As I noted it appears the 2010 Baldwin and 2014 Stacks example is the same; don't have the Baldwin cert number but the images appear to match including the holder prongs/ locations and the same certed grade. Stacks did note the 2014 offering "originated in China"...
What gives you the impression that any of them are the genuine article? The parts circled seemed to me like possible pmd from the original. I'm guessing the forger managed to produce a working die and made a few dozen or two and has been dropping them a little at a time whenever they needed money so as to not get caught... So why would a forger let go of the genuine article if his copies manage to even get certified? I couldn't imagine he'd let go of it until all his copies are gone and he can't or doesn't have the means to attempt creating another working die. So the oldest samples wouldn't necessarily mean they're genuine, but the rather just the first of the copies wouldn't it? Might explain why they look like they're in better shape too. The copies in lesser state are probably aged longer in whatever processes the forger uses to generate petina or accelerated ageing. I imagine that even accelerated aging can take a good amount of time if it's to be convincing.
Hope I understand the question- the counterfeiters were documented to have sold the genuine source example at the same time in the same venue (different seller names) as struck clones. I actually own what appears to be the repaired source example for struck fake 1854 Huge O quarters in a PCGS slab. There was no reason to hold onto it after the counterfeit dies were made. In the case of the Hawaiian cent I would propose the 2013 Stacks example as the source from the appearance and definition of the marks but agree without seeing it in hand it could be a counterfeit as well as the rest.
Just an interesting note, my contact at Stack's acknowledged that suspected counterfeit 1795 and 1798 large cents were also sent with the Hawaiian by the same consignor...
Is NGC aware that the MS64 is counterfeit? I hope they are able to flag it and perhaps work with the auction house in contacting the buyer!!
I believe the MS-64 to be the genuine source example; interesting it came from the same consignor with his two fakes...
@Jack D. Young Oh wow thats interesting! So I guess they wanted to make sure they could replicate this coin well before selling it!
That's what I'd do. In fact I wouldn't let go of the genuine article if I didn't have to. When push come to shove and all those other coins are invalidated in mass, it will just bring up the value of the genuine sample and that's when I'd look to sell it. Can't get a more opportune time than that to have multiple collectors trying to fill that gap again. ... Although it looks like the forger altered the year so maybe selling the original was just a way to capitalize as much as possible on one go?
Nice guess. The farther away from the big collection centers - the more fakes around. Note: TPGS don't use post strike repeating marks to verify that a coin is genuine.
There is at least one TPG who uses copies of my articles and my mark attribution sheets when reviewing examples from the list...
Thanks Jack, I should have been more clear to the member I responded to: Repeating marks are used to identify counterfeits. The marks on a coin being authenticated do not indicate that it is genuine. However, they can indicate it is a fake if they match known fakes.
Article on Coin Week today: https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/book-em-danno-a-counterfeit-1847-hawaiian-large-cent/
Enjoyed both the 'thread' and the 'article', Jack. It's guys like you who keep us safe out there in the jungle............
When a TPGS sends a coin out, there are thousands of eyes that check the opinion. It's collectors like Jack and his group that keep the TPGS in line.