1909-S Lincoln Cent Alpha Testing

I should probably reshoot it. The images are six years old and my equipment is much better today.

I believe there is some remnant of the die chip in the S's upper loop.



This coin was part of an estate I bought and sold piecemeal. I kept a few of the better circulated stuff. This coin intrigued me. The diagnostics looked solid but I was troubled by the color at 5k so I submitted it to PCGS.



Funny, I thought. Not "questionable authenticity", no "added MM" or any other reason to declare it fake. Just PCGS saying "We can't decide."

So I sent it off to NGC.



Wow. NGC can't decide either. The only difference was I got no refund. LOL.

So I stuck it in an album and forgot about it until this thread came along.
Lance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Shame on the service that did not issue a refund . It appears that it was NGC? I'd be on the phone so fast and tell customer service the problem. Lie like a rug. Tell them their Service has always been #1 in your eyes, it is the only TPGS you use, and you are very disappointed. So much so that you feel like writing about this experience on their company's blog, a letter to the editor, your coin club members, etc. Be nice.


Then, call ANACS or ICG. Ask to speak to a grader. Tell him/her (at ANACS) that you have a 1909-SVDB cent that PCGS and NGC cannot determine if it is genuine. Ask if they would like to see it. Ask if they can look for free as in your opinion (this is the key): it would be very helpful for them to see a coin the other services declined to certify. Tell them you will pay the postage both ways. I'll bet one or both of them will do it.
Then let us know what happened.

 

Interesting. I wonder what they were looking for but could not find. Everything I see appears to be authentic.

 

Did an overlay using the Image of the date and mintmark Lance provided in his post. I still get the same result being the mintmark on his coin appears to be located slightly east of 1909-S VDB-002. If you ever do take new pictures - post them and I'll give it another try.

 

Okay, I'll retrieve it and shoot new images. Right now it's in this.
Lance.

 

Here are some new photos. I'm not sure how big the forum s/w will allow. Originals are 3545x3545.

They'll expand if you click on them.

Anything significant about the die chip in the S in TRUST?
Lance.

 

Here is the die chip enlarged. I cannot tell if that chip is in there along with something else or someone did a job trying to imitate it.

 

Your coin "looks" genuine and should fool anybody if it is not! Without seeing the coin in hand - I'm with the TPGS. I see why they cannot decide. There are tiny lumps of raised metal near the "E' and "T' of "Cent" and the "E" and "S" of "States" with a blob at the top of the "A". I've seen plenty of these coins; but I have never seen one with those pimples! This may be a brand new state-of-the-art counterfeit. With the number of Large cents and Half cent counterfeits that got certified as genuine last year, the major TPGS may be a little "gun-shy."

 

Nice work, I'm enjoying your images; however, because of the minute errors due to drawing, image distortion, and circulation wear, I don't believe this method will detect an excellently made modern die-struck counterfeit.

I'm sorry to point out that the two top TPGS's cannot determine the authenticity of a high-grade, problem-free, key coin that they have seen thousands of examples of over the years. This must certainly prove my assertion!

 

Because they cannot prove the authenticity of a single (I am sure there are more out there) coin does not prove anything about his method. On top of which, even if his method (our method) cannot eliminate every counterfeit, from my experience, it can absolutely detect nearly all counterfeits.

And, just a guess, but the reason they could not authenticate his coins is because it is not problem free. That MM is damaged and they cannot see the die chip or lack thereof.

 

I am not sure what your assertion is.

 

Thanks, fellas, for the effort!

I bought this six years ago and I have reason to believe the prior owner (whose daughter I know well) had it for some years. So I'm not sure how "modern" a counterfeit it might be.

I can set up a photographic object lens ("objective") and shoot a super close-up of the mintmark. Maybe use image stacking for the best look. But I don't think it will reveal anything conclusive.

I've always been suspicious of the darker area under the date (the darkness is not as prominent in hand as the photos depicts). I don't see any shenanigans at the rim, FWIW.

The microscopic raised dots are not visible with a 9x loupe. But the 200mm macro lens shows them clearly enough.

And then there's the die chip in S in TRUST I mentioned. I've looked at 10-15 other S-VDB's from this die and I haven't seen one like it. I did find one non-S VDB with something similar (PCGS cert# 26371099...I can't download a very large TrueView of it...it's incomplete...something wrong with the TV image?).

This non-S VDB also has a V.D.B. like mine, with the second dot centered between the D and B...just like a real S-VDB. I think these non-S VDB's are a little scarcer.

Anyway, mystery not solved but fun detective work.

I guess I'll put this back in the Dansco and let my heirs deal with it some day.
Lance.

 

I don't blame the TPG's for not wanting to put it into a clean slab. The TRUST die chip is very unusual, I've never seen that in an authentic SVDB. There are enough questions to BB the coin IMO.

 

That's my conclusion too, Thad.

I'm surprised that both PCGS and NGC chose not to condemn it. Which says they were on the fence, I guess.

Except for this coin, I have never had either service throw their hands in the air and give up. That both did so is remarkable.
Lance.

 

I promised some math - So I thought I would use Lance's coin to demonstrate comparing it to my CAD drawing of 1909-S VDB-002. My results - visually using the overlay and math indicate the mintmark on Lance's coin is located slightly East of the mintmark for 1909-S VDB-002. Based on the results from PCGS and NGC coupled with my analysis - I am more confident that the coin does not match VDB-002 than I am that it is a match. But my analysis is assuming my CAD rendering of VDB-002 is dead accurate - which has been pointed out and I agree it is not. Therefore with this in mind I cannot beyond a reasonable doubt rule it out as a match to VDB-002.

 

Here is some additional info I fund out:

I checked my records and found only one 1909-S VDB 1c with a die chip in the "S." I saw/recorded it when it was offered sometime last year. The coin was in AU condition. This may even be the coin. Die chips happen; however, considering all the S-VDB coins I have photographed, this is a bad sign as I should have seen more than one.

rlm's cents, posted: "Because they cannot prove the authenticity of a single (I am sure there are more out there) coin does not prove anything about his method. On top of which, even if his method (our method) cannot eliminate every counterfeit, from my experience, it can absolutely detect nearly all counterfeits."

As I posted above...not any good fakes that should fool a skilled numismatist.

"And, just a guess, but the reason they could not authenticate his coins is because it is not problem free. That MM is damaged and they cannot see the die chip or lack thereof."

IMO, the coin is problem free. A tiny hit on the "S" is called normal circulation - unfortunately, just on the wrong spot! BTW, most of the professional authenticators who taught me do not rely/look for the chip in the "S" although they may see it. However, that specific diagnostic is always taught to beginners and appears in the literature.

justafarmer, posted: "I am not sure what your assertion is."

My belief is that your method, while very novel and in its infancy (I like it), is not quite ready for "prime time." That's all.

AMEN!!

 

Interesting that you found an S-VDB with that die chip, Insider. Was it die #2?

It wasn't this coin, since it's been in my sole possession for six years.

I looked around to no avail. I did find a non-S VDB, which raises my suspicions.



The coin has been sent to ICG for research. I'll share their opinion.
Lance.

 

justafarmer, what kind of results do you get with this S-VDB? It too is obv. die #2. (I'm assuming you might want to give it a whirl but don't feel obligated.)
Lance.

 

Sure I'll give it a shot