortunately that takes too much time for the TPGs who are looking to process the coins as much as possible. What collectors don't realize is that the graders must get "the product" out as fast as possible. That involves quick reviews by however many number of graders they have looking at coins. There is supposed to be a "finalizer" who is supposed to catch this stuff. As you can see, a small number of the authentication errors still get through.

The thing that burns me when they make a mistake like this is that they charge you based upon the market value of the coin. Yes, a low grade 1796 No Pole Half Cent in low grade is not worth as much as a better one. Still it is on the Greysheet for $22,000 in AG. That means you are going to be paying at least several hundred dollars to get an example graded. Given that, what is the excuse for NOT taking the precautions with a coin with less than 50 known genuine examples?

 

The advance of technology has allowed counterfeiters to produce coins that are suitable to be included into any collection and you ain't seen nothing yet! A very experienced authenticator does not have a chance of catching the best fakes at the moment UNLESS the fake has been already identified AND THE AUTHENTICATOR KNOWS ABOUT the new discoveries. Unfortunately, there is much less sharing of info between services as there was at one time.

The methods outlined by Jack above take time and research. I believe the major services are "fingerprinting" coins with images so new submissions can be compared to older ones that include known C/F's.

The biggest problem I see is that most long time professional authenticators have spent less than three hours in their entire career examining coins at magnifications higher than 10X. In my experience, the days of authenticating coins with a hand lens alone should have ended thirty years ago for ALL OF THEM!

 

So are these both essentially dateless coins, or did the grader think they saw enough of a date to call it 1796? If they are dateless, it's hard to understand how a TPG could mess that up on such a valuable coin. What else would they have to go on besides the reverse type, which is clearly not 1796? Heritage says there are "probably no more than two dozen known." On another genuine example, HA says "This piece shows the diagnostic bisecting die crack across the obverse that explains the rarity of the variety. None are known without the crack..." Where is the crack on these two? It boggles my mind to think that both major TPGs could screw this up.

Your process is a good one. It can also lead to new discoveries.

 

Thanks @KBBPLL for your comments; I didn't bother to post the obv of a genuine 1796 C-1 but it is obvious from a distance...

Someone suggested maybe a worn down GMM, but even it has the break.

 

Liked the lesson story line, thank you.

 

Unfortunately the final "hi bid" was:

 

Get in touch with the buyer if possible. If they retain a lawyer, the lawyer can initiate “discovery” which will prove that you had contacted them about the erroneous attribution. If they follow through with the sale, they will have committed fraud in excess of $10,000.

 

As I remember, I think the Gallery Mint struck "no pole" 1796 examples with and w/o the crack. I may be wrong about this.