Counterfeit 1909-S VDB

Johnmatt from this forum read that I teach the Coin Collecting merit badge, so he sent me a counterfeit 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent to use in teaching them. The merit badge doesn't require a lot of knowledge on detecting counterfeits, but I think it will go far in helping me make my point when I try to emphasize how the merit badge doesn't make them experts, that they should become experts in a series if they want to continue coin collecting.

This counterfeit was an added mint mark, according to the PCGS label on the body bag. I'll admit, this was a good counterfeit. I couldn't see it with the naked eye or through my 10X loupe.

So I got out my digital microscope and I can see it as plain as day. In fact, it's rather obvious through the microscope. Here's a pic:



Here's what I see right off the bat:

1- The flow lines which run through the field are not present on the mint mark, and they would be on a genuine specimen.

2- There is evidence of light tooling around the mint mark.

3- The edges-to-field transition is very sharp compared to the same transition on the date, indicating the mint mark is resting on top of the coin's surface.

4- I didn't bother consulting my detecting counterfeits book, and I don't have these mint mark positions and other criteria memorized, but I'll assume they do not match with genuine specimens.

Thanks, Johnmatt, this will come in handy!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Buy an XF/AU 1910-S or 1911-S (I think the other dates get more expensive) to show them that the "Shape" of the mint
mark is incorrect. There are other series of coins with the same shape "S" you can look for also but I think the cents are the least expensive.

 

They used the same punch 1909 - 1916 for the MM. And, FWIW, they used the same punch for ALL San Francisco coins during that time. However, the S VDB is even more special. Note the die chip.

 

The stirrups on the mint mark look a bit wrong to me

 

So, how does one add a mint mark anyway?

 

Most commonly they literally cut it off a non-valuable coin and glue it on the coin to be altered.

 

"Glue" has not been used by "professionals" for decades. In the 1970's I had the "D" mint mark come off from a "1914-D" Lincoln cent and on to my acetone soaked Q-tip! I still have the tiny "D" in my collection.

IMO, most of the added mint marks found on all coins were done long ago. Today, complete counterfeits are more prevalent for cents and dollars.

 

What process/tool would you use to cut off a mint mark?

 

Who knows, a lathe? When a counterfeit ring was busted decades ago the FBI found they were casting the mint marks. Long ago I saw a photo of a casting tree that was recovered. These days, a digital printer is all that's needed but then you can make an entire coin so why bother with a mint mark.

 

I think you're off by a decade or two. There's no cost-effective way to 3D print something with coin-scale details that will stand up to even a casual glance.

 

Long ago there was talk of folks that were good enough to go into the edge of a coin and raise a mintmark from the inside of the coin. Maybe just talk, I don't know.

If I wanted a mintmark to add to a coin, I would probably use a mill to cut away anything raised on the coin that was in the way of shaving the mintmark off in one piece. With enough practice I could probably get really good at it. With the right equipment, most anything is possible.

 

These are first and foremost, by far the most important factors in evaluating 1909-S VDB specimens. The "serifs" are completely wrong, likely visible to the naked eye. The MM on your coin doesn't even *have* serifs, much less the nicely-parallel ones of the real deal. Further, the position isn't even close to the 4 known MM positions, which ought to be memorized by anyone looking at or for this coin. The example rlm posted above is the closest to the OP coin, the only one of the 4 which is that low; the others are all even with or above a line drawn through the bottom of the 9's in the date. Also, that MM is the least-rotated of the bunch, and just seeing the rotation on the OP coin would be enough on its' own to call it counterfeit. Here's the coin image, rotated and desaturated to make the problems clearer:



No need to teach those details for this coin; just teach the broader fact that these details are known and can be learned. That's a bigger-picture concept which applies to just about every coin which can be counterfeited, and in and of itself will disqualify 99 out of 100 counterfeits immediately. The information is out there, all you have to do is go learn it.

 

I confess my ignorance! So you are saying it will take a decade or two to print extremely tiny parts such as a mint mark. Thanks for the clarification. I've heard the counterfeiters are using them already in their die making process.

 

This is not talk. The method was described and illustrated in the Numismatist magazine sometime prior to 1983.

 

Printing dies would be a different matter from printing individual coins -- if you're going to be able to strike thousands of counterfeits from the die, you can afford to spend thousands of dollars creating it. 3D printers with micron-level resolution apparently exist now, but they're far from cheap. I doubt that they're really useful to counterfeiters yet, but that's just my (pretty uninformed) opinion.

 

Judging by the newest "state-of-the-art" fake copper coins that went/still are (?) undetected by the TPGS; I expect it is worth tens of thousands of dollars to the counterfeiters. That's just my uninformed opinion.

 

It isn't so much their resolution as the materials they're able to print with - nothing which is remotely up to being a die or resembling a coin. You can "print" powdered stainless steel or titanium at a resolution of about 250 microns - debatable whether that's sufficient to duplicate die features - and the resulting piece won't have nearly the structural integrity to strike coins. You can "print" ceramic or wax with nowhere near the resolution or heat resistance necessary even to cast coins.

I'm sure some combination of materials development and heat treatment will change that in the future, but for the moment it's not a worry.

 

Yeah, there's four genuine mintmark positions. Any mintmark that is not in those four positions is counterfeit.

Another perk of collecting Seated coins - the low risk of counterfeits. The few that do exist, such as 1858-O altered to 1853-O no arrows, are easily detectable. (But then again, most added MM 09-S VDBs are easily detectable as well.)

 

When I went to check my assertion, I came across this:

https://3dprint.com/122337/nanoscribe-microscale-printing/

Resolution on the order of ONE micron. Not printing metal or anything structural, but the resolution is there.

I see claims of 33 microns for sintered titanium, but I assume its strength isn't there yet, and I'm pretty sure 33 microns wouldn't be adequate to make a convincing coin. It would be hard to avoid visible artifacts from stairsteps on smoothly and gently curved regions.

And, of course, IBM was pushing individual atoms around a decade or or so ago -- but there's a big gap between that and making things large enough to see.

 

Honestly, I'm more worried about the "old-fashioned" ways of counterfeiting. Optical measuring & design technology capable of scanning a given coin accurately, and microengraving tech capable of engraving a prefect duplicate of the coin onto a die, are both mature and in use today. There's nothing technological stopping the creation of a "perfect" counterfeit save the substantial cost.

Heck, I bet Dan Carr could do it right now with the equipment he has in-house..