Please tell me I did good

http://www.oicoins.com/index_files/Page629.htm

Here you will be able to clearly see the difference between a fake 1914-D and a genuine one. I dont believe rlm's coin was never altered from a 1944-d or any other date.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree. rlm should take the coin to the dealer's and have them authinticate them. The MM position should hold no bearing as to being fake or not.


Rhubarb

 

Number alignment may be in some eye's a factor on whether or not to buy a coin or in other's to buy one. I'm not agreeing that it's fake or not fake but it still is a great looking coin.

 

GDJMSP, perhaps it is just damage or nicks? There appears to be " damage " on the 1st 1 and the9 also

 

I disagree with the altered date theory. The difference in size of the two 1's appears to be an optical illusion. I have taken the picture from the first post and inverted the colors (basically making the picture look like a negative) to show the details more clearly, and I have also isolated the two 1's and placed them side by side, as well as the entire date. Notice how similar in size the 1's look when placed side by side. Food for thought.

 

The damage from the 1st (1) thru the (9) and 2nd (1) are all in line. The mm is the correct shape. This is a genuine coin as far as I can tell. I would have bid on it also.

 

My Dad always said "if it seems too good to be true, it usually is" and I can't tell one way or the other from just the pics of the coin. I think a first-hand inspection is in order.

I would like to give you this tidbit tho from the "PCGS Official Guide to Grading and Counterfeit Detection". They list these diagnostics to a genuine 1914-D Lincoln Cent:

The mintmark is decidedly angular. It's top and bottom are straight - and where it begins it's outer right curve, the "D" appears to turn a corner, rather than being rounded. The inside of the "D" is also made up of angles. The interior is almost a triangle, rather than being rounded throughout. Common alterations fail to reproduce the stylized mintmark correctly.

They also show a picture showing a die crack connecting the bust to the rim on the genuine obverse.

If it's real, God Bless! I am elated that you got it! One for the good guys!

Honestly...I think the mm looks out of place, but then again I have to admit no real wealth of knowledge to draw upon for this coin, only the PCGS book. In the scans I also think that I see a VDB on the bust, the surest sign of an altered date. But like I said before, I can't tell from the scans.

hope that helps

 

The Process of making a die is you start with a Galvano......follow this link to information.http://www.coinresource.com/articles/doubled_dies.htm

Then and only then are the Mint Marks put on the working dies by a engraver. He then sent them to either Denver or San Francisco or Philidelphia. He hand punched the letter's. There never in the same place. Hope this helps.

Rhubarb

 

Hmmm....interesting thread. It would be interesting to see this coin in person. I don't think you can use mintmark placement as a way to authenticate 1914-D Cents. The mintmarks were punched in several locations. The mintmark shape must be used.

The small die crack on the obverse that was mentioned is also not a sure indicator. If it is there, the the coin is most likely genuine, but the lack of a crack does not automatically mean that the coin is counterfeit.

As far as this coin, something is bothering me about it, but I'm not sure what it is yet.

 

How about the price?

 

I blew up my coin and an authentic coin (Heritage) and compared the pictures. Printing them out gave me a better image – one image per full page. The following are my conclusions. Bear in mind that these are not the best pictures and I am doing a lot of interpolation.

1. The date definitely has the proper spacing.
2. The mint mark is positioned exactly where the authentic is.
3. The marks one both “1”’s and both side of the “9“ line up, but are not all the same height.
4. The bottom of these marks do NOT appear to quite line up with the crossbar in the “4” – slightly high. The top definitely does not.
5. I believe the both “1”’s are the same height, but it is difficult to tell due to the shadows. If anything, the second “1” is taller than the first.
6. The top of the “D” is rounded both inside and outside. I cannot tell for sure about the bottom.
7. The lines on my date and MM are narrower than the authentic. I assume that this is meaningless due to dye wear and other reasons.

 

Sounds fine.

 

ICG will do the 14-D free if submitted with another.

 

If it has not been cleaned, I will go with NGC else ANACS. I hope it NGC not just because I don't want it cleaned, but I am building a registry set there.

 

with all the opinions of authenticity aside, if it is genuine, I don't think there's a person here who shouldn't be a bit jealous. It's a nice key date coin!!!!

 

I wouldn't worry about the price. Your main concern is: Sending the coin in to have it graded: The Price to grade it: And hope it comes back OK. You do have a nice looking coin but as stated in previous post's about it's authenticity would be my main concern. Good luck in what you decide to do.


Rhubarb

 

I ought to change the title of this thread to "how pictures can be deceiving". Anyone want to take another guess at the grade with my pictures?

Now my question is should I return it (i am leaning to that) or did I still do OK?