Misattributed/Counterfeit DBC's on Ebay

Here's a good one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1807-GOOD-DRAPED-BUST-ONE-CENT-ID-K628_W0QQitemZ220364595051QQihZ012

While it is an 1807, it isn't a DBC, it's a DBHC. :kewl: I've messaged the seller so they should be changing it . . . I hope! :goofer:

I see about 2 half cents a month, attributed as a cent, so it isn't a common mistake but it does occur now and then.

Ribbit

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's somewhat rare to find a LCC misattributed (date in this case) but here's one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=180328975581

It's a 1795 and probably a S-75 but the 1793's don't have a variety where the 3 touches the bust and the 1795's have several that do. :kewl: The price difference is 20X so if someone bids more than $75 for the pair, they will have easily overpaid and if you take a peek at the Q&A, someone has already offered the buyer $75 for the pair. :whistle:

Although it's not a DBC, because it's not often I find a LCC improperly dated, I figured I'd stick it in this thread, since they are very similar.

Ribbit

 

u should change ur name to detective toad

 

The Seller corrected the listing on this one.

Ribbit

 

Nah! I attribute most of them so I spot the problems by doing that. Last night I picked up a 1798 S-146 (R-5) cheap because I took the time to attribute it but it wasn't hard to figure out.

Ribbit

 

I may need to start a thread for misattributed LCC's since I found another one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1794-Liberty-Cap-Head-of-1794-Large-Cent-VF-XF-BEAUTY_W0QQitemZ390030581261

It isn't a head of 94, it's a head of 95. :goof: I was having trouble attributing it, so I asked Tom Deck and he noted the misattributing and then I figured out what it is. :goofer:

Ribbit

Ps: It's a S-69.

 

Well said, sir.

 

Getting back on track, here's a good one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150326917034

The seller has attributed it as a S-195 but the fraction bar is too fat/thick to be a S-195 so it's a S-194, but judge for yourself:

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s194.jpg

http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s195.jpg

This one bothers me because a S-195 is a R-5 and if it was one, it would be worth a nice bit but a S-194 is common, so the seller's misattribution can cost some poor smuck a lot of money and because of the difference in value I think the seller should amend the listing, not just put my message in the Q&A, since so many peeps don't ever make it that far down the page before bidding. I also think sellers should be more responsible and properly list their coins and if they can't attribute well, then they shouldn't attribute at all.

Ribbit

 

Going off track again, here is a misattributed colonial cent:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1786-U-S-CONNECTICUT-CENT_W0QQitemZ260365126154QQihZ016

On the Connecticuts, there are 2 Draped Bust Left varieties for 1786 and this is not one of them and it's obvious. First, the hand of Britannia should be directly across from the D in INDE and second, there shouldn't be three stars/cinquefoils above the olive branch. So this is without a doubt a 1787 and I can even see the date, so that makes it unmistakable.

Ribbit

Ps: The 2 1786 DBL Connecticuts are R-5 & R-7 so it's clear why this should be properly attributed on the date.

 

Getting back on track, here's another 1799 S-166:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1799-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-RECUT-DATE-OVER-ORGINAL1798_W0QQitemZ260365601257

The seller appears to know this but with the way they listed it, it's confusing, since they listed it as:

1799 DRAPED BUST LARGE CENT RECUT DATE OVER ORIGINAL 1798

The correct way to say it is:

1798 S-166 WITH ALTERED DATE 1799

The problem is a 1799 S-188 is a 1799/8 which means the 8 of a 1798 die was recut to make it a 9, so with the way they listed it, it sounds like they are listing it as a S-188.

It may look like I'm being a little tough on the seller but the problem is, some poor smuck will end up bidding on this thinking it's a 1799. :goofer: So I believe the seller should list it in such a way that it cannot be confused by those of little knowledge.

Ribbit

 

This is the same coin that was listed in another auction in another thread as a 99/8 where it was pulled by the seller after we pointed out to him the S-166 die crack. I don't know if this is the same seller or if he has stuck someone else with it who is now trying to sell it. If it is the same seller then he KNOWS that it's a fake.

 

By the description, further down the page, it's clear they know it's a 1798 with an altered date but with the way they wrote the title, it makes it sound too much like a 1799/8 S-188 and I asked them to correct it, since the date has not been recut, it's been engraved and there is a difference. I'll check it later to see if they've corrected it and if not, I'll report it as misleading. :whistle:

Ribbit

 

Time to resurrect this thread with 2 wing-dingers:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1799-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-XTREMELY-RARE-KEY-DATE-COIN_W0QQitemZ190290274261

http://cgi.ebay.com/1804-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-XTREMELY-RARE-KEY-DATE-COIN_W0QQitemZ190290275865

Neither of those are what they say they are and I supplied the seller with a full explanation as to why they aren't and not a peep in the Q&A and the seller hasn't amended the listings nor pulled them. :whistle:

Ribbit

Ps: Tom Deck concurs.

 

This has got to be the worst misattributed copper I've come across:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1804-Draped-Bust-One-Cent-Piece-Lot-23_W0QQitemZ260370739705QQihZ016

It isn't a 1804 DBC, it's a 1804 DBHC and probably a C-13. The current price ($429.00) proves the Bidiots are out in full force, since a C-13, in that condition, is worth $50 tops! :goofer:

Ribbit

Ps: Follow-up:

I messaged Tom Deck & Gary Hahn to ask them to also message the seller and Tom told me he had already messaged the seller several days ago so feel free to report this auction to Ebay. It's now clear to me it's a fraudulent situation so it needs to be removed before someone is fleeced.

 

GOTTA bid, Gotta BID...oops just reported it.

 

I actually saved these for you to bid on:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1799-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-XTREMELY-RARE-KEY-DATE-COIN_W0QQitemZ190290274261

http://cgi.ebay.com/1804-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-XTREMELY-RARE-KEY-DATE-COIN_W0QQitemZ190290275865

You should get quite a few miles on your credit card from buying those.

Ribbit

 

Just reported the half cent , how could you tell I could barely see it , Toad keep up the good work .
Rusty

 

After looking at several thousand DBC's, a DBHC sticks out but there were some other tells:

1. The date placement is not right.
2. An 1804 DBC has a crosslet 4, that one doesn't.
3. Last, but not least, nothing matches up!

That one was pretty much a no brainer for a DBC collector but many peeps selling DBC's aren't DBC collectors so they make mistakes. The most common mistake is getting the date wrong and sometimes, an attribution wrong, but on this one, the seller appears to be trying to swindle peeps, since Tom messaged them several days ago and told them it was a half-cent also. He referenced size, I referenced weight, so between us we killed it but it's still going strong so barring the seller being stranded on a desserted isle with no internet, I think it's intentional so that's why I asked for peeps to report it.

Thanks for reporting it! :thumb:

Ribbit

 

Ps: Here's my 1804 C-13 DBHC to use to compare against the one being sold as a 1804 DBC. :kewl: I wish I owned a 1804 DBC to also upload pics of but alas, it's going to be something I get down the line.

Ribbit

 

Nice DBHC Toad.