Liberty Head $20 - worth grading ??

Now I'm sure it NEEDS to be send to PCGS - just to proof its originality.

To be honest it is possible to buy more almost mint 1850-1910 gold US coins in Europe, as they were shipped to Europe to make some countries bank reserves. After war many mint coins left banks as the gold reserves were no longer needed. Because the World War just ended people who were lucky enough to get/buy these coins kept them for ever, because they learned that during the war only gold was good to keep you alive.

I can't do any test on it - it's locked safe and I have no access to it now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I thought of a 63 or more.

 

Really looks fake now , and the copper spot I thought I'd seen looks like a regular spot , glad I don't collect gold yet .
rzage

 

Unless the Mint used different punches for stamping the mint mark onto the dies, the OP coin is a fake! :hammer: See the attached photos to understand what I'm talking about.

Ribbit

 

Surfaces are weird. Unless they made a matte proof.

 

Ps: Also look at the Y in TWENTY and the gap between the top serifs. There is almost no space on the OP coin and a nice amount of space on the authentic example. If you will look closely at the legends, you will find more deformaties in the letters that further point to the OP coin not being authentic.

 

Here some better pictures. Really hard to say if it fake, and comparing to this really "tired" coin is useless.

http://www.ngccoin.com/CoinDetail.aspx?ContentID=50&selectedLink=imagegallery

and here the mint mark just as mine - this is frustrating

http://www.collectors-society.com/registry/coins/CoinDetail.aspx?PeopleCoinID=133885

 

The mint mark on that one is identical to the authentic example, not the one you posted (IMO).

Find one with bigger and better pics to use as an example, like these:

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=29014&Lot_No=24729

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1122&Lot_No=3072

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=434&Lot_No=4163

Ribbit

 

Strange! The obverse and reverse look like completely different coins. Like Leadfoot said - it could be the lighting. Better photos would help. Best would be obverse and reverse photos under identical lighting conditions.

The obverse looks extremely flat. It does not look whizzed.

I don't see any tell-tale signs of the coin being counterfeit. No tool marks. Denticles look OK. Nothing obvious jumps out at me. I checked Bill Fivaz's book (United States Gold Counterfeit Detection Guide) and do not find any of the markers found on the 1898-S example in the book.

I'll withhold judgment until we get better pics.

 

The OP coin's mint mark is dead center between feather tips and all others I've looked at split the tail feathers, like the authentic example that was shown and the pics of the mint marks of the two show what I'm talking about.

This looks to me to be a newer counterfeit so it probably won't be in Bill's book but it's possible it's authentic. I'd have to see several in slabs, with identical mint marks as the OP coin, before I'll change my mind. :whistle:

Ribbit

 

The '98-S Double Eagle had a mintage of over 2.5 Million so I am sure multiple dies were used. Mintmarks were applied to the dies by hand so it is very likely that the mintmark on some genuine coins will not coincide with the location on your genuine examples.

Bill Fivaz's book is copyrighted 2005. I guess it is possible new counterfeits of this date have entered the market since the book was published.

 

The coin is definitely fake IMO. That being said, on the plus side the coin more than likely cointains somewhere between 800-900 dollars worth of gold. The metal flow, strike, color are all off on this coin. There are also some visible spikes on the reverse in the photo. The wings are too flat. The obverse stars and hair are very weak. Look at the definition of the wing under the banner to the right of the shield, and compare that to a genuine example.

 

I guess you missed the biggest part of what I said? I'll repeat it:

Unless they used DIFFERENT PUNCHES for the mint mark, it's a fake.

Look at the size of each mint mark, on the two pics I put side-by-side and you will see that the OP coin's mint mark is not only to the left of the other one, it is BIGGER. I know this has happened on Morgans, Lincolns, etc..., but I've not heard of it on the 1898-S Double Eagle.

I would imagine someone here would have already pointed out that the San Francisco Mint used 2 different sized punches for the mint mark in 1898 but I haven't seen anyone step forward with that little tidbit and considering I looked at quite a few on Heritage and couldn't find a 1898-S Large Mint Mark Double Eagle, that only says one thing to me - it's a counterfeit.

Ribbit

 

The top loop in the 9 of the date is different too , one is oval the other more round , plus the ops date looks wider though that could be the lighting .
rzage .

 

I think it is to hard to call, until we have better pics, look at the two reverse shot that were posted they look like differnt coins and the second reverse shot by the OP looks like the same lighting used in the first obverse pic. We need better pictures, I think the lighting is also hiding some detail that should be showing on both the reverse and obverse.

 

It appears to be a counterfeit in replication of a genuine example and cleaned.

 

No $20 Libbie matte proofs at San Francisco... or Philly, for that matter. Proofs of these were brilliant.

Often cameo.

Always way too expensive.

 

When I see photos like your 1st obverse and last reverse, with totally flat luster... I usually think counterfeit or the most abusive cleaning ever.

In this case I suspect it's the photo itself, since the 1st reverse shot isn't too bad luster-wise.

Does the coin have any luster (a la 1st reverse shot) or it really dead like the other photos ?

 

I will post some more high quality photos next week.