Is it an=Oh Yes It Is or Oh No It Ain't??

[Varietynut]

Here are Photos of two different coins that look almost the same, but are given completely different opinions by different sources. My coin is the 1951-D Lincoln cent. I sent it to Publisher's Clearing House several years ago, and they verified it as a "flipped over double strike". A couple years ago I took it to a Columbus coin show and showed it to ANACS, and they agreed, so I left it with them to slab. Two weeks later I got it back unslabbed with a note saying that it was struck with false die's. About two or three months ago I was looking through the variety section of one of the major dealer's internet auction and saw this 1945 Lincoln cent with almost the same markings as mine, and coppied this picture from their auction. I don't know what the final bid ended up being, but it was doing pretty good at that time. I have one opinion that said it is, and one that said it is before they said it ain't, and I would appreciate it if I could get some more opinions...P.S. The auction coin is slabbed by NGC..

[diamond]

I don't see anything in the photo of the 1951-D cent that would indicate it is a fake. But perhaps there are microscopic indicators of a fake die. Sometimes grading services reject coins that are genuine, while at other times they encapsulate fakes.

[foundinrolls]

I respectfully disagree. This doesn't look like a genuine error. In fact, I think that both are fakes and they might lead back to the same prankster.

Hi All,

Just a thought but did anyone notice that the relative positions of the Overstrike on both coins is practically identical. The same details are in the same places and showing to almost the same degree.

Wouldn't the odds be astronomical against two coins that many years apart having flipped over absolutely identically?

Also, when was "Publisher's Clearining House" in the business of certifying coins?

That's just a question out of curiosity as I had never heard of them being attributers of error coins.

Thanks,
Bill

[diamond]

I never said it was genuine. I just said I could see nothing in the photos that would cause me to reject it. It shows the sharp but incomplete penetration of first-strike design elements through the second. The design is strongest mainly where effective striking pressure was lowest, e.g. Lincoln's head. That's also something you'd expect to see in a genuine in-collar double-strike. Counterfeiters can duplicate these effects, of course. That's why examination under a microsope is a must. The worn condition may prevent certainty in any case.

[Car10]

Also, when was "Publisher's Clearining House" in the business of certifying coins?

Thanks,
Bill

I'm thinking Varietynut meant to say Coin World's "Collector's Clearinghouse".

[foundinrolls]

Hi Mike,

Bad wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that you said it was genuine. It's easy to see by your statement that you did not say that. Expressing my thoughts on it, I should have been more clear as to how I was wording my post based upon your previous comment.

Anyway, I think both have a strong possibility of being fabrications.

Thanks,
Bill

[Varietynut]

I want to thank all for your opinions, and I want to appologize for goofing up in the beginning. CAR10 was right, I meant to say Collectors Clearing House at Coin World instead of Publisher's Clearing House, and they only verified that they thought it was a flipped over double strike. I also agree that it does look awful suspicious that two different cents with different dates would show up with almost the exact same markings in almost the same spots. I have always thought that maybe the reason ANACS rejected it was because they might have seen others struck the same way. If I can just locate another one now, I think I will know the true answer...Thanks again..

[foundinrolls]

I looked at the picture of the 1951 D and the card with it does say Publisher's Clearinghouse, not the CoinWorld Collector's clearing house. I don't get it:-)

[Varietynut]

You are correct, and I noticed that too after you questioned it and have changed it. I guess it was another one of my many goof ups over the years. I have had that photo in my variety coin files for years, and just pulled it out of the file and posted it, and didn't notice the mistake until now. I'm going to try and post a copy of the letter about the coin from Coin World.