1914D Lincoln

Scored this on ebay. I'm not sure of the grade.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Do you guarantee of its authenticity?

 

I'm nervous about that reverse rim.

I'm extremely nervous about the E in E PLURIBUS.

That said, I'm not a Lincoln guy, and about the only thing I know to look for on a 1914-D is the telltale spacing of an altered 1944-D, so definitely wait for more input.

 

I am also a bit concerned about the font of the D mint mark. My understanding is the D will have more of a “boxed” appearance and be angler inside the “D”. Also it is my understanding that near the third fold of Lincoln’s shirt where it meets his over coat, there should be a die crack connecting it to the rim. If I am wrong please correct me.

 

It looks legit to me, but what do I know.

 

It looks fine to me but I'm looking at a photo. It is highly counterfeited. XF if real.

 

Agree with the earlier posts. D doesn't look right and the weak rims and E Pluribus make me suspicious

 

How much did you pay? Was it slabbed/ certified?
Personally I am not buying one of the most counterfeited coins raw over the internet. Especially in this condition, it would have to be slabbed. It could be a case of:
Too good to be true.

 

To say I was skeptical would be an understatement, especially considering the price it was listed at buy it now. The coin was raw, the listing photo made it looked cleaned. Here are 6 known die varieties showing the D.
The D on a 1914D Lincoln is the same on a 1916D Mercury Dime BTW.
The reasons I believe it to be genuine are:
1) The coin in hand has surfaces of a genuine coin. The traces of mint luster are hard to duplicate.
2) I bought the book it came from, the coins are genuine. The 19d 22d 25d are gem red, all the Denver mint coins from 11 to 27 are AU/Unc except the 20 and 24
3) I have been conversing with the seller. He knows nothing about coins, but I am helping him learn so he doesn't make the same mistake again. He has shown me pics of some of the other sets he inherited.
4) I took the 14D to a show and all 6 dealers I showed it to believed it to be genuine.
5) My dealer and his brother, who weren't at the show, is a PCGS authorized dealer. He thinks it could catch a 63. The fields are untouched, it looks like it has some rub marks from the Whitman sliders and a touch of surface contamination.

I thought it to be a 58 but trust my dealer's opinion more than my own.
It is going to be sent in to PCGS along with over a dozen others from the book. I will be sure to post the slabbed coin. Who knows how long that will be, PCGS is not known for their promptness especially with a trueview.
Thanks for your input.
Ed

 

In Post #1, what is going on with the double rim from 4 to 8 o'clock?
On the reverse, what is going on with the E in E pluribus unum? The PL and M are mushy as well.
Why is there a bright circular area around the mint mark, which is brighter than the rest of the surface of the coin?

 

I would have passed at a fair price, looks like they tried to make the inside of the 'D' correct, but it looks lopsided to me when magnified by clicking on it. GL, Jim

 

I guess that could be trailing from a worn die. It's enough of a danger sign to me, though, that I would've passed, at least if I didn't have the back story.

Of course, I probably do pass on an awful lot of good stuff.

Looking forward to your results!

 

Is that one of RLM's location comparisons? Either way he was a good man who contributed much to this forum.

That said, and while this has nothing directly to do with the coin in question, I believe there was some debate as to the validity of the six obverse die claims. Perhaps @Insider could clarify?

 

I have a Bill Fivaz's book Counterfeit Detection Guide. On page 8-9. States 1. The date must be evenly spaced and no gap between the 9 & the 2nd "1". 2. No evidence of polishing/tooling around the date or mint mark. 3. MM should appear to have the same wear as date, and other surfaces. A MM with a higher value should arouse suspicion. 4. No "V.D.B."@ base of shoulder, but later the V.D.B. was added to the OBV. after 1918. The other thing I notice was the rims were very strong, but they had some "Matte Proofs". Good luck. Let us know what you find out.

 

My best guess is that it matches this die pair. PCGS#83069363
You can see the raised part of the die around the D from where they polished around the MM, On the reverse, you can see the same clash mark from the N in cent up to the E in one.
the A in states and RI in America show the same die deterioration. The e plur and right wheat stalk are not as mushed on this one. I believe this would be an earlier die state, before the reverse die had another polish. (PCGS trueview has many examples of both rim issues and well worn reverse legends. http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/2471)

 

I've just started reading this thread...my politically incorrect comments follow

jeffB, posted "I'm nervous about that reverse rim. I'm extremely nervous about the E in E PLURIBUS. That said, I'm not a Lincoln guy, and about the only thing I know to look for on a 1914-D is the telltale spacing of an altered 1944-D, so definitely wait for more input."

What exactly are you nervous about? What does that even mean? Does your "gut reaction" to a series you claim not to know about tell you it is not genuine?

Lawtoad, posted: "I am also a bit concerned about the font of the D mint mark. My understanding is the D will have more of a “boxed” appearance and be angler inside the “D”. [The "D" is the correct shape] Also it is my understanding that near the third fold of Lincoln’s shirt where it meets his over coat, there should be a die crack connecting it to the rim."

Since the die break you mention is NOT ON ALL the dies, it is not a reliable diagnostic.

 

Michael K, posted: "Post #1, what is going on with the double rim from 4 to 8 o'clock?"

It happens.

"On the reverse, what is going on with the E in E pluribus unum? The PL and M are mushy as well."

Normal

"Why is there a bright circular area around the mint mark, which is brighter than the rest of the surface of the coin?"

We call it luster.

There were some extremely deceptive struck counterfeits around in the past. No telling how much better counterfeit could be made today, decades later. The image of the coin looks OK.

PS I've never heard of six die pairs. I'll need to read up.

 

I know that details spreading toward the rim like that can be a sign of die wear, but I also see them disproportionately often on fakes, so they make me nervous.

The photo makes it look like there's little or no raised rim at all on the reverse toward the bottom and right. Unusual and uneven rims make me nervous as well, see above. (In this case, it may just be an artifact of the lighting.)

I stated that I'm not a Lincoln guy to remind everybody that just because I'm nervous doesn't mean they should be, necessarily.

So, yeah, this guy who doesn't know much about the series saw some things that he (mis)interpreted as bad signs, spoke up, then kept watching so he'd know more next time. Sorry if he got on your nerves.

 

jeffB, posted: "I know that details spreading toward the rim like that can be a sign of die wear, but I also see them disproportionately often on fakes."

I do not recall seeing this characteristic on counterfeits. Any examples?

 

When you are talking about a highly counterfeited coin, luster
is WAY too much of a coincidence around the mint mark area and no where else.
The mushy lettering is not normal when it doesn't appear anywhere else on an AU coin.
And, as for the coin matching a particular die pair, what if the host counterfeit coin was from that same die pair?