Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Insider, post: 8149805, member: 24314"]KBBPLL, posted: So the "more later" is either in issue 17 and it wasn't archived, or perhaps the numbering accidentally skipped 17 and it was never published. The issues aren't specifically dated. I think Issue #17 must have had something EXTREMELY TOO HOT TO HANDLE that had to do with "giving dealers a bone."  I've downloaded all the issues they had on file and will go through them to see what the rest of the Omega story could be.  BIG THANKS to those who found the newsletters.  It's an interesting story. I'm curious about some details related to this discussion. In Issue 13 there were two fakes that you looked at, at ANACS. You mention that as many as 50 [I was totally unaware of these coins at the convention.  Later, after being hired at the Certification Service  and detecting the fakes, I heard rumors that many were being offered/bought there] were circulating among dealers in 1971 at the ANA convention. You happened to have two coins to examine in 1973, one real and one fake, which led to the "Omega" discovery. "A week or two later" you received a second fake, which allowed you to compare them and discover the "lint mark" which was then dubbed as Omega. As best I can remember (the newsletters were published when my memory was fresh) We had a genuine $20 that was sent out.  The fake remained at the office because it looked funny.  In hindsight, it was its color and luster.  The fake had a deep gold color with light purple toning and a satin sheen. Two important things to take away... 1.  A lint mark is a very minor strike thru error, strike thru's can occur on several coins in the run.  So just because there was an identical lint mark on two coins was proof of nothing.  Remember, It was ONLY when I cranked the power of the scope up that I saw what I named "wormy tool marks."  This sealed the deal with Hoskins and he took both coins to let Treasury authenticators (who had trained him when the Authentication Service was started in DC) see them.   BTW, when the ANA moved their service to CO, there became two branches of authenticators. Those trained by the Treasury Dept. Bureau of the Mint authenticators - Hoskins on down <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie85" alt=":smuggrin:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />; and the others trained by "old cracked eye" who couldn't authenticate himself out of a paper bag <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />and anyone else around at the time.  That was the start of their learning curve.  All I will say is it took years before the ANA finally assembled an excellent, top-notch group of professional authenticators in the 80's before Montgomery was hired away by PCGS.  Fortunately, a solid group of experts remained in CO.   2. the "look" of the fake caused my "gut" to tell me something was unusual about the coin.  Neither a C/F nor a genuine coin.  In class I tell the story about a dealer who was shown a handful of HR coins from the widow of a high placed deceased Mint official.  He could pick only one to buy.  When he came to our office with the one he chose he told us it was the one unusual coin so he knew either it was very special or completely fake.  It was very special.  I was holding the first "gem" Extremely High Relief $20 I had ever seen and at that moment I did not know if it was genuine or some sort of gold fantasy piece!  <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie57" alt=":jawdrop:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />  Remember, I was a <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie30" alt=":bucktooth:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> "rookie." Then in Issue 14 you say that you received "a few angry calls from dealers for causing lost sales." So it causes me to wonder if these angry dealers had submitted additional examples that were rejected, or if they were merely upset that they had some and their customers were skittish. The calls were from the two owners who had their $20 HR sent back as counterfeits. Would you now stick with the estimate that there were suddenly as many as 50 bouncing around ANA in 1971? [NO, answered above] Would you think that there are some authenticated between 1971 and 1973 still sitting in holders? [Absolutely NOT - we were the ONLY game in town until 1975 when the 2nd Authentication Bureau was established] How many dealers had them at 1971 ANA and how many does "a few" angry ones in 1973 mean? [Who knows?] I'm trying to get a feel for whether these +/- 50 coins were concentrated among only 2-3 dealers and therefore whether they had a close connection with the source. It seems like they had two years to be putting these into the hands of collectors before word got out." Good question and good luck.  Most involved are DEAD! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie40" alt=":dead:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches