1891-S Double Eagle: Simple verification PCGS "experts" were incapable of.

[Earle42]

Following is the link to a video verifying a gold coin returned by PCGS as being "Authenticity Unverifiable."

Actually using a scientific method shows the coin is verifiably authentic despite the opinions of those who consider grading companies to be unquestionable experts about coins.

Content:
1. PCGS's grading process:
- what this coin allegedly underwent at PCGS

2. Explanation of US mint dies vs replica dies

3. Source of the overlay used and verifiability

4. Overlay shown for OBV and REV

5. Discussion of science vs. opinion
- PCGS abandoning science to return to a more profitable system of grading/evaluation they currently use.

Why make the video?
B/c people are unaware of the great damage to the hobby caused by the claims of companies who exist to make profits (that is not evil when done honestly) off of the coin hobby.

It is shameful people unintentionally now value the coins themselves as being secondary to professional marketers representing a business that falls short of what it claims.

Since PCGS's evaluation was "Authenticity Unverifiable," even an honest dealer hesitates to do anything with such a coin but melt it down to maintain an honest reputation.

There are too many who would cry, "foul" if a dealer sells PCGS non verifiable coin, yet those same people have never objectively looked into the companies they put their faith in.

https://rumble.com/v28nxya-science-vs.- ... agle..html

We need verifiability in coin evaluation...it is past time we return to a system that would do so, but with modern tech to make it even better.

[Daniel]

Thanks for doing this video.

[Paul]

[Marvic]

Thank you so much for posting your video!!
It would be interesting sending this coin to NGC to get their opinion. Have you thought about that?
By-the-way, I'm never been a fan of PCGS..

[Iceresistance]

[Earle42]

Thank you so much for posting your video!!
It would be interesting sending this coin to NGC to get their opinion. Have you thought about that?
By-the-way, I'm never been a fan of PCGS..

I do not own the coin, but from my research, none of the coin grading companies are living up to what they claim to. Look at the essay in my signature concerning the no FG Kennedy halves. While it uses PCGS data from their website, this is b/c PCGS is, for some reason, looked upon generally in the market as somehow being "best. I have fund it is not hard to find just as many NGC or ANACs slabbed halves that are not a No FG with the No FG designation.

A main problem I have with all of the companies is that like PCGS they all had spent a lot of money in the 90s nd succesuflly develped their own scientifically based computer grading system. But they all soon abandoned those systems and, no doubt, as the video says, it was likely b/c the number of resubmissions fell off ergo profits did as well.

I personally have done a lot of research into these companies and see them as taking advantage of the coin hobby b/c while they HAD a verifiable system, they chose to use the one they called inferior and likely b/c it makes for more profits. While we expect companies to go where the profits are, it has just cost too many people too much and the coins, as shown are now a secondary focus to many.

If an individual does something like this they are blackballed as being dishonest, but when a business does it, people are lot more forgiving.

BTW...I think the video shows either PCGS is not carrying out the process they claim, or else they are more inept than someone who has not handled one of these coins before and has done s simple test (an overlay is lot more simple that many people would think...I didn't even use photoshop).

This 1891-S coin might be able to get through at PCGS next time as well. The problem is in the entire business model of all the companies has been taking people's money and not giving them what they thought they paid for for a ling time now.

[Marvic]

Earle, we need a whistleblower to explain exactly how these companies operate to the numismatic community.
In MHO, I believe only one (1) person inspects an individual coin to be rated and slabbed.

[Daniel]

Earle, we need a whistleblower to explain exactly how these companies operate to the numismatic community.
In MHO, I believe only one (1) person inspects an individual coin to be rated and slabbed.

The game here is to call them a disgruntled employee to discredit them, I’ve already heard that being thrown around.
I have some contacts at NGC and someone else I know has some at PCGS and i hope to gain more information on this.
I was initially going to melt this coin but now I am not sure. Bill Fivav also wants to look at it.

[Kenzo]

Earle, we need a whistleblower to explain exactly how these companies operate to the numismatic community.
In MHO, I believe only one (1) person inspects an individual coin to be rated and slabbed.

The game here is to call them a disgruntled employee to discredit them, I’ve already heard that being thrown around.
I have some contacts at NGC and someone else I know has some at PCGS and i hope to gain more information on this.
I was initially going to melt this coin but now I am not sure. Bill Fivav also wants to look at it.

Melt? To remove a potential fake from circulation?

Obviously, you know the business but to a noob like me it's history and I love coins like this.

Cheers,
Kenny

[Marvic]

Earle, we need a whistleblower to explain exactly how these companies operate to the numismatic community.
In MHO, I believe only one (1) person inspects an individual coin to be rated and slabbed.

The game here is to call them a disgruntled employee to discredit them, I’ve already heard that being thrown around.
I have some contacts at NGC and someone else I know has some at PCGS and i hope to gain more information on this.
I was initially going to melt this coin but now I am not sure. Bill Fivav also wants to look at it.

No, NOT a "disgruntled employee" but an employee who for the love the numismatic hobby and is willing to expose wrongdoings from these companies...

[Daniel]

The game here is to call them a disgruntled employee to discredit them, I’ve already heard that being thrown around.
I have some contacts at NGC and someone else I know has some at PCGS and i hope to gain more information on this.
I was initially going to melt this coin but now I am not sure. Bill Fivav also wants to look at it.
[/quote]
No, NOT a "disgruntled employee" but an employee who for the love the numismatic hobby and is willing to expose wrongdoings from these companies...
[/quote]

But that is how they will discredit the whistleblower. One would need evidence that is accepted and submissable to court to make any difference.

[Daniel]

I will say this, and always have, these overlays are alright but not the best method of detecting counterfeits. The mint mark position is different so next step is to find an example with that position, the devil is always in the details.

[Earle42]

I was initially going to melt this coin but now I am not sure.

Data-Star-Trek-Fist-Pump.gif (1.33 MiB) Viewed 2263 times

But I say it with a smile!

I will say this, and always have, these overlays are alright but not the best method of detecting counterfeits. The mint mark position is different so next step is to find an example with that position, the devil is always in the details.

Is that a hint?

You know me well enough to know I won't be able to let this go

Earle, we need a whistleblower to explain exactly how these companies operate to the numismatic community.
In MHO, I believe only one (1) person inspects an individual coin to be rated and slabbed.

Agreed. My main gripe with these companies is from the standpoint of the love of the coins and history. The first people to, out of the blue, set themselves up as THE only professional graders that everyone needed b/c we peons were not capable of grading our own coins (no matter how much experience we had), was originally seen by the people I was around as just being an arrogant bunch of businessmen who figured out a way to make a lot of money off of coin collectors (Note I did not say "from," I said "off of!").

While not everyone in the grading process, like individual graders, secretaries, etc. are evil people trying to sucker the masses. After a lot of research into PCGS's stated business model and claims, talking with former graders, and doing some field work to find (not hard with any grading company) glaring inconsistencies in slabs, I am sickened by how much these companies make in profits while not delivering what they claim. And I think the high ups ta the companies are very well aware of how they keep their human-graders business model. This inferior model maximizes profits, ad the model also results in people getting taken for thousands of dollars as well as coins becoming a victim like this gold coin.

[Daniel]

The problem with o relays is a fake coin can match a real coin so you must ID the die pair. You find known die marks, date positions and mint mark orientations. That is how you properly identify fakes from authentic. Overlays is but one tool.

[Marvic]

Earle, I have been looking at a lot of 1891-S Double Eagles. The "S" mint marks are all over the place on these gold coins.
Here is one (Mint Mark location) similar to the coin you highlighted on this thread; check this picture below.
This coin is being sold on eBay as we speak.....

1891-S $20 Double Eagle PCGS MS62

[Paul]

Perform assay test…

[Daniel]

Perform assay test…

It tests out a true Assay would require melting it into a ball.

[Earle42]

Well I never intended to go deeper than the video I made, but I did do some preliminary researching on authenticated mint mark positions on these. Interesting but I also *think* without going deeper, yet, that two mint mark varieties were used. It appears there is a small S and a large S with several examples of each online at PCGS Coin Facts:

Click to enlarge.

[Daniel]

There's two varieties for this and one is an S/S but not a small and large.
https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/un ... 1850-1907/

[Earle42]

There's two varieties for this and one is an S/S but not a small and large.

Thanks for the info on the S/S, but am not understanding where the error is in the following if there are not two MM sizes?

They look to measure out to be different:

Click to enlarge. Save for reference. Feel free to share.

[Marvic]

Earle, I tried to bring that to your attention in post #15.
When I wrote: "The "S" mint marks are all over the place on these gold coins."

[Earle42]

Earle, I tried to bring that to your attention in post #15.
When I wrote: "The "S" mint marks are all over the place on these gold coins."

Thanks Marvic.

Just making sure I am on the same page as you are.

I took the quoted post above as you telling me the mint marks were positioned in different physical positions on the coin though in the same general locale ("all over the place"). That makes logical sense considering mint marks were hand punched into dies until 1989.

The graphic I posted is not referencing the physical positioning of the mint marks, but the difference is sizes of two different S's. I posted 3 of each showing the smaller S is not some random anomaly on one coin. However, I only could ics of 3 coins with the smaller looking mark.

I posted the graphic here hoping to get some feedback from Daniel or Paul b/c I am just going by what measurements show and how I understand the metal punching process (done that - not on coins though!). While I cannot come up with a logical reason for this difference in size, there may be something they can explain that I have not thought of.

[Paul]

"I posted the graphic here hoping to get some feedback from Daniel or Paul"

Lee, did you have a specific question in mind?

[Earle42]

"I posted the graphic here hoping to get some feedback from Daniel or Paul"

Lee, did you have a specific question in mind?

Yes, I was wondering what you thought about the concept of there being two different sized mint marks for the 1891-S Double Eagle as per that picture.

I went back to the PCG website and found the following as well. There were only three with the same looking smaller S. There are 13 with the larger looking S. I only am ASSUMING the smaller S is a different punch b/c I don't understand how a the typical larger looking S punch would make a smaller one?

click to enlarge.

[Marvic]

Earle, I tried to bring that to your attention in post #15.
When I wrote: "The "S" mint marks are all over the place on these gold coins."

Thanks Marvic.

Just making sure I am on the same page as you are.

I took the quoted post above as you telling me the mint marks were positioned in different physical positions on the coin though in the same general locale ("all over the place"). That makes logical sense considering mint marks were hand punched into dies until 1989.

The graphic I posted is not referencing the physical positioning of the mint marks, but the difference is sizes of two different S's. I posted 3 of each showing the smaller S is not some random anomaly on one coin. However, I only could ics of 3 coins with the smaller looking mark.

I posted the graphic here hoping to get some feedback from Daniel or Paul b/c I am just going by what measurements show and how I understand the metal punching process (done that - not on coins though!). While I cannot come up with a logical reason for this difference in size, there may be something they can explain that I have not thought of.

Correct, that was my intention to show the differences in MM locations. Thanks.....

[Daniel]

When you're using images all this is inconclusive, you got to have the coins in hand to compare MM sizes.

[Paul]

Lee,
Have you tried chasing this down the Internet rabbit hole?

[Marvic]

When you're using images all this is inconclusive, you got to have the coins in hand to compare MM sizes.

I somewhat disagree.
This is one of Earle images; the top section of the "D" is the same size in each pic, while the Mint Marks are not.

[Earle42]

There are actually a lot of techniques I use in the background to make as sure as I can the rotational factors, distances, etc. are compensated for when I crop and when I compare...especially when I am not on a program that does transparencies as I was not in making these comparisons.

For example, in these I drew a straight line fro the top of the Y to touch a tangent on the top of the D's curve in the only spot that would be a tangent along that line. Therefore I had a baseline to make rotate, minutely, pics I wanted to align perfectly with one another. This is also checked with overlaying other baselines I can apply through other details on the images and then finding if their rotational factors are same. If so then I know I have a proper alignment to make the comparisons.

Size differentials can be compensated for by making intersecting lines on one image and then copy pasting them over another to make sure their intersection with each other and with their endpoints are hitting exactly the same places. Just applying some of the geometry classes I taught to eh practicing application in analyzing graphics

And, just in case, not how in C the small one has its Y and D elements elevated above the large one it is compared to. I left it this way b/c the even though it is elevated it shows to be shorter on the right hand side. Ditto with B. I was sold when I saw this before needing to align horizontally.


@Paul:

Lee,
Have you tried chasing this down the Internet rabbit hole?

Wouldn't that be the easy way out?

Not seeing it there! I was intrigued when I stumbled onto this apparent difference and then decided to find out for myself. It's this insane enjoyment I get out of research. I was seeing if you guys knew what I thought I had maybe stumbled onto to was legit or if I was seeing was something I was overlooking.

I should have qualified it the first time that when I do a graphic like this, I do some intense analysis to make sure of sizes and alignment (where needed) as mentioned above and get caught up in the fun I am having.

I don't recall ever seeing a study on date by date and issue by issue mint marks on some coin types (obviously vv does with many).

[Earle42]

Here is the sequel showing the coin is from a legitimate die by putting an overlay of a verified coin from the same exact die set onto the coin.

100% authentic:
https://rumble.com/v29snh0-science-vs.- ... agle..html