1922 no D strong reverse.What's wrong here?

Our old friend centsles is selling the following item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=11 944

I enlarged the photo in Photoshop, and it reveals hardly anything because of
excess compression, a blurry image, anbd very small image size. What doesn't
the seller want us to know?

It's a raw one, of course, and could be:

1.) a weak D Die pair 1 which is a considerably stronger reverse than die pair
3, OR,

2.)it could be removed D from a 1922-D, the coin then being recolored to hide
the "modifications"

3) it could be a real 1922 No D die pair 2 strong reverse.

I'm betting its #2...at least that's my best guess

The lemmings are flocking to the coin..bidding is up to $1600 as I write this
with 14 hrs to go.

What's interesting is that a true 1922 No D strong reverse in a REAL MS-62
brown is worth well over $10,000 and often up to $15000 and even more. John
Hammrick, a Georgia dealer in quality coins has a MS-62 in an NGC holder for
about $10,000 on eBay now, but I brought that same coin to David Hall of PCGS
for his opinion at a show and he called it an AU-58 after close examination so
I passed on buying it.


I'm sure the buyer will think he made a GREAT deal. What do YOU think?

You may remember centles from posts in the past. He was a strong user of
Accugrade for grading and was mentioned in the ANA testimony in Charlotte
Stuppler-Accugrade hearings. But centles is known to many here from years past
and never in a favorable light. Still, he offers a 5 day return privilege.

A word of advice. NEVER buy one of these raw. I bought one raw at a show
several years ago and got a MS-62 grade fom PCGS, but unless you are very
familiar with this date it's prudent to be skeptical of raw ones. Most that I
see at shows are bogus, with the vast majority being weak Ds being sold as No
Ds.

Ira Stein

ospam (Ira Stein) wrote;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=11 944

I enlarged the photo in Photoshop, and it reveals hardly anything because of
excess compression, a blurry image, anbd very small image size. What doesn't
the seller want us to know?

I enlarged and brightened the image in Paint Shop Pro and what struck me is
that the second 2 in the date seems to have a different shape than the first
2..

But, then again, I know next to nothing about this date.


++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

Phil wrote:

enlarged and brightened the image in Paint Shop Pro and what struck me is
that the second 2 in the date seems to have a different shape than the first
2..

But, then again, I know next to nothing about this date.




The second two should be much thinner than the first "2" on the strong reverse
issues, but there's so much artifact that it's really impossible to tell. I
couldn't see any ear detail in the enlarged photo that I opened in Photoshop,
but the image is so pixilated that I couldn't enhance it in any meaningful way
to render a solid opinion.

Also, a 5 day return privilege almost certainly wouldn't give a buyer much time
to make a meaningful judgement about the coin unless he lived next door to an
expert.


The coin could be a real 1922 no D XF that's been stripped and recolored to
allow apparent traces of red to show, but it would seem a pity to have severely
damaged such a rare coin in that fashion. I'm not implying that centsles worked
on that coin, but I do believe it's been worked on in some way. After all, why
wouldn't a seller spend a $30 grading fee that might enhance the value 8 - 10
fold UNLESS it could NOT be certified?

Centsles is an experienced dealer and it would simply make good business sense
to have it certified, even if it were just an AU, because an AU would sell for
over $3000 now.


Ira Stein

Ira Stein wrote:

Our old friend centsles is selling the following item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=11 944

I enlarged the photo in Photoshop, and it reveals hardly anything because of
excess compression, a blurry image, anbd very small image size. What doesn't
the seller want us to know?

It's a raw one, of course, and could be:

1.) a weak D Die pair 1 which is a considerably stronger reverse than die pair
3, OR,

2.)it could be removed D from a 1922-D, the coin then being recolored to hide
the "modifications"

3) it could be a real 1922 No D die pair 2 strong reverse.

I'm betting its #2...at least that's my best guess


I always wondered why some so-called "big dealers" would not invest
$30-50 bucks to get a key coin like this slabbed by PCGS or NGC if it
was indeed authentic and close to the grade claimed. Like you said, a
PCGC-slabbed 1922 no D, #2 in MS condition would have bidders fighting
over it and it would probably result in a price 8-10 times greater than
this "to good to be true" coin will in raw form.

It is well known in the hobby that commonly-altered key coins should not
be purchased raw by the average collector. So when I see auctions like
this, or some of the multi-page CW advertisers offering, say, raw 1916-D
Mercuries or 1932-D quarters in a full range of grades, I have to
question whether a single one is authentic, undamaged/uncleaned, or
anywhere near the advertised grade.

Bruce

Bruce Remick wrote:

Ira Stein wrote:

Our old friend centsles is selling the following item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=11 944

I enlarged the photo in Photoshop, and it reveals hardly anything because of
excess compression, a blurry image, anbd very small image size. What doesn't
the seller want us to know?

It's a raw one, of course, and could be:

1.) a weak D Die pair 1 which is a considerably stronger reverse than die pair
3, OR,

2.)it could be removed D from a 1922-D, the coin then being recolored to hide
the "modifications"

3) it could be a real 1922 No D die pair 2 strong reverse.

I'm betting its #2...at least that's my best guess


I always wondered why some so-called "big dealers" would not invest
$30-50 bucks to get a key coin like this slabbed by PCGS or NGC if it
was indeed authentic and close to the grade claimed. Like you said, a
PCGC-slabbed 1922 no D, #2 in MS condition would have bidders fighting
over it and it would probably result in a price 8-10 times greater than
this "to good to be true" coin will in raw form.

It is well known in the hobby that commonly-altered key coins should not
be purchased raw by the average collector. So when I see auctions like
this, or some of the multi-page CW advertisers offering, say, raw 1916-D
Mercuries or 1932-D quarters in a full range of grades, I have to
question whether a single one is authentic, undamaged/uncleaned, or
anywhere near the advertised grade.

You're a wise man, Bruce. The biggest difference between this coin
(being offered 'raw') and an authenticated, certified specimen is not
the price. The biggest difference between the two is that one offer is
for 'your money back if unsatisfied (for a five day period)' and the
other offer is 'lifetime guarantee of refund if not genuine'.

Alan
'not a small distinction'

One would think he'd at least send it to his current favorite, NTC.
Maybe even NTC called it a fake, so it's being sold raw.
Barry
--
Note - Remove the X from my e-mail address for direct replies

I'm not implying that centsles worked
on that coin, but I do believe it's been worked on in some way.

What's it gonna take to rid our hobby of known "coin doctors" like Senseless?

Regards,
Tom

ospam (Ira Stein) wrote in message ...
What's interesting is that a true 1922 No D strong reverse in a REAL MS-62
brown is worth well over $10,000 and often up to $15000 and even more. John
Hammrick, a Georgia dealer in quality coins has a MS-62 in an NGC holder for
about $10,000 on eBay now, but I brought that same coin to David Hall of PCGS
for his opinion at a show and he called it an AU-58 after close examination so
I passed on buying it.

Well, Ira, what did you expect Hall to say? You brought the guy a coin
slabbed by his chief competitor.

So the next time you buy a car, will you go to the chairman of GM and
ask him if you should buy a Ford?

James McCown wrote:

a Georgia dealer in quality coins has a MS-62 in an NGC holder for
about $10,000 on eBay now, but I brought that same coin to David Hall of PCGS
for his opinion at a show and he called it an AU-58 after close examination
so
I passed on buying it.

Well, Ira, what did you expect Hall to say? You brought the guy a coin
slabbed by his chief competitor.

So the next time you buy a car, will you go to the chairman of GM and
ask him if you should buy a Ford?



I don't think you get it here, James. Hall was giving no charge grading
opinions. Many times he's agreed with the grade on coins I show him from
competitor's slabs, othe times not. I had a customer that wanted a 61 or 62
only in a PCGS slab, and this one was not as I wrote. I had serious doubts
about this one, and although I have sold several MS-62s in the past two years,
more than any other single dealer of which I am aware, this coin just did not
look like a 62 to me. I thought it might 60 or 61, but Hall is not selling
coins at the PCGS table. If it would have crossed at 62, PCGS would have earned
a quick $100 for a one day show grading.

The whole point of my original post was to point out a suspect auction on eBay,
not to debate David Hall's motives. After all, Hall is aware of the criteria
his graders use, and he has a better handle, although not binding on him or
PCGS, as to what the likely grade would be.

I almost bought a raw 1793 half cent once that I fekt was at kkleast an AU55,
Hall looked at it for a couple of minutes and said it could grade has high as
AU58. I had a one day return privilege with the dealer who owned it. I paid
$100 to get it graded. Came back bodybagged as re-engraved details and
recolored.

The dealer who owned it is a reputable copper dealer well respected throughout
the US. When it came back bagged, he and I looked at it with a 16X glass and
couldn't see any evidence of tooling. PCGS has a 50X Nikon binocular microscope
to use, and that was their consensus opinion. So I lost $100 but saved myself
from a nearly $20,000 mistake. Hall didn't see it and neither did I nor the
seller..

I left the show that afternoon, but I talked to the seller of th ehalf cent at
the next large show.. After I left he had brought the coin to the micoscope
dealer who could enlarge areas 80X on a computer monitor. Sure enough, he
could see the re-engraving there. Said it was a masterful job and would fool
most anyone. Probably was a nice EF45 that had the hair strengthened to
resemble a higher grade. The reverse was not touched. The coin had obviously
been recolored to hide the tooling , but even the recoloring could fool a pro.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

The whole point, Jim, is that no bidder should pay $1600 or $2000 or whatever
for a raw 1922 No D priced at 1/10 or 1/8 of its true value without seeing a
needle sharp photo at very least. That was not provided in the listing, and I
think for good reason.

I didn't expect a lecture about the foolhardiness of asking for Hall's opinion
because it was NOT foolhardy. Hall had absolutely no reason to lie! If you
think he did, why don't YOU buy the coin for $9900?

A true MS-62 of that date with strong reverse would be a real buy at that
level!

Ira Stein

you just keep on rambling Ira.
thanks for rambling
Jan



"Ira Stein" wrote in message
...
James McCown wrote:

a Georgia dealer in quality coins has a MS-62 in an NGC holder for
about $10,000 on eBay now, but I brought that same coin to David Hall of
PCGS
for his opinion at a show and he called it an AU-58 after close
examination
so
I passed on buying it.

Well, Ira, what did you expect Hall to say? You brought the guy a coin
slabbed by his chief competitor.

So the next time you buy a car, will you go to the chairman of GM and
ask him if you should buy a Ford?



I don't think you get it here, James. Hall was giving no charge grading
opinions. Many times he's agreed with the grade on coins I show him from
competitor's slabs, othe times not. I had a customer that wanted a 61 or
62
only in a PCGS slab, and this one was not as I wrote. I had serious doubts
about this one, and although I have sold several MS-62s in the past two
years,
more than any other single dealer of which I am aware, this coin just did
not
look like a 62 to me. I thought it might 60 or 61, but Hall is not selling
coins at the PCGS table. If it would have crossed at 62, PCGS would have
earned
a quick $100 for a one day show grading.

The whole point of my original post was to point out a suspect auction on
eBay,
not to debate David Hall's motives. After all, Hall is aware of the
criteria
his graders use, and he has a better handle, although not binding on him
or
PCGS, as to what the likely grade would be.

I almost bought a raw 1793 half cent once that I fekt was at kkleast an
AU55,
Hall looked at it for a couple of minutes and said it could grade has high
as
AU58. I had a one day return privilege with the dealer who owned it. I
paid
$100 to get it graded. Came back bodybagged as re-engraved details and
recolored.

The dealer who owned it is a reputable copper dealer well respected
throughout
the US. When it came back bagged, he and I looked at it with a 16X glass
and
couldn't see any evidence of tooling. PCGS has a 50X Nikon binocular
microscope
to use, and that was their consensus opinion. So I lost $100 but saved
myself
from a nearly $20,000 mistake. Hall didn't see it and neither did I nor
the
seller..

I left the show that afternoon, but I talked to the seller of th ehalf
cent at
the next large show.. After I left he had brought the coin to the
micoscope
dealer who could enlarge areas 80X on a computer monitor. Sure enough, he
could see the re-engraving there. Said it was a masterful job and would
fool
most anyone. Probably was a nice EF45 that had the hair strengthened to
resemble a higher grade. The reverse was not touched. The coin had
obviously
been recolored to hide the tooling , but even the recoloring could fool a
pro.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

The whole point, Jim, is that no bidder should pay $1600 or $2000 or
whatever
for a raw 1922 No D priced at 1/10 or 1/8 of its true value without seeing
a
needle sharp photo at very least. That was not provided in the listing,
and I
think for good reason.

I didn't expect a lecture about the foolhardiness of asking for Hall's
opinion
because it was NOT foolhardy. Hall had absolutely no reason to lie! If you
think he did, why don't YOU buy the coin for $9900?

A true MS-62 of that date with strong reverse would be a real buy at that
level!

Ira Stein