Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 3936660, member: 24314&quot;]The counterfeits have improved exponentially.&nbsp; In the 1970&#039;s a majority of fakes were <b><span style="color: #b30000">very high-grade </span></b><span style="color: #000000">looking pieces that were not very deceptive for a knowledgeable authenticator to detect. Their surfaces were unusual and easily examined.&nbsp; &quot;Too-good-to-be-true&quot; was a common giveaway!&nbsp; Virtually the only coins seen with &quot;problems&quot; were the &quot;key&quot; date coins in each series.&nbsp; Up to the mid-1990&#039;s, US coin authentication was almost a breeze at the TPGS&#039;s.&nbsp; An authentication error was very uncommon.&nbsp; </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Unfortunately, two major problems have occurred since then:</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">1.&nbsp; The counterfeits became so good that any authenticator who relied on a hand lens alone could be &quot;duped&quot; at first.&nbsp; </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">2.&nbsp; As soon as problem coins became eligible for slabbing, corroded, buffed, or otherwise altered surfaces helped hide the unusual surfaces found on most counterfeits.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </span>[/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