Collecting Large Cents

Good catch. I did not even try to attribute it. That explains why when I first looked I thought the cross bar on the 4 looked weird. It now looks like the bottom of a 3.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm confused. Conder, are you saying there is or isn't a problem with authenticity? I didn't consider the possibility it was fake as it was recently graded by NGC.

Do you need larger images of any parts of the coin?
Thanks,
Lance.

 

The 1804 cent shown above is a fake. The reverse die is NOT the one used in 1804. The reverse shown for that coin was used on the 1803 S-260 and it is a completely different die. My last sentence in the earlier post related to my initial impression that it was the reverse of S-259. If that coin is in an NGC slab they blew it. And I would love to see a picture of it in the holder. I could put it with my picture of a fake 1804 large cent that PCGS slabbed.

 

Well that just sucks. Here's a photo for your files, Conder. And thank you for the help.
Lance.

 

I cropped the terminal leaves so you could see the difference. The top coin is yours and the bottom coin is from Heritage.

 

Wonder if NGC would pay you more under their guarantee than you would get returning it?

 

Once again I'm late to the party. I was about to mention both the terminal leaves and the leaf under the left upright of F rather than the right curve of O. Of course my initial thought was a new variety rather than a fake. However, I'm always in search of that new variety when the fake is more likely.

 

Thanks, Mark. You can be sure the moment Conder mentioned this I was all over it. And it's black and white, really.

Had the coin been raw I would have spent time checking its authenticity. Instead, as it was in a newer NGC holder, I focused on the coin's look and appearance, condition, price, etc. and took its authenticity for granted. Particularly because it was attributed! (I know TPG attributions are sometimes wrong but at least two graders examined the coin and one of them had to do some homework.)

Good lesson. Even the best TPG's get it wrong. I'll let you know how things turn out.
Lance.

 

Let us know if the holder also turns out to be a fake.

 

Is it correct that just one die pair was used, S-266? Not counting the much later restrike, of course.
Lance.

 

That is correct. This is a singular example of die state progression being used as subvarieties leading to the S-266a, S-266b and S-266c. They are all the same die and edge device. Any die deviation on a mint issued 1804 Large Cent would be a new variety.

I would also note that it is not uncommon for Half Cents to be labeled as Cents, especially with 1804.

 

Thanks, Marshall, for verifying that.

I talked to DLRC (David Lawrence Rare Coins, where I bought the fake 1804) after emailing all the documentation. They were quick to accept a return and arrange a refund. Naturally they're going to do a little backtracking on how it was acquired but, ultimately, the fake will find its way to NGC.

This was a big financial recovery for me and I am grateful CT has members like Conder, Marshall, and Mark with special knowledge as well as an interest in helping fellow collectors. Digging through varieties takes time and patience. Usually there is some satisfaction and enjoyment that comes from it, I know. In this case there are hearty pats on the back too.

As for NGC, well, no one's perfect. But, it is a little unsettling. Experienced collectors constantly remind newcomers to beware of rare raw coins and instead rely on top TPG's. It is still great advice. Because if they fail you there is always the TPG guarantee. The trick is knowing when they're wrong. Sharing on forums like CT is one great way to find out!
Lance.

 

That can be a problem with one variety dates. The attributing process can run like this "Well it's an 1804 so it has to be an S-266." Instead of using the attribution to confirm the date, they use the date to declare the attribution.

But don't feel to bad about being fooled by depending on the slab. Whoever bought it for DLRC probably did the same thing as well.

 

I have to admit I would have been caught by it also. When looking for varieties I attribute the coin to make sure it is correct, but when it comes to something like 1804 I did not think about it. I can spend hours attributing coins for varieties like 1834,1835, etc. making sure I get the right variety. And I know I have bid on multiple graded(mostly on heritage) 1793's, 1799's and 1804's without doing the proper leg work. Sorry it happened to you, but a good lesson for me also.

 

I think this justifies my pattern of attributing the obverses and reverses independently (primarily looking for new mules) rather than from the whole coin. I really don't trust TPGs to attribute coins, but I do trust them for authentication. I'm beginning to wonder if that is such a good idea. Give me a Grellman authentication insert any day of the week and Sundays over TPGs.

Of course with good pictures, I'm constantly amazed at the knowledge on this board concerning variety attribution, especially Conder's. He always comes up with something NOT in the books to look for.

 

This may sound like folly, but I wonder if one of you may be able to attribute the obverse of the fake. I would expect it to be the obverse of an 1803 S-260 marriage but if it is something else that would be very, very interesting.

An update on the return: DLRC (David Lawrence Rare Coin) has received the coin and made a refund. That may sound like a no-brainer for the return of a fake, NGC-slabbed coin. But the sharp-eyed among you have noticed from the original photos the absence of NGC tabs. Which means, of course, that the coin was cracked (to be put in an album).

Normally cracking a coin forfeits everything. This is understood, and a policy no one can disagree with. But under the circumstances DLRC made a refund and took on the responsibility of dealing with NGC. I suspect, because of good auction pictures and the fact that NGC also images coins it grades, that it will be easy enough to establish that the raw coin is the same imaged in the holder.

Nonetheless, DLRC deserves kudos for its excellent customer services!
Lance.

 

I only checked out 1803 obverses, but the HWH left of the upright of R along with the 1 close to the hair and the 8 and the 0 relatively close points to Obverse 12 as you suspected. Obverse 15 was close, but has the pointed 1.

 

Thanks, Marshall. So obverse 12 is the S-260 then, correct? I am on the road and stupid without my books.
Lance.

 

That is Fantastic !

 

Yes. Obverse 12 was used on S-259 and S-260.