Misattributed/Counterfeit DBC's on Ebay

Howdy peeps,

I have run across so many misattributed DBC's this week and I thought I'd share them with ya'll, to help show that you really MUST know what you are buying, since quite often the seller's don't have a clue. :goofer:

Our first candidate is a 1796 S-166:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1796-Large-Cent-Fine_W0QQitemZ170299831553

There is no such thing as a 1796 S-166 but that's because it's a 1798 S-166 and the die crack on the reverse gives it away.

Our next candidate is a 1801 S-254:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1801-Draped-Bust-Large-Cent-AG_W0QQitemZ180326050468

As with the first one, there is no such thing as a 1801 S-254 and that's because this one is a 1803 S-254.

Now, our next candidate is a counterfeit 1806:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1806-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-POORLY-CLEANED-SK2_W0QQitemZ130286428416

There is so much wrong with this one, that only someone that doesn't know them would buy it for more than $5. The clincher is the font of LIBERTY and the dimples on the base of the letters. dd:

Now, we have a 1799 S-166:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1799-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-KEY-DATE-BOLD-CLEAR-DATE_W0QQitemZ250366888589

You should recognize that reverse from the first one on this list and once it was explained to the seller, they ended the listing.

And for the last one for now, we have a 1799 unknown variety:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1799-Draped-Bust-Large-Cent-Very-RARE_W0QQitemZ270334272123

I'm not sure which 1798 that one is, but it isn't a 1799 because the E in LIBERTY is dead center to the hair (above the dip) and the numerator in the fraction (the top 1) is way too high.

Anyways, as is clearly evident, you really need to know what you are buying on Ebay because quite often, the sellers don't even know. :goofer:

Ribbit

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for looking out for us! :hug:

 

Toad I don't know much about these early coppers , should any be reported .
rzage

 

Nice werk Toad! :thumb: It's nice to have someone on the forum looking out for what we buy, telling us all the misleading auctions, and which ones are scams

 

P.S. On the 1799, are you saying it could be fake? If so, that buyer is probably really pee'd, for the amount he had paid.

But I am more than sure he/she would of studied it enough before spending that much?

 

The 1799 you are referring to, was confirmed by Tom Deck to NOT be a 1799 so it's a 1798 with an altered date. I've been monitoring the seller's feedback, waiting for feedback to be left, so I can notify the losing bidder of what they actually have. :whistle: I do that on auctions where something like this happens. Here's one like that:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=220348565738

That's a counterfeit! :kewl:

I save the auctions in my Watched list and periodically go back to see if feedback has been left and once I know who bought the coin, I then notify them of the problem. I currently have several on my list that I'm waiting on feedback so I can inform the losing bidder of what they bought. :whistle:

Ribbit

 

Here's an interesting one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1800-98-S-191-R2-Draped-Bust-Large-Cent-VG-Details_W0QQitemZ290295008399

That one is slabbed (SEGS) and attributed by the TPG (S-191), but guess what, they got it wrong! :whistle: This one is so easy to spot, since a S-191 is a 1st hairstyle and this one is a 2nd hairstyle and appears to be a S-196, which is the most common 1800 overdate. :goofer: Furthermore, the 1st hairstyle is generally worth more than the 2nd hairstyle (barring varieties) so some poor smuck is going to be conned into paying more for this when it is way overgraded, misattributed, and even I wouldn't consider adding it to my poor little beat up copper collection. :goof:

So this goes to show that not only are sellers clueless, you can't even trust TPG's and don't think it's limited to the lower end TPG's, even PCGS gets attributions wrong.

Ribbit

 

Here's another misattributed DBC:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1804-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-MAKE-OUT-SOME-NUMBERS-04_W0QQitemZ110349015246

Here's one to compare it to:

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s266c.jpg

It's very difficult to attribute but all you need to look at is the reverse and the leaf tips to the right of the fraction and their correlation to the legend (M & I of AMERICA). :kewl:

So this is a $20 coin being sold as a $2,000 coin. :whistle:

Ribbit

 

That seems odd. SEGS typically does a good job attributing these coins -- or at least I can't recall seeing a misattributed coin in an SEGS holder.

Wish there were better pics....

 

I can clearly see the second curl of the 2nd hairstyle. :kewl:

Ribbit

Ps: Here is a S-191 & S-196 to compare it to:

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s191.jpg

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s196.jpg

 

Thanks Toad, but I'm well aware of the differences between the hairstyles and the varieties you mention.

That said, I'm not willing to presume that SEGS, who had the opportunity to see the coin in-hand, is incorrect because of a bump on a corroded coin in the place of the extra curl in the hair.

Does it look like a 2nd hair style DBC. Yes.

Am I ready to presume that SEGS blew it and the seller is clueless based on a crappy photo of a corroded coin. No.

Respectfully...Mike

p.s. the spacing of BE in LIBERTY sure looks a lot more like the 196 than the 191, and the reverse fraction bar looks too long for a 196 -- like I said before, I'd really like to see better pics of the coin.

 

Here's a good one LF, a 1796 S-167:

http://cgi.ebay.com/EARLY-DATE-1796-REV-74-LARGE-CENT-IN-GOOD-CONDITION-NR_W0QQitemZ200307190597

of course, there isn't a 1796 S-167, but there is a 1798 S-167:

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s167.jpg

I think anyone can easily see all the cracks and cuds match up perfectly! Plus, anyone that collects these knows the 2nd hairstyle didn't show up until 1798! :goof:

Ribbit

 

HandsomeToad
Just so you know, on the second item you mentioned
**Our next candidate is a 1801 S-254:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1801-Draped-Bust-Large-Cent-AG_W0QQitemZ180326050468

As with the first one, there is no such thing as a 1801 S-254 and that's because this one is a 1803 S-254. **

The seller added the following to his/her item today....

On Feb-09-09 at 10:46:31 PST, seller added the following information:

NOTE: I have been informed by what I believe to be a reliable source, that this coin is actually an 1803. I can not tell from looking at the coin. Even though the bids currently on the coin are very low, please feel free to retract your bid if you desire, as I will strive to be completely honest and forthcoming about any information I have concerning any coins I place up for bids. Thanks and I apologize for any inconvenience.


Thanks Dave

PS, I am NOT seller.

 

Bravo guys, and good detective work Toad!

 

I'm not actually looking for these. :goofer: I'm looking for additions to my DBC collection so I attribute all of them, looking for ones I'm missing and in the process, I find these. This week has had more "problem" coins than normal and that's why I decided to make a thread on the subject, since I had such a vast array of problems to use to show the problems a buyer faces when buying on Ebay and it further proves you must know what you are doing because many Ebay sellers don't have a clue what they're doing and it's easy to get "taken" by accident. :whistle:

So I rarely go by what the seller says, I go by what my eyes see and my attribution, that way if anything goes wrong I can blame myself and not the seller.

Ribbit

 

This is interesting:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160315257236

The seller says they think it's a S-272, which is very rare (1807/6 small 7) but the 1 isn't close enough to the hair curl to be a S-272 and not far enough away to be a S-273, so that leaves S-271 (comet variety). The corrosion makes it appear to be a 1807/6 but it clearly isn't and the seller will not correct their listing. :whistle:

Here are S-271 to S-273 for comparison:

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s271.jpg

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s272.jpg

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s273.jpg

What this seller has done is use the "Power of Suggestion" method to get peeps to bid more for this than it's worth and it's a common technique used on Ebay, so don't fall for it, always attribute these yourself.

Ribbit

 

Heck yeah.

Always the way to roll, and especially with attribution of raw large cents on E-Bay.

 

I'm kind of shockedthat SEGS got the attribution wrong on that one. They are usually right on on their varieties. PCGS and NGC on the other hand are frequently wrong. Enough so that you should NEVER trust an attribution in a PCGS or NGC slab. You would be amazed at the number of 1794 heads of 94 large cents there are out there in PCGS Head of 93 slabs. (And that is a multi hundred to thousands of dollars mistake for the buyer even in low grade.)

 

Here's a real good one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-KEY-DATE-1798-8-7-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-FINE-LQQK_W0QQitemZ270344854911

Redbook lists a 1798/7 at about 50% more than other 1798's, other than ones with a 1796 reverse and not taking into consideration the rarer varieties, so a person is more apt to want something to be the "better one" as is the case here, because considering all three 1798/7 varieties (S-150 thru S-152) are a 1st hairstyle and this one is a 2nd hairstyle, it doesn't take much to figure out this is NOT a 1798/7 variety. :goofer: I think it may be a S-166, since everything matches up and I can make out pieces of the major die crack of a S-166, thru the crud coating the surface. :kewl:

I've messaged the seller, as always, so watch to see what they do?

Ribbit

 

Here's one that incorporates various common sales tactics:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Lot-of-6-Large-Cents-1802-1804-Chocolate_W0QQitemZ320340519501

First problem, they say they are Good to Very Good in condition, but then, if you read the description, they say some are not readable. The date must be readable for it to be considered Good (with certain exceptions), so they have easily overgraded them, which is very common on Ebay.

Second problem, the dates. This seller lists these as 1802-1804 but then they say some are not readable and considering the DBC's start at 1796 and end at 1807, why did they choose those dates? Answer - an 1804 is worth a couple thousand in Good condition! The problem is, there isn't an 1804 in the group and considering the dates aren't readable, the chances are good there's more than the three possible dates in the group. So the reasoning behind using the 1802-1804 dates in the description/title is obvious.

I see many unreadable date DBC's with either 1799 or 1804 questioned as being the possible date, which is nothing more than using the Power of Suggestion to get the Bidiots to bid it up and it's amazing how often that tactic works! :goofer:

Ribbit

Ps: The term "Bidiot" was coined by a member of the CFE Group, to describe the peeps that bid on obvious fakes or fraudulent auctions and it has been determined that a group of Bidiots, 3 or more bidiots bidding on the same item, constitutes a Barnum of bidiots.