The surge in gold bar scams has reached a dangerous new level. Now, a $4 million loss has triggered legal action against major financial institutions. The case could reshape responsibility across the numismatic and financial sectors.

At the same time, the Numismatic Crime Information Center (NCIC) is urging dealers to act immediately. The goal is clear: reduce liability and stop scams before they happen.

A Landmark Lawsuit Signals Industry Risk

A major law firm has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a victim who lost $4 million in a gold scam. The defendants include a national brokerage firm and a national bank.

This case matters. It directly challenges how financial institutions monitor and protect vulnerable clients, especially elderly investors.

According to NCIC reporting, scams increasingly target older individuals. Fraudsters often convince victims to liquidate assets and purchase physical gold bars. Then, they instruct victims to ship the metal to criminals.

As a result, losses have reached staggering levels nationwide.

Surge in Gold Bar Scams Raises Alarm

NCIC has documented a sharp rise in these crimes. The trend shows no signs of slowing.

Scammers use fear and urgency. They impersonate government agents, tech support, or financial authorities. Then, they push victims into rapid decisions.

The result? Victims convert savings into gold or silver. After that, they unknowingly transfer those assets to criminals.

This pattern has become one of the fastest-growing threats in the numismatic space.

Why Dealers Now Face Increased Liability

This legal action sends a clear message. Responsibility may extend beyond the victim.

Dealers now face growing scrutiny. If warning signs appear during a transaction, inaction could create legal exposure.

Therefore, dealers must stay alert. They must recognize suspicious behavior. And they must document transactions carefully.

Failing to act could carry serious consequences.

Red Flags Dealers Must Not Ignore

Certain behaviors often signal a scam in progress.

For example, a customer may:

• Express urgency or fear driven by outside instructions
• Mention government agencies, investigations, or “safe keeping” claims
• Show confusion about the transaction purpose
• Request unusually large purchases of gold bars or silver

These warning signs require immediate attention.

NCIC Recommends Immediate Preventive Action

The NCIC has developed tools to help dealers respond effectively.

First, it provides an educational resource outlining the mechanics of gold bar scams. In addition, it offers a structured questionnaire designed for use during large transactions.

Dealers should use this questionnaire consistently.

If a customer refuses to answer, document it. Write “refused” on the form. Then, have the customer initial it. Finally, attach the document to the invoice.

This step creates a record. It also demonstrates due diligence.

A Proactive Approach Protects Everyone

The message is simple. Prevention protects both customers and businesses.

Dealers who act early can stop fraud in progress. They can also reduce their own legal risk.

Meanwhile, the broader industry must adapt. As scams evolve, so must safeguards.

This lawsuit may mark a turning point. It highlights the urgent need for stronger protections, and greater awareness.

The Bottom Line

Gold bar scams are no longer isolated incidents. They represent a systemic threat.

Now, legal action is raising the stakes. Financial institutions, dealers, and advisors all face increased responsibility.

The solution starts with vigilance. It continues with education. And it depends on decisive action at the point of sale.

The post Gold Bar Scam Crisis Escalates: $4 Million Loss Triggers Legal Action Against Bank and Brokerage appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Collectors and dealers should stay alert. Recent NCIC reports confirm multiple coin thefts tied to FedEx shipments and a major coin show in Baltimore. These incidents highlight ongoing risks in numismatic shipping and event security.

FedEx Shipment Theft Reported in Transit from Nevada to Florida

First, authorities reported a theft involving a FedEx shipment sent from Nevada to Florida on March 18, 2026.

The sender shipped the package using FedEx 2Day with Adult Signature Required. However, an unknown individual intervened during transit. That person contacted FedEx and redirected the package to a Walgreens location for pickup.

Importantly, the intended recipient did not authorize this hold request.

As a result, the package never reached its destination.

Stolen Coins from Package #1

The stolen shipment contained three certified Indian Head Half Eagles:

• 1911 Indian $5 Gold — PCGS MS-63 — Cert #8520.63/48548509
• 1912 Indian $5 Gold — PCGS MS-63 — Cert #8523.63/48579870
• 1912-S Indian $5 Gold — PCGS AU-58 — Cert #8524.58/53513748

Second FedEx Package Reported Lost or Stolen

In addition, a second FedEx shipment has gone missing.

The package traveled from Nevada to Munich, North Dakota. The sender also used Adult Signature Required service. Despite that precaution, FedEx representatives cannot locate the package.

Therefore, authorities now consider the shipment lost or stolen.

Missing Coin from Package #2

This package contained:

1877 Three Cent Nickel — NGC PF-67 Cameo — Cert #6838089-003

Baltimore Coin Show Theft Under Investigation

Meanwhile, a separate theft occurred in the Baltimore, Maryland area.

The incident took place after the recent Baltimore coin show on March 7, 2026. A dealer reported that a valuable gold coin went missing following the event.

Stolen Coin Details : 1852-O $20 Liberty Gold Double Eagle — NGC MS61 CAC — Cert #5900767-009

Ongoing Risk to Collectors and Dealers

These incidents reveal a clear pattern. Criminals continue to target high-value coin shipments and public events.

Therefore, collectors and dealers should take extra precautions. Always verify shipping instructions. Monitor tracking closely. Additionally, confirm any delivery changes directly with carriers.

Contact Information

Anyone with information should contact:

Doug Davis
817-723-7231
Doug@numismaticcrimes.org

The post Stolen Rare Coins Alert: FedEx Shipments Targeted and Baltimore Show Theft Reported appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

An Interesting not-PCGS 1893-O Morgan Dollar

Every counterfeit coin tells a story. Sometimes the clues appear immediately. Other times they reveal themselves slowly, one diagnostic at a time.

Recently, a friend contacted me with an intriguing question. He asked if I would look at an 1893-O Morgan dollar he had purchased on eBay. After the purchase, he submitted the coin to PCGS for grading. However, the coin did not receive a grade. Instead, PCGS returned it body-bagged as counterfeit.

Naturally, that raised questions.

The Coin Arrives for Examination

At first, I only saw photographs of the coin. Unfortunately, the images were not ideal. As a result, they did not reveal much. It proved difficult to determine whether anything was actually wrong.

Therefore, my friend offered to send the coin to me for an in-hand review. I gladly accepted.

Once the coin arrived, I spent part of my morning examining it carefully.

The first tests appeared encouraging.

The coin weighed 27.0 grams, which falls within the expected range for a Morgan dollar. In addition, a Sigma Metalytics analyzer confirmed the presence of silver.

However, those results alone cannot confirm authenticity. Counterfeiters increasingly produce silver coins with the correct weight.

Therefore, the real work begins with die diagnostics.

The Reverse That Should Not Exist

The most revealing issue appeared on the reverse.

Authentic 1893-O Morgan dollars use the C3 reverse hub. This design includes a distinctive wing gap and berry placement that specialists recognize immediately.

However, the coin I examined displayed a C4 reverse.

That detail immediately raised a red flag.

After consulting with Morgan dollar specialist Jack Riley, I confirmed that the New Orleans Mint did not transition to the C4 reverse until 1901. In other words, a genuine 1893-O cannot have this reverse configuration.

That alone strongly suggests the coin is not genuine.

The Mintmark Problem

The diagnostics did not stop there.

Two reverse dies appear on genuine 1893-O VAM varieties. Yet the mintmark on this coin did not match either example.

Specifically:

• The position was incorrect.
• The shape was wrong.
• The tilt did not match known dies.
• Taken together, those differences create another major authenticity problem.
• Odd Details in the Date

Closer inspection revealed additional irregularities.

Both the “D” in DOLLAR and the “3” in the date looked unusual. The letterforms simply did not match the known characteristics of genuine coins.

Each issue alone might raise suspicion. Together, they form a clear pattern.

Tracing the Coin Back to the Seller

After finishing my examination, I emailed my findings to my friend. He then asked me to share the diagnostics on the CoinTalk forum, where we both occasionally participate.

During that discussion, I asked about the eBay seller who listed the coin. My friend sent the seller’s ID.

The results were eye-opening.

The seller had 12 negative feedback responses. Many of those complaints involved bait-and-switch counterfeit coins, including three Morgan dollars.

One of those negative feedback posts included images of a supposed 1895-O Morgan dollar the buyer received.

That is when things became especially interesting.

The 1895-O coin showed the same unusual reverse seen on this 1893-O.

At that moment, the pattern became clear.

A Lesson in Comparing Listing Photos

After reviewing the situation, my friend realized something important.

He had not compared the coin he received to the original listing photographs.

That step can prevent many problems. Counterfeit sellers often rely on that oversight.

Naturally, I attempted to contact the seller. Unfortunately, I received no response.

However, one thing is certain.

That seller now sits firmly on my eBay watch list.

A Counterfeit with Educational Value

Although this story began with disappointment, it ended with something positive.

My friend decided to donate the counterfeit coin to the “Dark Side” collection. The coin now serves as an educational tool.

That decision helps collectors learn from real examples. In many ways, that may be the best possible outcome.

Because every counterfeit coin offers a lesson.

The key is learning how to read the clues.

Why This Story Matters for Collectors

Counterfeits continue to appear in online marketplaces. Even experienced collectors can encounter them.

Therefore, collectors should always remember three important safeguards:

Third-party grading services remain an essential defense.

Die diagnostics often reveal the truth.

Comparing listing photos to the received coin can expose bait-and-switch fraud.

In this case, a single incorrect reverse hub told the whole story.

And that story reinforces an important lesson for Morgan dollar collectors everywhere.

Always trust the diagnostics.
Best,
Jack.

The post When the Reverse Is Wrong: A Counterfeit 1893-O Morgan Dollar Case Study appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Thomas “Tommy” Thompson, the scientist who located the legendary S.S. Central America shipwreck in 1988, has been released from federal prison after nearly a decade. Yet authorities still do not know the location of hundreds of gold coins recovered from the wreck.

For numismatists and historians, the case remains one of the most fascinating and controversial stories connected to shipwreck treasure.

The Ship of Gold

The saga begins with one of the most famous disasters of the California Gold Rush era.

In September 1857, the steamship S.S. Central America sank during a hurricane off the coast of South Carolina. The vessel was traveling from Panama to New York and carried a massive cargo of gold from California.

The loss was catastrophic.

About 425 passengers and crew died, many of them prosperous prospectors returning from the California Gold Rush. Even more significant was the cargo: roughly 30,000 pounds of federal gold from the San Francisco Mint, along with privately owned gold bars and coins.

For more than a century, the ship, and its treasure, remained lost.

A Historic Discovery

Then, in 1988, Tommy Thompson and his research team made headlines around the world.

Using deep-sea exploration technology, they located the wreck more than 7,000 feet below the Atlantic Ocean.

The discovery revealed one of the greatest treasure troves ever recovered from the sea. Thousands of gold coins and more than 500 gold bars surfaced from the wreckage.

Estimates placed the value of the recovered treasure at more than $100 million.

At the time, Thompson became a hero of modern exploration. Many considered the find one of the most significant underwater discoveries in American history.

However, the celebration did not last.

Investors Demand Answers

In the 1980s, Thompson raised funding for his expedition from roughly 160 investors, many from Ohio. They financed the costly search for the shipwreck.

Yet problems soon surfaced.

Investors later claimed they never received their share of profits from the treasure recovery. In 2005, several of them filed lawsuits against Thompson.

The legal battle intensified when reports revealed that more than $50 million worth of gold bars and coins had already been sold.

Meanwhile, a separate mystery emerged. About 500 coins struck from Central America gold could not be accounted for.

A Fugitive Treasure Hunter

The legal conflict escalated in dramatic fashion.

In 2012, an Ohio federal judge ordered Thompson to appear in court. Instead, he disappeared.

Authorities later issued a warrant for his arrest.

For several years, Thompson lived quietly in Florida under a false name. Federal agents eventually located him in 2015 at a Florida hotel.

Soon afterward, a judge held him in contempt of court for refusing to reveal the location of the missing coins.

Thompson maintained that he did not know where the coins were.

He claimed the coins, valued at roughly $2.5 million, had been transferred to a trust in Belize. He also said the $50 million generated from early gold sales largely went toward legal fees and bank loans.

The court did not accept those explanations.

Years Behind Bars

Thompson’s imprisonment quickly became unusual.

Civil contempt sentences often last until a person complies with a court order. However, federal law generally limits such confinement to 18 months.

Thompson remained incarcerated far longer.

A federal appeals court in 2019 ruled that the limit did not apply in his case because his refusal violated conditions tied to a plea agreement.

During a 2020 court hearing, Thompson again told U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley that he did not know the location of the gold.

“I don’t know the whereabouts of the gold,” Thompson said during the hearing. “I feel like I don’t have the keys to my freedom.”

Eventually, the judge concluded that further incarceration would not produce answers. Marbley ended the civil contempt portion of the sentence.

However, Thompson still had to serve two years for failing to appear in court in 2012.

Released….. But Not Cleared

On March 4, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed Thompson’s release at age 73.

Even so, his legal issues are not completely over. Court orders still require him to pay millions of dollars in fines.

More importantly, the whereabouts of the missing gold coins remain unknown.

The Treasure’s Enduring Value

Despite the controversy surrounding the discovery, artifacts from the S.S. Central America continue to command enormous prices in the numismatic market.

Several high-profile sales illustrate the treasure’s enduring appeal.

In 2022, Heritage Auctions sold one of the largest known Central America gold bars, an 866.19-ounce Justh & Hunter ingot, for $2.16 million.

Earlier auctions have also produced remarkable results:

• In 2019, relics from the wreck realized more than $11 million at auction.
• In 2001, an 80-pound gold ingot from the wreck sold privately for $8 million, setting a record at the time.

For collectors, the treasure represents both numismatic rarity and a dramatic piece of American history.

A Mystery That Refuses to Sink

Supporters of Thompson argue that his punishment went too far.

California coin dealer Dwight Manley, who bought and sold much of the recovered treasure, described the case as excessive.

“Going to prison for 10 years over a business dispute is not America,” Manley said. “People kill people and get out in half the time.”

Legal scholars also noted how unusual the case became. University of Florida law professor Ryan Scott, who worked on Thompson’s release, said civil contempt sentences rarely last so long.

“It’s very unusual to go on 10 years,” Scott said, calling the situation a “miscarriage of justice.”

Still, critics remain skeptical.

After all, the unanswered question still hangs over the case.

More than three decades after the discovery of the Ship of Gold, hundreds of coins from one of the greatest treasure recoveries in history are still missing.

And the only man who might know where they are continues to insist he does not.

The post The Man Who Found America’s Greatest Sunken Gold Treasure Is Free — But 500 Coins Are Still Missing appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Martinsburg Police Investigate Coin Shop Theft

On February 19, 2026, a theft occurred at a coin shop in Martinsburg, West Virginia, according to the Martinsburg Police Department.

The Numismatic Crime Information Center (NCIC) is assisting local law enforcement in the investigation.

Police report that the suspect entered the shop and requested to view gold coins. When an employee opened the showcase, the suspect reached inside, grabbed a one-ounce gold coin, and ran out the front door.

Authorities have not publicly released additional details about the coin at this time.

NCIC Links Suspect to Multi-State Coin Shop Thefts

According to the coin shop owner, the suspect matches the individual identified in previous NCIC alerts issued in recent weeks.

NCIC reports that the same suspect has committed thefts at coin shops in:

• Pennsylvania
• Maryland
• New Jersey
• Virginia

At this time, CoinWeek is reporting only what law enforcement and NCIC have confirmed. While authorities believe the suspect is responsible for multiple thefts, the investigation remains ongoing. Watch the Video Below.

Ongoing Investigation and Community Alert

The NCIC continues to work with the Martinsburg Police Department as investigators review evidence and pursue leads.

Coin dealers and numismatic professionals should remain vigilant. Retail thefts involving high-value gold coins often occur quickly and without warning. Therefore, maintaining secure showcase protocols remains critical.

Anyone with information regarding this incident or the suspect is encouraged to contact:

Doug Davis
Numismatic Crime Information Center
Phone: 817-723-7231
Email: Doug@numismaticcrimes.org

Why This Case Matters to the Numismatic Community

Gold coin thefts directly impact dealers, collectors, and insurers. Moreover, repeat offenders who target multiple states present an elevated risk to the marketplace.

The Numismatic Crime Information Center plays a critical role in identifying patterns and alerting the hobby. Through coordinated reporting, NCIC helps law enforcement agencies connect cases that might otherwise remain isolated.

As this case develops, CoinWeek will provide updates when additional verified information becomes available.

The post Multi-State Gold Coin Theft Suspect Strikes Again in Martinsburg, West Virginia appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Collectors often talk about “generational coins.” These pieces pass through families and carry emotional weight. Moreover, they often command strong prices due to rarity and demand.

However, many collectors build something just as meaningful. I call them “foundation coins.” These coins anchor a collection. They define its character. Most importantly, they capture the owner’s imagination.

In this article, I present my five foundation coins. Each piece forms part of the core of my eclectic collection. I would not part with any of them. I list them in no particular order—except the final coin. That piece stands as the undisputed flagship.

1. 1804 “Restrike” Large Cent (Struck Counterfeit)

The first coin exists far from the world of top-pop examples. In fact, it likely ranks as the lowest-graded third-party example known.

According to published population data from both Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and Numismatic Guaranty Company (NGC), this piece represents the lowest graded example at PCGS, certified at 6. NGC lists its lowest example at the Very Good (VG) level.

Why does this coin show such heavy wear? It may have served as a pocket piece. Nevertheless, that remains speculation.

Importantly, this coin stands as one of three counterfeits in this foundation group. Evidence indicates that someone struck it outside the U.S. Mint. The maker reportedly used a scrapped 1803 obverse die paired with an 1820 reverse die. Collectors familiar with early large cents recognize the mismatch immediately.

This coin demonstrates how counterfeiters operated. It also highlights the importance of die study and series knowledge. Even so, its story and survival fascinate me.

2. 1795 Double-Struck Off-Center Countermarked Large Cent (Sheldon-76b)

This coin carries complexity. In fact, it demands attention.

The piece features a double strike, off-center alignment, and a countermark. Moreover, auction records trace its provenance to the House of David McKinney, as described in a past sale conducted by Heritage Auctions.

The mystery surrounding this coin deepens its appeal.

The intrigue centers on its attribution. The coin matches Sheldon-76b, not Sheldon-76a as previously described by Dr. William H. Sheldon. It shows a plain edge. In addition, its weight aligns with the thinner planchets used for this and subsequent varieties.

This distinction matters. Early American copper specialists rely on edge devices and planchet specifications for accurate attribution. Therefore, correcting the record strengthens our understanding of the variety.

3. 1875 “Beer” Counterstamped Half Dollar

Anyone who knows me understands my appreciation for beer. Therefore, this piece belongs in my foundation group.

Unlike the others, this coin contains silver rather than copper. It also launched a research journey.

I traced the counterstamp to a brewery reportedly founded in 1869. When I last verified the information, the company still operated. That continuity adds charm and historical depth.

Furthermore, I submitted the coin to Numismatic Guaranty Company (NGC) for certification. The holder reflects the proper counterstamp designation.

Counterstamped coins tell stories of commerce and advertising. In this case, the piece connects numismatics with brewing history. That intersection makes it indispensable to my collection.

4. 1798 S-158 Large Cent (Struck Counterfeit from False Dies)

The 1798 S-158 large cent launched my deep involvement in counterfeit research. I began documenting these pieces in 2015. Since then, I have written multiple articles on the subject.

A fellow Early American Coppers (EAC) member first reported seeing an example certified as genuine in a third-party holder. Shortly thereafter, I located the imaged example on eBay.

This piece represents a struck counterfeit. Counterfeiters created false dies using a genuine source coin. As a result, known examples share identical circulation marks and tooling characteristics.

I currently own three examples. I displayed them at the Indiana State Coin Show.

Interestingly, my raw example passed third-party grading at one point. However, I later removed it from the holder. The certification number no longer exists.

This coin represents the rabbit hole. It drew me into research, documentation, and collaboration with fellow specialists. Few pieces carry that level of impact.

5. 1796 S-85 Large Cent — Struck Counterfeit Overstruck on Later-Date Large Cent (Flagship)

Now we arrive at the flagship.

This 1796 S-85 large cent stands as a struck counterfeit produced from false dies by the same group responsible for the 1798 S-158 pieces. However, this coin offers something more.

It shows clear evidence of an undertype. Specifically, the counterfeiters struck it over a later-date large cent. Careful examination reveals underlying details. Notably, a visible “star” escaped my notice for years. Once visible, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Numismatic artist Bob Julien documented the piece and illustrated the undertype details with remarkable precision.

This example remains the only piece I have definitively proven to be struck over a cull large cent. Because the undertype used genuine U.S. Mint metal, metallurgical testing suggested authenticity. Nevertheless, context and die analysis tell the true story.

As with the prior example, the certification number no longer exists.

Why Foundation Coins Matter

Each of these five coins forms a collection within a collection. Together, they define my numismatic journey.

They also demonstrate critical lessons:

• Study dies carefully.
• Verify attribution through weight and edge diagnostics.
• Question third-party certifications when evidence demands it.
• Document findings for the benefit of the hobby.

Most importantly, follow curiosity. Foundation coins do not require rarity or high grades. Instead, they demand significance.

For me, these five pieces provide that foundation.

Best as always,
Jack D. Young, EAC 5050

The post My Collection’s “Foundation Coins” appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

“Alert”-FBI Assistance-Stolen Gold Bars

Agency: FBI

Offense: Lost/Stolen
Date: 12/15/25
Location: Northeast United States

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a case involving the theft of 91 gold bars from a victim. The theft includes the following 1 & 10 oz Gold bars.

• 76 One oz. Perth Mint Gold Bars
• 6 One oz. Valcambi Bars
• 5 Ten oz. Suisse Bars
• 2 Ten oz. Valcambi Bars

A MS Excel Spreadsheet of the bars with serial numvers can be downloaded below:
Stolen Gold Bars

Anyone with information contact:

Doug Davis
817-723-7231
Doug@numismaticcrimes.org

Agency: Vienna PD
Offense: Theft
Date: 12/20/2025
Location: Vienna, VA

The Vienna, VA police department is requesting assistance from NCIC in identifying a suspect involved in a gold theft at a local coin shop.

The suspect is also involved in several other thefts at coin shops in MD, PA and NJ. The suspect enters the shop and requests to see gold coins.

Once the suspect has a coin in his hands he runs out the door.

Investigators are also looking for any other offenses that may be related to this suspect.

Anyone with information contact:

Doug Davis
817-723-7231i
Doug@numismaticcrimes.org

The Numismatic Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission is to serve as a national and international resource for collectors, dealers and law enforcement in the education, prevention and investigation of crimes involving coins, paper money, tokens, medals, and related numismatic items. NCIC provides these resources free to law enforcement, collectors, dealers, and the public. NCIC is supported solely by donations from the numismatic community.

Donations can be sent to P.O. Box 14080 Arlington, TX 76094 or at www.numismaticcrimes.org.

For Further Information:
Numismatic Crime Information Center/Doug Davis]
Phone: 817-723-7231

The post Numismatic Crime Watch with NCIC appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

“As if the Chinese counterfeit coins in fake PCGS slabs isn’t bad enough, now there appears to be a fake Chinese PCGS website to verify them….” Jack Young

On December 20th, Jack Young posted another of his now-infamous and critical “Fun with Fakes” posts to the PCGS Message boards titled “The Trifecta, CN Counterfeit Coin, Slab and Website ! – Collectors Universe”.

Jack has been in the forefront of exposing and reporting these fraudulent coins and the sellers that proliferate across eBay.

After his post, Jack forwarded the information to CoinWeek so we could give the problem even more exposure.

But before we repost Jack’s findings, in the link above, we want to provide some additional context and backgound on the issues and the problem from CoinWeek’s perspective.

Chinese Counterfeit Coins Entering the Market

Over the past decade, mass production of counterfeit coins in China has escalated. Factories in places like Guangdong and Fujian provinces manufacture replica U.S. and world coins, often made of base metals but plated to mimic silver or gold.

These include Morgan Dollars, Trade Dollars, early U.S. gold issues, and even modern commemoratives.

Many are extremely deceptive, showing correct dates, mintmarks, and even simulated wear patterns.

Some are sold directly on Chinese e-commerce platforms such as AliExpress or Taobao, where they are openly labeled as “replica” or “souvenir,” but later resold internationally as genuine.

Counterfeit PCGS Holders (Slabs)

Counterfeiters have moved beyond coins, they are now replicating PCGS and NGC holders themselves.

These fake slabs are visually convincing, complete with holograms, barcodes, and QR codes.

The counterfeiters often copy valid certificate numbers from real PCGS-graded coins and print them on the fake labels. Or they print Fake Certificate numbers, that when scanned, the QR code leads to a fake PCGS website.

The Fake Verification site imitates the real one and displays fabricated verification data (as in this case that Jack uncovers).

Tell-tale signs:

Incorrect font alignment or slightly off-center text on the label.

Weak holographic seals or incorrect color shifting.

Barcodes or QR codes that redirect to “.cn” or imitation domains, rather than www.pcgs.com.

Fake PCGS Chinese Verification Sites

A particularly dangerous trend is the appearance of mirror-clone PCGS websites hosted in China.

These sites look identical to the genuine PCGS Cert Verification Page.

When a fake cert number is entered, the page returns a false confirmation with images of a real coin, a screenshot copied from the legitimate PCGS site.

The real PCGS site for verification is https://www.pcgs.com/cert/,  any domain other than pcgs.com is fake. (such as pcgs-cn.com, pcgsn.com, pcgs.cn, pcgsverify.cn, etc.)

The eBay Connection

eBay remains a major global marketplace for counterfeit coins.

Despite efforts, eBay is overwhelmed by the volume of listings, many from China-based sellers.

Counterfeits are often described as “reproductions,” “souvenir coins,” or listed in misleading categories to avoid detection.

Even worse, some sellers use fake PCGS holders to sell high-value “slabbed” coins, targeting collectors who assume authenticity based on the holder.

Collector Warnings:

• Always verify PCGS or NGC certifications directly on their official websites, never through links in the listing.
• Be cautious of prices significantly below market value or sellers located in China or Hong Kong.
• Prefer buying from PCGS Authorized Dealers or well-reviewed U.S.-based sellers.

Now on to Jack’s latest discovery.

Fun with Fakes- The Trifecta, CN Counterfeit Coin, Slab and Website!

As if the Chinese counterfeit coins in fake PCGS slabs isn’t bad enough, now there appears to be a fake Chinese PCGS website to verify them.

A friend alerted me to the following listing on the Bay this past week:

And here is a “Past eBay listed counterfeit in a counterfeit not-PCGS slab”

The listing included these interesting other images:

The seller had ended the listing based on being told it is a counterfeit, and I started a review to try to determine what was going on here!

So, I started with the “PCGS” slab and some quick checks. Using my on-line barcode scanner I checked the front barcode:

Like many similar bad slabs, the barcode was gibberish and would not scan. Next, I went to the PCGS website to check the noted cert number: 69025723

Note from the genuine PCGS site for the cert # look-up

And another bad sign, that cert # “was not found”. So, my next step was to try to read the reverse label QR code. And just a note, many of the previous counterfeits we have documented similar to this one had a QR code that read the cert # correctly but noted the genuine PCGS CN site. A previous example read like this:

Typical previous QR code to pcgs.cn site. And then this one:

Note different website for this cert!

Different result than expected I do NOT recommend readers going to the site shown, but if you did this is what comes up:

Fake “PCGS” site, image, etc.

WOW, now we have something apparently new to be concerned about with these…

I did notify my contacts at PCGS for a heads-up,  as well as posting this it on the CU Forum. My contacts at PCGS acknowledged they were now aware and reviewing.

I checked the fake site Christmas evening, and got a message that indicated the site was now unavailable!  Nice Christmas present if it lasts!

I did continue to dig a bit more and found the domain name Registrar for PCGSN.com  was Alibaba Cloud Computing LTD, dba HiChina (www.net.cn)  It seemed ironic the
“Registrar” has Alibaba in the name! Then I checked the Whois Record at https://www.whois.com/whois/pcgsn.com.   Shown below Is what I got.

Best, Jack

The post Fun with Fakes – The Trifecta, Chinese Counterfeit Coins, Slabs and Website! appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Sometimes, those gambles worked—at least for a while. More often, however, they ended in arrests, betrayals, or fortunes that vanished into the global bullion market.

Taken together, these cases reveal a consistent truth: gold rarely disappears by force alone. Instead, access, patience, and insider knowledge usually matter far more.

Here, ranked from #10 to #1 by the number of kilograms stolen, are the ten most interestong gold heists in modern history.

10. Croydon Airport Gold Robbery — United Kingdom (1935)

Gold Stolen: ~20 kg

In March 1935, Croydon Aerodrome stood as Britain’s primary international airport. Despite handling valuable cargo for Imperial Airways, the facility relied on surprisingly minimal security. Typically, only one guard held the key to the secure cargo room. That single point of failure proved decisive.

Although police charged three suspects, only one man received a conviction and a seven-year sentence. The others walked free after a key witness altered testimony. The gold itself was never recovered.

Ultimately, the Croydon robbery exposed early weaknesses in aviation cargo security and set a precedent for later airport-based bullion crimes.

9. Coral Gables Gold Heist — United States (2012)

Gold Stolen: ~45 kg

On October 12, 2012, George Villegas left his Coral Gables apartment transporting raw gold nuggets for a Bolivian mining company. Packed into rolling suitcases, the gold weighed more than 45 kilograms and carried a value exceeding $2.8 million.

Authorities later captured Valdez near the Guatemala–Belize border. Tragically, Villegas died of a heart attack before trial. Even so, prosecutors secured a conviction, and Valdez received a ten-year prison sentence in 2017.

The case highlights a recurring vulnerability: raw gold transported outside armored systems remains especially exposed.

8. Perth Mint Swindle — Australia (1982)

Gold Stolen: ~68 kg

In June 1982, the Perth Mint released 49 gold bars weighing 68 kilograms after accepting stolen checks presented as legitimate payment. Once the bullion left mint custody, it vanished.

The mystery deepened in 1989 when 55 kilograms of gold nuggets appeared outside a Perth television station with a note claiming the brothers’ innocence. Despite renewed investigations, the stolen bars have never resurfaced.

Today, the Perth Mint Swindle remains one of Australia’s most controversial and unresolved gold crimes.

7. Singapore Brink’s Robbery — Singapore (2012)

Gold Stolen: ~70 kg

In July 2012, during a period of near-record gold prices, 70 one-kilogram gold bars disappeared from Brink’s Singapore.

Brink’s discovered the loss quickly and alerted authorities. Within twelve hours, police arrested one suspect at Singapore’s airport as he attempted to leave the country. Prosecutors later charged Teo Wen Wei with aiding and abetting the theft.

Although the arrest came swiftly, public documentation remains limited. Authorities never fully disclosed whether all of the gold was recovered. Even so, the case illustrates how quickly bullion thefts can unravel when transport controls fail.

6. The Great Gold Robbery — United Kingdom / France (1855)

Gold Stolen: ~91 kg

In May 1855, criminals executed one of history’s most sophisticated transport thefts. Targeting a gold shipment traveling by rail from London to Paris, the thieves used duplicate keys and insider access to railway safes.

A lengthy investigation eventually exposed a network of railway workers and criminal planners. Betrayal followed, leading to arrests, prison sentences, and transportation. The crime permanently reshaped European transport security and inspired generations of heist lore.

5. Philadelphia Mint Gold Bar Robbery — United States (1893)

Gold Stolen: ~183 kg

Long before tunnels and forged documents, America’s greatest gold theft unfolded quietly from within.

Between 1883 and 1893, Henry S. Cochran worked at the Philadelphia Mint and exploited small flaws in vault construction and oversight. Using a bent wire, he dislodged gold bars from stacks behind an iron lattice door. By nudging loose hinges, he briefly opened the vault just long enough to remove each bar.

Over ten years, Cochran stole 183 kilograms of gold, worth millions today.

An audit eventually exposed the loss. Investigators recovered much of the stolen bullion from Cochran’s home and from ventilation shafts within the mint itself. Even so, the breach shocked federal officials and led to sweeping changes in U.S. Mint security protocols.

More than a century later, the Philadelphia Mint Gold Bar Robbery remains the largest confirmed insider gold theft in American history, proving that access—not force—often poses the greatest risk.

4. Lufthansa Cargo Gold Heist — United States (1997)

Gold Stolen: ~187 kg

By the late 1990s, JFK Airport had become a critical hub for international bullion shipments. In July 1997, criminals exploited that role with precision timing and insider knowledge, targeting a Lufthansa Cargo facility that routinely handled high-value freight.

Rather than relying on brute force, the thieves planned carefully. They understood the cargo schedule, the layout of the facility, and the brief security gaps during transfers. On the night of the heist, they subdued employees quickly and without gunfire. Within minutes, they loaded 187 kilograms of gold bars into waiting vehicles and disappeared.

The Lufthansa Cargo heist highlighted a recurring vulnerability in bullion transport: airports depend heavily on internal trust. When that trust fails, even layered security systems can collapse.

3. Toronto Pearson Airport Gold Heist — Canada (2023)

Gold Stolen: ~400+ kg

In April 2023, one of the most modern gold heists on record unfolded without gunfire, broken locks, or dramatic escapes. Instead, it relied on paperwork.

At Toronto Pearson International Airport, a shipment of gold arriving from Switzerland sat briefly inside an air cargo facility. During that narrow window, criminals presented forged but convincing documentation that appeared to authorize the release of the cargo. Cargo staff, following standard procedures, handed over the shipment.

The crime stunned the global bullion industry. Investigators later arrested multiple suspects, including individuals with airport access. Even so, much of the gold remains missing. Authorities believe portions were quickly melted or exported before law enforcement could intervene.

What makes the Toronto Pearson heist especially alarming is what it revealed about modern logistics. Physical security held firm. Digital systems worked as designed. The failure occurred at the intersection of trust and verification.

For collectors and investors, the lesson was sobering: even in an age of biometric access and digital tracking, gold can still vanish if procedural safeguards fail.

2. Banco Central de Colombia Gold Heist — Colombia (1994)

Gold Stolen: ~1,200 kg of Gold Bars

In 1994, criminals carried out a major bullion theft targeting the Banco de la República, Colombia’s central bank. The crime involved the removal of approximately 1.2 metric tons of gold bars from official reserves stored in a high-security vault.

Unlike smash-and-grab robberies, this theft relied heavily on insider access and institutional familiarity. Investigators later determined that employees with knowledge of vault procedures and transport schedules played a central role. Rather than triggering alarms, the perpetrators exploited trust and routine.

Authorities recovered only a portion of the stolen gold. Much of the bullion was believed to have been melted down and sold through illicit refining networks, a common tactic in large gold crimes. Several individuals were later convicted, though the full scope of the criminal network was never publicly disclosed.

The heist forced Colombia’s central bank to overhaul vault controls, auditing procedures, and internal oversight. It also reinforced a lesson repeated throughout gold-theft history: the greatest risk often comes from inside the system, not outside it.

1. Brink’s-Mat Gold Robbery — United Kingdom (1983)

Gold Stolen: ~3,000 kg

On November 26, 1983, armed robbers forced their way into a Brink’s-Mat warehouse near Heathrow Airport. Initially, the criminals expected to steal cash. Instead, they discovered something far more valuable: over three metric tons of gold bullion, stacked inside a secure vault.

The scale of the theft soon created a second challenge, how to make three tons of stolen gold disappear. Criminal networks melted much of the bullion and re-cast it into new forms, effectively laundering it back into the legitimate gold market. Only a fraction of the original gold was ever recovered.

Decades later, experts believe that some Brink’s-Mat gold still circulates undetected. Unlike stolen art or rare coins, melted bullion leaves no identifying trace. As a result, the Brink’s-Mat robbery remains uniquely unsettling, both for law enforcement and the precious metals industry.

The case triggered sweeping reforms in bullion storage and transport across the United Kingdom. However, its legacy endures as a stark reminder that once gold loses its original form, it becomes almost impossible to reclaim.

Final Thoughts

These gold heists reveal more than criminal ingenuity. They also highlight weaknesses in security, trust, and oversight, lessons that still resonate in today’s bullion markets. Whether driven by desperation or greed, each case underscores one undeniable truth: where gold goes, trouble often follows.

If you’re fascinated by the darker side of numismatic history, these stories offer a gripping reminder that gold’s value has always inspired risk, reward, and remarkable crimes.

The post The Top 10 Most Interesting Gold Heists in Modern History appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Numismatic crime is rising at an unprecedented rate.

Today, record gold and silver prices attract professional criminals and organized crime groups. As a result, these criminals target dealers, collectors, and coin shops nationwide.

Because of this surge, victims often suffer severe financial loss. In addition, they experience emotional stress and long recovery times. Unfortunately, many investigations stall. Law enforcement agencies usually lack the specialized numismatic knowledge required for these cases.

This is precisely why the Numismatic Crime Information Center (NCIC) matters.

Every day, NCIC delivers free investigative support to law enforcement, dealers, and collectors. Moreover, NCIC provides expert numismatic identification and issues nationwide crime alerts. When numismatic crime occurs, NCIC often becomes the first call that pushes a case forward.

However, as criminal activity increases, the demand for our services also grows. At the same time, NCIC relies entirely on donations from the numismatic community. Without this support, we cannot keep these critical services free.

Your donation makes a direct impact.

It helps victims receive expert guidance. It gives officers the tools and knowledge they need. Most importantly, it increases the chance of recovering stolen property.

For these reasons, we ask you to consider donating today. Your support allows NCIC to continue protecting the numismatic community during this critical time.

You can donate online by visiting:
https://numismaticcrimes.org/donate/

Alternatively, you may mail your donation to:
P.O. Box 14080
Arlington, Texas 76094

NCIC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Thank you for supporting our mission. Thank you for protecting the hobby we all value. And thank you for standing with NCIC when it matters most.

Your financial support truly makes a difference.

With appreciation,
Doug Davis
Founder / President
NCIC

The post Numismatic Crime Information Center Needs Your Help appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Counterfeit U.S. coins are nothing new. But in today’s market, modern Chinese-made fakes, often housed in convincing counterfeit holders, are pushing the boundaries, and threatening unsuspecting collectors at every level.

This article highlights just a few of the Carson City (CC) dollar counterfeits currently circulating, many of which were reviewed during a FrostByte “Chit Chat” session on December 7th. These fakes aren’t just poor reproductions; they’re often sophisticated deceptions that exploit gaps in collector knowledge and marketplace oversight.

Let’s dig into some examples, and more importantly, how to spot the red flags.

The “Impossible” Seated Liberty Dollars

Among the most glaring examples are Seated Liberty dollars allegedly from Carson City, but dated before CC coins were ever struck.

This is a  historical impossibility. The “CC” mintmark wasn’t introduced until 1870, and the “In God We Trust” motto wasn’t added until 1866. Yet here we are, with afantasy coin boldly sporting both the wrong dates and design elements.

These fakes often feature what’s known as the “Dotted N” in “UNITED”, a telltale marker I previously discussed in a CoinWeek article on counterfeit diagnostics. Additionally, the reverse dies don’t match any known genuine Trade dollar varieties, but they do match each other, suggesting a shared counterfeit origin.

The “Common Reverse” Trick

A deeper dive reveals that many of these fakes, whether Seated Liberty or Morgan dollars, share identical reverse dies, especially around the “CC” mintmark area. That’s a major giveaway.

This tactic of using a generic counterfeit reverse across many dates is common in these modern fakes. Once you’ve identified the reverse as bad, you can often dismiss any coin using it.

Here’s one from my own collection:

And why stop at 1874? I’ve seen “CC” dollars as early as 1791, a date that never existed for any U.S. dollar, let alone from Carson City.

The “Notched R” and More Fake Varieties

Another family of fakes uses what I call the “Notched R”, found in Liberty Seated fakes like the 1875-CC dollar Trade Dollar. I covered this in detail for the Gobrecht Journal, published by the Liberty Seated Collectors Club.

These fakes again feature the same bad reverse die, making the shared traits easy to track once you know what to look for.

The Morgan Dollar Epidemic

The Morgan dollar series, especially Carson City issues, is rife with counterfeits. The 1881-CC has become one of the most commonly faked dates, though all CC dates have been targeted.

In fact, during an earlier investigation, I tracked at least 13 different sellers offering fake 1881-CC Morgans, all using the same counterfeit PCGS certification number: 27886283. The labels were high-quality forgeries, but the coins, once compared, all showed the same incorrect reverse for the date.

This eventually connected with a Coin Community forum thread from 2018, which discussed raw fake 1881-CC Morgans, again using the same bad reverse.

IMAGE
Caption: Counterfeit 1881-CC Morgans using shared die characteristics and forged holders

Know Your VAMs — They Can Save You

When vetting a Morgan dollar, I always start with the reverse design and the mintmark placement. For Carson City coins, the size and position of the “CC” is often the easiest way to rule out a fake.

One of the most valuable tools I use is VAMWorld, an online database of known die varieties (VAMs). I’ve even created crib sheets for myself that show what legitimate Carson City reverses should look like.

By comparing the fake’s reverse to genuine examples, the differences become obvious. However, I’ll refrain from detailing all of them here. The purpose of this article is to protect collectors, not help counterfeiters improve their product.

1921 Morgans: Genuine Certs, Fake Coins

One of the most deceptive examples I’ve seen is a 1921-P Morgan dollar, graded MS64 by PCGS.

The genuine coin’s label reads “1921 Morgan” to distinguish it from 1921 Peace dollars. However, counterfeiters cloned this label and used it to house their fakes—complete with forged coins inside.

Eventually, counterfeiters adapted, and newer versions of these fakes began appearing without the “Morgan” label, trying to stay ahead of the hobby’s scrutiny.

Recent Listings: Spotted and Flagged

Counterfeit Carson City dollars continue to surface in online auctions. Just recently, an example of a fake 1879-CC dollar was listed on HiBid, complete with counterfeit certification and packaging.

Thanks to vigilance from collectors and the Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation (ACEF), the listing was flagged and pulled.

This is the reality we live in. These coins look legitimate at a glance and are often sold through high-traffic platforms to reach unaware buyers.

Final Thoughts: Knowledge Is Your Best Defense

The counterfeiters aren’t slowing down. They’re getting better, faster, and more coordinated. As they refine their dies and fake slabs, it’s up to us, the collectors, dealers, and researchers, to stay ahead.

If you’re buying a Carson City coin:

• Verify the reverse die details
• Use tools like VAMWorld
• Double-check certification numbers using the grading service’s online tools
• Buy from trusted sellers
• And most of all: ask questions. A coin that looks too perfect—or too good to be true, deserves a second look.

I’ll continue publishing updates and discoveries as new fakes emerge. Until then, stay sharp, and stay skeptical.

Best as Always,

Jack

The post Fun With Fakes: The Ongoing Battle Against Counterfeit Carson City Dollars appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

CoinWeek has been burning the midnight oil, turning out informative articles after articles on popular coins in their Collectors Guide series, and one particular article happened to catch my eye just as I was investigating a recent suspect 1893-CC Morgan dollar!

At the time, Charles Morgan worked for CoinWeek. He presented specific, relevant information on each subject coin or series featured, and I used the 1893-CC version as part of my counterfeit research for my subject examples.

The 1893-CC Morgan Dollar Investigation

So, on to the subject example of this episode, and as all who know me know, I start with ATTRIBUTION (even though this one has an “across the room” feature identifying what it is!).

With Carson City Morgan dollars, I typically start with the reverse and the size/placement of the “CC” mint mark; my go-to place for that has been the online resource VAMWorld, and I have made crib sheets for myself of the known reverses by mint mark and VAM variety.

When I speak of a Morgan VAM, I am using the term to mean known variety basically, but the Wikipedia definition is as follows:

Questionable Listings in Fake Holders

And the subject eBay listing:

And the “across the room” feature I mentioned, well, there is a well-known counterfeit “CC” reverse used on a whole series of different dated Morgan fakes with both attribution points, the exact same wrong-for-most-CCs shape/location and the “slash” across the eagle.

I also note the “un-filled O” feature, which I have seen on many of the latest CC Fakes. And then the slab…

The label font also catches your attention from across the room! The front barcode does not scan, but the reverse QR code does. And ironically, it reads the correct cert number but adds “cn” to it – an ironic reference to China?

And what about the cert? Conveniently it has no reference image or auction appearances to compare to but it is active.

Being notified of the issues, the seller pulled the listing pending “further review.” And running through my file folders, I came across this Canadian seller example from January.

Same cert number, but this one’s front barcode scanned. The font was also better, but the reverse QR yielded the same “cn” notation.

And again, the reverse was easy to spot!

That seller wasn’t so cooperative, and the listing was removed.

But, as always, there’s more!

Back through the archives, I came across this beaut. Again listed on the ‘Bay with the same PCGS cert number but a different generation holder. This one dates back to 2022.

And the reverse “features”:

And the “twist” (as always)! One can always find them cheaper on one of my favorite internet venues…

So, there appears to be no end to the bad coins out there or subject matter for this series. Stay vigilant; it is a jungle out there!

I appreciate any feedback or “likes” for these on the CoinWeek FB page, where they are also posted.

Best,

—Jack

MORE Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young

* * *

The post 1893-CC NOT PCGS Morgan Dollar Counterfeits – Jack Young’s Fun With Fakes appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

After submitting my 50th exclusive CoinWeek article on counterfeits, CoinWeek sent me a note asking whether I’d considered doing one on the five or 10 most deceptive counterfeits I’d ever seen and what had tipped me off about them. I responded that I thought that was a great idea!

But writing more articles on all of the fakes appearing in many different selling venues got in the way, and now, after 65+ articles published on CoinWeek, I found myself revisiting the idea!

And I wrote it under my “Dark Corner” brand instead of my current “Fun with Fakes (FwF)” because every one of the following has had one or multiple examples certified and slabbed as genuine by a major third-party grading service (TPG) or two.

These are the ones that keep me up at night, and certainly are not “Fun”…

Brief History of this “Ring” of Counterfeiters

All of these and approximately 20 other examples can be traced back to one counterfeit “ring”.

The moneyman was in China; he purchased genuine examples, many from good dealers on eBay (the “Bay”), and then shipped them to the “den” in College Station, Texas, where various seller IDs sold the clones on the Bay.

I am not aware if anyone knows where the counterfeits were actually “coined”.

I had the opportunity to present my findings on these at the time to the U.S. Secret Service in a face-to-face meeting, compliments of my friend and anti-counterfeiting activist Beth Deisher back in 2018.

As a result of that meeting, I had follow-up phone meetings with both a Texas Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent (who was aware of the location I had identified to the Secret Service) as well as a Treasury Department agent on the same subject.

Although I never heard what happened (I was told I would most likely not), the group disappeared, including all seller IDs on eBay, and I didn’t see any other new varieties from them again.

So, Here is My List

For each entry on this list, I will include the best images available–including full slab images if the example has been reported and the cert number dealt with–but I will redact the cert numbers of any still open.

The top five most deceptive counterfeits that I’ve encountered since we saw the first one back in the fall of 2015, in ascending order:

1. 1796 S-85 Large Cent
2. 1872-S Seated Half Dollar
3. 1798 S-158 Large Cent
4. 1836 Gobrecht Dollar
5. 1797 S-139 Large Cent

Detailed attribution information on each can be found at the links above.

#5) 1796 S-85 Large Cent

This one was identified as a fake by a friend and colleague from Early American Coppers (EAC) for reasons apparent when compared to a genuine example. My initial thought was it could have been tooled but would not dispute the evidence.

Interestingly, I found another example with matching major attribution marks but some apparently enhanced details, leading me to believe that the counterfeiters tooled the original dies.

Further research resulted in finding the original holed example, and we realized they were actually repairing damaged genuine coins to make the dies.

Subsequently, this one was certified by a major TPG, and images taken highlighted the apparent “star” in front of the face and doubled ONE CENT, leading to more and deeper research.

As a result, this example was proven to have been struck over a later date Large Cent cull (another of my initial suspicions); the main buyer had purchased cull Large Cents from a couple of Bay sellers during the time we were researching these.

The total population includes two TPG-certified specimens, a couple of raw examples, and the known damaged genuine source coin.

The main repeating attribution points are as follows:

This is the only example I have been able to document struck over another later date coin!

#4) 1872-S Liberty Seated Half Dollar

This was the “coin” that got me introduced to the Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) after finding a raw example listed on eBay by one of the known connected bad sellers.

Like the 1796 S-85, the 1872-S Half Dollar was initially “suspicious” due to the seller that was offering it, and after further review, the coin was not attributable to a genuine known variety for the date and mint.

I reached out to the LSCC, and a member responded that they had also found an example–this one in a TPG holder–and described what was wrong with them.

It actually took experts to figure it out, and as several articles have explained, the reverse was wrong for an 1872-S, although I found another in the same TPG’s holder as genuine.

More specifically, the obverse was reportedly from an 1872-P by mint state, the reverse with this unique (for an 1872-S) sized mintmark and location is from an 1875-S, and the reed count (yes, experts count edge reeds) was from an 1876!

I referred to it as a sort of “Frankenstein’s Monster” coin, with a couple of certified examples and a couple of raw ones but no documented genuine source coin, the only one we did not find for this group.

One image of this one is courtesy of my friends at NGC (who have not authenticated one), as well as in-hand images taken of the two slabbed examples.

And the main repeating major attribution points as follows:

#3) 1798 ”S-158” Large Cent

The 1798 ”S-158” Large Cent is one of my favorites, having handled several fake examples from different venues, and it is actually the variety that started me down this rabbit hole in late 2015. It was also the subject for my meeting and presentation to the United States Secret Service in Washington, D.C..

The first one reported was initially investigated as a new unknown variety of 1798 Large Cent, but several more were almost immediately found after its discovery, with all having matching attribution marks.

The following images include the “discovery coin” (found by someone else), the first one I discovered, and another counterfeit from the same group of known eBay bad sellers.

Interestingly, all three of the imaged examples were listed and sold by three different seller IDs, but all linked back to one listed “Company” and corresponding location in Texas.

The following image, courtesy of a friend and fellow EAC (Early American Coppers) member, was also used for one of my Facebook Group pages.

It shows marks and repaired areas common to all known examples, with a genuine coin on top.

Another certified example, this one initially considered a die state of S-158:

One of the interesting things to note is that we’ve documented nine of these, including the presumed genuine source example, all found in the late 2015 to early 2016 timeframe.

We have not seen another, which makes me wonder how many more are out there in folks’ collections.

The main repeating attribution points are in the image below.

#2) 1836 Gobrecht Dollar

The 1836 Gobrecht Dollar coming in at number two is a prolific TPG-certified counterfeit found in a major auction venue along with the ‘Bay. I’ve written a couple of articles on these.

As in many of the deceptive certified counterfeits, the genuine source example for the dies was damaged and repaired to make the false dies.

The hole in this example was small and mainly affected the “OF” on the reverse, requiring tooling in that spot after plugging the hole. The most obvious result of the tooling was the tail of the “F”.

Since reporting these, one turned up a few years ago in a dealer’s inventory, also TPG-certified. I understand it was returned to the third-party grading service that “authenticated” it.

The main repeating attribution points are as follows:

#1) 1797 S-139 Large Cent

So, here we are at NUMERO UNO, the 1797 “S-139” Large Cent, the one that a friend and big-time Early American Copper dealer said kept him up at night, and another was convinced only when I showed him the evidence.

Possibly only one certified, this example was authenticated by two of the top TPGs. The other certified example is likely the repaired genuine source coin. There were a couple of raw examples found and documented, as well.

The genuine example had a series of deep scratches that were mostly smoothed out on the coin before making these false dies, leaving an obvious streak on the doctored coin and remnants on the struck fakes, which serve as attribution points.

This one is so good that it was included as #18 for the variety in the Early Copper condition census for large cents (“CC”).

Supposed 1797 S-139 CC 18, net graded VF30

While researching this one, I asked a friend to do an image analysis. He “maps” a genuine coin in CAD/CAM and then maps the subject examples. His overlay includes two known bad examples; the “red” features are common only to the fakes.

These also match the “atts” that I had previously developed:

So there you have it, the top five deceptive counterfeits that keep me and plenty of others up at night!

Best, as Always,

—Jack

MORE Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young

* * *

The post From the Dark Corner: Top Five Counterfeits I Have Seen appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Original by Charles Morgan, Updated by CoinWeek …..

Call me old-fashioned, but I’m the kind of fella who believes in paying an honest price for an honest product. And I believe there’s an honest price for every kind of collectible and a justifiable reason for any collector to pursue any area of collecting if they so desire.

I say that because today, I think we need to talk about the 1776-1976 Bicentennial Quarter, a perennial favorite among collectors and an eternal chestnut for SEO companies looking to hoodwink Google. I’ve written about this before, but the TL:DR of it is that, thanks to flaws in Google’s algorithm, tens of thousands of articles have been written claiming this common coin still found in circulation is worth big bucks. Some of these spammers even claim the coin is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I’m not kidding. Let’s call it for what it is: a “big lie” and fraud. And this “big lie” is hurting people.

Now, before you say that I’m some blowhard who doesn’t appreciate the appeal of modern coins, know this. When I started my journey as a numismatic writer, I felt that the traditional rare coin market was missing the boat on modern coins. In modern coins, I saw an approachable area of the hobby that would resonate with coming generations of collectors who recalled spending Kennedy Half Dollars or seeing Wheat Pennies in change, or, yes, how cool it was when the Bicentennial coins were released as part of the nationwide observance of the 200th anniversary of the birth of American Independence.

Speaking for myself, I have no idea how many 1776-1976 quarters have been in my hands over the course of my lifetime. You certainly used to see them more frequently than you do now that the coin is approaching 50 years old.

Also, I don’t know if you know this, but the first article Hubert Walker and I wrote for CoinWeek when we were freelancers was about the risks and rewards of collecting the Bicentennial Quarter. Millions have read that article and watched the video version (see link) over the years, but it’s still not enough. If more people had read our level-headed analysis on the collectibility of the famous Drummer Boy quarter, then a beat-up circulated example would have never honestly sold on eBay for $1,799.

The seller of this worn Bicentennial Quarter makes a remarkable claim, saying it has a “rare filled mint mark.” On this coin, the mintmark is the small “D” located to the right of George Washington’s pigtail. This design element was struck onto dies by hand, usually by the United States Mint’s assistant engravers. Some accomplished this in one punch, while others had to tap the mintmark into the die multiple times. When the mintmark shows clear evidence of multiple punches due to the spread between impressions, we call this a Repunched Mintmark (acronym: RPM). If a mintmark variety existed for the 1976-D Washington Quarter, it would be an RPM. However, no RPMs for the 1976-D quarter are listed in the Cherrypicker’s Guide, and none are attributed by the industry’s leading third-party grading services.

The seller doesn’t call his rare variety an RPM; instead, he calls it a “filled mint mark.” A filled or clogged mintmark is a type of error where the mintmark is either bungled or clogged. Looking at the images provided by the seller, the “D” mintmark on this coin is neither filled nor clogged. Instead, what is plainly visible is wear. Over time and subsequent use, the finer details of a coin’s design will wear down. If a coin circulates for long enough, then the raised elements of a coin will wear completely flat until the coin is no longer identifiable. With clad coins, one will likely never encounter one that has had its design completely worn down, but those who collect America’s pre-1964 silver coins are well familiar with this phenomenon.

Now that we’ve cleared up the nonsense about the rare error, let me provide some incontrovertible evidence that the 1776-1976 Bicentennial Quarter is not worth the thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars these salacious internet posts claim. The above listing from the reputable Round Table Trading coin dealer tkeepercoins is for a complete 1976 U.S. Mint Set in Original Government Packaging. This set includes an uncirculated example of every business-strike coin issued by the United States Mint in 1976, including the 1976 Washington Quarter and the 1976-D. Why would a beat-up, circulated example be worth nearly 100x times more than a premium uncirculated one? The answer is obvious: it wouldn’t.

The offending listing, which reportedly sold for $1,799.95, isn’t the only recent sale reported by eBay of a Bicentennial Quarter going for exorbitant sums. The two listings imaged above were from sellers with zero feedback ratings. One hopes that these sales were never actually carried out.

Until humans take a bigger role in curating the type of content that Google and other social media companies disseminate, disinformation will continue to proliferate, and no amount of human expertise will be able to outshout a computer algorithm. I’ve done my part, but it remains to be seen if the refutation of a noted numismatic expert will be able to out-disseminate the 1976 quarter’s Big Lie.

* * *

The post Some People Are Paying $1,000 or More for Bicentennial Quarters on eBay appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Many continue to prey on the less knowledgeable in the Hobby with multiple, often repeated, fake coin offerings, even after they are reported and removed. So is the case for this seller and this particularly “Bad coin”…

I found a counterfeit 1909-S Indian Head Cent [IHC] in a  fake PCGS slab being offered on eBay. The seller’s name is STEPLA_1908 and he/she Joined October 2023, showing 16 feedback. (Known bad eBay seller!)

Based on the Cert number 13845520 from the PCGS Cert Lookup page, the genuine coin was sold by Heritage on Aug 15, 2007 as Lot 7163

The “online cert” listing has no image but the Heritage site still has the archived Lot, so we can see images of this “loser” counterfeit [left] and compare it to the genuine example below [right].

Once the listing was removed, the seller tried 2 more times to post and sell this fake.

After having reporting seller STEPLA_1908 and having those listings removed, he appeared to have gone dormant for a short period. Then suddenly, a new seller account showed up, from the same listed location- Pottsville, Pennsylvania and trying to push the same Fake “Certified coin”; coincidence? I think not!

The saga continues. The coin magicly gets relisted, again. [see below] under a “different Seller account, Ingodsgr24.

And ammazingly, Bidding rose to $635.00,  until it was once again removed by eBay, saving another person from themselves.

This “new” seller apparently did some homework, as he created an image with a crude “Heritage Auctions” label on the reverse. 

One note though, the barcode on the fakes does scan correctly with my barcode scanning software, so these insert labels are better than most fakes we usually see. Again eBay removed the listing, so now what? ……Well, no disappointment here!

The Seller STEPLA_1908,  tried to offload the fake again, but this time, he cracked the coin out of the salb abd was trying to sell it raw! [See listing below]

Terrible images, terrible coin. Swing and a miss and then its gone again! 

Then the coin shows up once more, with the original fake sellers “alter ego” account of Ingodsgr24, and offers the same coin once again.

I’m thinking now they have listed so many different counterfeits and lost track of where they were- 1909-S VDB? And what about the $151.00 bid level? I suppose eBay saved another potential victim when they removed Ingodsgr24 seller account and his other 8 bad listings.

Both sellers [STEPLA_1908 and Ingodsgr24] have been reported to eBay with countless images of others alternately listed. I am curious if eBay will step up and get serious about this problem, or just let these bad actors continue to try to dupe unsuspecting and inexperienced buyers. So much for protecting your customers.

As I was finishing this piece and getting eBay to remove this seller’s junk,  STEPLA_1908 relisted 7 bad ”coins” including another of the bad 1909-S IHCs. And with these listings he added an even more hilarious note “proving” authenticity!” [SEE BELOW a Fraudulent “Invoice”] used to “prove” this listing is legit.

Instead of reporting this all over….. AGAIN!, I sent another note to eBay about the seller and his latest listings and asked if I should turn a blind eye and let them run the 2 days they were listed for.   I was pleased with the result: Ebay Posted that “STEPLA_1908 was NO longer a Registered User”

Trying to finish this article, I sent a copy to my friend and fellow counterfeit researcher Jack Riley, only to find he was working on a draft about counterfeit 1908-S IHCs. Talk about 2 people on the same page! And coincidentally both the 1908-S and 1909-S counterfeits share a common reverse.

And of course, it isn’t over until it’s over. Jack Riley found a 3^rd connected seller offering a 1909-S IHC as well; Pottsville Pennsylvania looks like the new hotbed for these scammers.

Be aware,  and use all the available resources at your disposal. And if you are not sure, Ask a person you can Trust who is knowledgable!

Best, Jack

Author Note:  While continuing “dumpster diving”, I came across the genuine 1909-S coin, in an authentic PCGS holder, with the real Cert Number.  It had recently been sold on eBay on September 3rd by Aercus Numismatics with decent images included.  And it sold for $1 995.00. !

This article was originally reviewed and discussed on FrostByte’s Sun morning Chit Chat. – Video Below

* * *

Want more stories like this? Sign up for the CoinWeek newsletter and never miss a rare discovery, auction highlight, or collector deep-dive.

The post Jack Young’s Fun with Fakes – Bad “Bay” sellers and a not-PCGS 1909-S Indian Cent appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.