Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jack D. Young, post: 18590146, member: 93371&quot;]Sorry, QUARTERS!!!</p><p><br /></p><p>From the same group of counterfeiters my Group and I have been following since late 2015 and a cert series of 20 different TPG submitted examples; as a member of Early American Coppers (EAC) I focused on the early copper 1st…</p><p><br /></p><p>Ironically, I wrote a Coin Week article on a “Family” of recent counterfeits based on the 1818 B-10 half. The counterfeits were made from dies based on a genuine 1818 example with various different dates and were what I considered midlevel&nbsp; deceptive counterfeits- only the 1818 dated examples were deceptive but experienced collectors could identify them as fakes readily and none have been reported certified in genuine TPG holders.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537763[/ATTACH]</p><p>Midlevel fake on left</p><p><br /></p><p>The focus of this research is one I considered the really deceptive ones and examples HAVE been identified in TPG holders as genuine; they were coined from dies made from a genuine source coin, and like the others we have documented carry all of the marks and hits of the source. And as many of these the source example appears to have been damaged and repaired/ tooled prior to the dies many made.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I ALWAYS state, my 1st step in working to authenticate a suspect example is to ATTRIBUTE” it, and had that been done by the TPGs they may have noticed something was wrong other than a possible “cleaning”!</p><p><br /></p><p>My 1st review example again came from my files and a known group of “suspect” examples from the bad submitters:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537764[/ATTACH] TPG Submitted Example; cert now reads “Not Genuine” (Courtesy NGC)</p><p><br /></p><p>And comparison to the closest variety match of 1818 HD, the B-10:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537765[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537766[/ATTACH]</p><p>Genuine 1818 B-10 on the right courtesy PCGS CoinFacts</p><p><br /></p><p>One key pf the B-10 is the die scrath at the 2nd star, but it is missing from the suspect example:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537767[/ATTACH]</p><p>In fact, it looks like the star and dentils were worked on as well as the face:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537768[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I suspect the source example was damaged and in need of repairs but have not found images of it as of yet.</p><p><br /></p><p>Digressing just a bit, image comp for my nickname for these:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537769[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Makes you wonder how these were missed!</p><p><br /></p><p>As the research hit stride, I found other examples in various archives I always search including this TPG certified example sold by a major auction house back in 2016:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537770[/ATTACH]</p><p>Comparison to the 1st example shows many common marks:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537771[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1537772[/ATTACH]</p><p>A scratch from the rim through the 2 are the most prominent matching marks on the reverse. These two match so closely they may well be the same example; I am looking at the time frame between them to try to help determine that!</p><p><br /></p><p>Continued searching found 3 other examples for comparison, another TPG certified (cert now states “Contact Customer Service”) and 2 raw ones listed by known bad internet sellers at the time.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have been limited to the # of images and will continue in responses![/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