Misattributions and "Bay" sellers- not a 1943 FS-101 DDO.

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Jack D. Young, Jan 15, 2021.

  1. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    Recent listing called by a friend to my attention; seller listing a TPG "attributed" MS-67 1943 FS-101 Lincoln Cent with a starting bid of $1995.00!

    listing.jpg
    Images provided by the seller include the slabs; the on-line cert unfortunately has no images but does show the attribution.

    slab.jpg

    NGC-cert.jpg

    I created a comparison image of my friend's example (image courtesy PCGS) on the left and the "Bay" example on the right. To my eyes they are not even close!

    combo.jpg
    Looking at the TPG's website they have an image of the attributions for this variety, so it is interesting how these things happen, but people are human...

    NGC att.jpg
    Also the census info includes links to current buys and links to this one.

    census.jpg
    census link.jpg

    One thing I was reminded of is that this TPG does NOT guarantee attributions (but they are strong in guaranteeing authentications); after discussion the cert has been updated.

    NGC-cert-updated.jpg
    I have notified the seller but have not received a response as of yet.

    Best,

    Jack
     
    CircCam and Dave Waterstraat like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. potty dollar 1878

    potty dollar 1878 Well-Known Member

    I would pass on it
     
    SensibleSal66 likes this.
  4. okbustchaser

    okbustchaser I may be old but I still appreciate a pretty bust Supporter

    ALWAYS--yes, ALWAYS--do your own attribution on varieties/die marriages rather than blindly trusting a TPG to get it right.

    Although all the TPGs seem to be getting better they still mislabel a bunch of coins.
     
    Hoky77 and Jack D. Young like this.
  5. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    I hate when this happens. I actually feel bad for the seller.
     
    Hoky77, Derrick Combs and Beefer518 like this.
  6. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    Pass on that item
     
  7. Dave Waterstraat

    Dave Waterstraat dave700x -1883 O nut

    Another mechanical error....:vomit:

    Great work as always!
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  8. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    I believe I see some doubling in the "1" and the "9" on the bay coin, or am I seeing things? So what is the attribution, if any, and what is the coin actually worth then? I'm not a LC guy, FWIW.
     
  9. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    There's a long stretch of time in which NGC had a bad reputation regarding variety attribution. Unfortunately, it's hard to unring that bell, and even if they've fixed the problem, there's a messed up legacy out there in the form of wrong attributions on their holders.

    Always verify everything on a label before buying a coin. Variety, date, grade, everything.
     
  10. Sunflower_Coins

    Sunflower_Coins Importer and Exporter

    I recently posted about an issue I had were an apparent 1884 RPD Indian Cent didn't get attributed, even though I paid for VarietyPlus. At the end of the day, NGC is made up of people, and will make mistakes. It sad that the seller might have paid the price for it. "Buy the coin, not the holder" seems to apply to varieties as well.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  11. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    Even more so. Here is one they got wrong, even to a basic grouping and you can't blame NGC for this one.
    upload_2021-1-15_13-1-18.jpeg

    It is actually a Reverse of 97 and not even a tough call. They just saw two leaves on the right and ignored the ribbon loops.
     
    Sunflower_Coins and Hoky77 like this.
  12. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    The lighting is different and it makes a huge difference in the appearance. I see two dings on the lapel which make me think it's actually the same coin. But I'm not a Lincoln specialist.
     
  13. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    Here are two photos of the same coin and they couldn't look much more different:

    1 23906.jpg
    1 1796 NC-2 XF40.jpg
     
    Sunflower_Coins likes this.
  14. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    Shapes and thicknesses of letters and numerals do not match:

    comp att.jpg
     
  15. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    I agree, but the "LIBERTY" aside, I'm pretty sure I see some doubling on the 1 and the 9. Do you see what I'm talking about?
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  16. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    It appears the two dings I was looking at are part of the design and not PMD.
     
  17. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    Yes, but nothing like the actual FS-101.
     
    Beefer518 likes this.
  18. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    Who is going to spend $2000 on a coin w/o checking the variety first...?
     
  19. potty dollar 1878

    potty dollar 1878 Well-Known Member

    Salvador 2.0
     
    micbraun likes this.
  20. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    Would you say it's Die doubling, or Machine doubling, or...?
     
    Marshall likes this.
  21. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    The photos do not look like the FS-101, But they do have the look of a Doubled die.
    With out better photos they also show a lot of die deterioration. There are 25 DDO's verified by Variety vista for the year so it is possible to have actual die doubling, which one is not verifiable.
     
    Marshall, Jack D. Young and Beefer518 like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page