Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Marshall, post: 4180921, member: 21705&quot;]Clarity of the basis makes this work. The basis was 1 rather than 100.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now I do think there is a significant difference between the percentage of known fakes and the number of actual fakes. But the magnitude of that difference needs to be determined or estimated with some sort of sampling.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t know a practical way of determining an appropriate random sample source. But the coins and holders would have to be examined carefully by experts for it to work. </p><p><br /></p><p>Dealers who determine a coin is a fake will likely eliminate it from their inventory unless they have an interest in them. So their stock would be skewed toward fewer fakes. </p><p><br /></p><p>Dealers who work on volume and trust the slab are more likely to never know they&#039;ve been part of the spread of fakes. But their inventory should have a higher percentage of fakes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Likewise, collectors will have inventories skewed toward one or the other based on their expertise. I would be very surprised if I didn&#039;t have several unknown fakes in my collection, even though I have identified many obvious fakes and other suspicious ones. </p><p><br /></p><p>Since I try not to collect slabs, my collection contains less than 10% slabbed coins which makes me less familiar with what a Fake slab looks like. But I can say with certainty that misattribution of slabbed coins approaches 10%.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Interestingly, it&#039;s not the detailed attribution, but the generic grouping that is more often wrong. ie Head of 93 that isn&#039;t. Reverse of 96 that isn&#039;t. Even the denomination is sometimes wrong like a Half Cent labeled Large Cent and visa versa.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in