Same coin, $17,000 difference in holders

The one piece of advice I can give is, you had better be good at counterfeit detection if go the all raw coin route. Sure, counterfeits have made it into slabs, but at least you have some guarantees and recourse. If you buy a counterfeit, the only person you can go to is the dealer from whom you bought it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Good advice. I'll be careful and if in question, will post here for opinions. Right now I'm buying quite low priced coins to get my feet wet - coins that it would seem no one would bother counterfeiting. Thanks.

 

Reproductions are different entirely from counterfeit I would say.
I can buy slabs and break them out to solve the issue you are bringing up. But the premium for slabs is ridiculous for low priced coins.

 

I'm afraid you've lost me there.

It's a fake coin. It's a fake of a ridiculously common date, where you could easily buy a real example for less than the fake costs. (Okay, the "1957-S" would be hard to find problem-free.)

I completely agree that the slab tax is silly for low-end coins, and probably a lot of mid-range coins. I just wanted to point out that there apparently isn't a lower limit on the value of coins that people will fake.

 

According to the Chinese replica = reproduction = copy = counterfeit. They are all interchangeable. Non-deceptive copies are either grossly the wrong size, entirely fantasy issues, or have COPY stamped into them. Everything else is meant to deceive, such as the 1957 cents above.

Here is my COUNTERFEIT 1958 wheat cent:



And while we’re at it, how about a few more COUNTERFEITS of <$50 coins:

 

Reproductions are advertised as such. I see them all the time. They aren't pawning them off as real. Counterfeits are pawned off as real.

 

It's a scam that is welcomed by slab collectors hoping that when they send it for re-grading they are awarded with a better grade so that means more money and status.
Even Mrs Krabappel couldn't be bribed by Bart Simpson so there is still some integrity "in the real world".

 

This is wrong and dangerous thinking.

The 1957 cent “reproductions” do not have COPY stamped in them. What if someone buys them and tries selling them as real? That does not magically make them counterfeits. They started out as counterfeits despite being sold as “reproductions”. Counterfeits are defined as being a faithful representation of a genuine object without any intentional and obvious markers to indicate inauthenticity. These “reproductions” fit that description.

The Chinese use the euphemism “reproduction” to make it more marketable than if it was called a “counterfeit.”

The wholesale selling of these counterfeits, even when accurately described as such by the Chinese, is NOT okay because they can too easily be bought by individuals with nefarious intentions. I see them in dealers’ cases in every single coin show I visit because the dealers are not keeping up with the newest generations of counterfeits. I see over a dozen on eBay being sold as genuine EVERY SINGLE DAY, and I only look at a couple thousand of the tens of thousands of new listings every day. I’d bet good money that these COUNTERFEITS are costing collectors MILLIONS of dollars collectively every single year.

 

I agreed with this post because of the last sentence.

I strongly disagree with the first sentence. If it has not been stamped with the word “COPY” or something similar, it can be sold as genuine somewhere down the line.

This is the problem I have with the Dan Carr fantasy coins. Sure we know that a 1975 quarter (an example) does not exist, but that’s not true with the general public. The danger exists that someone will pay a high price for “a new, recent discovery.”

 

Even when the word “COPY” is stamped on a “reproduction,” the possibility of fraud still exists. There have been instances where Gallery Mint copies of an early large cent have had the “COPY” filled in, run it through a rock tumbler to wear them down and then get into numismatic circulation as “a new variety.” It’s happened at least a couple of times.

 

@TypeCoin971793, I find that “1847 large cent” scary. The others, not so much.

 

1793 Chain Cent





1796 Half Dollar

 

Some people might think that there are four Chain Cent die varieties. There are actually five. The only decent example of the fifth one is in the American Numismatic Society collection. There are one or two very worn ones, similar to the piece @TypeCoin971793 posted.

The photos of this fifth variety are not easy to locate. Someone who saw the artificically worn piece above might think they found another one.

 

No they would think they have a S-1. placement of LIBERTY is wrong for NC-1. There are several of theo altered and worn Gallery Mint S-1 copies out there. I have one on loan from a dealer who has over $2k sunk in it.

 

If you campare the outline of the head on the "1793 Chain Cent" with the real thing, it does not match.

 

There are three distinctly different heads on Chain cents. They were all individually hand-engraved, and they do not match each other, so there is no one "real thing."

 

I own a coin that has this market grading anomaly...... It was sold by Heritage February of 2019 in an XF-Details holder. I purchased the coin June of 2019 in an AU-details holder. The winner of the Heritage auction had hoped the minor scratches that relegated the piece to a details holder would be overlooked. It wasn’t and I scored the coin for a song. But it did go from XF to AU prior to my purchase.

 

This "manufactured Gallery Mint counterfeit" was made from a Gallery Mint Chain AMERI. piece which is why I posted the AMERI. oberse here. My only Chain Cent is an S-4, and it is different.