> > >> actually, I have seen the verbiage that comes back from at least one
> > >> the
> > >> services, and rather than state outright the coin was phony, I think
> > >> they
> > >> used the term doubtful authenticity.
> > > Boy! Which one??? I sure wouldn't have much use for an
> > > service that could only "doubt" whether a coin was authentic, and was
> > > unable or unwilling to make a call one way or another. There's gotta
> > > something about the coin that raises a question, and that at least
> > > should be spelled out to the submitter.
> > > Bruce
> > IIRC PCGS has verbiage similar to the above as one of the possible
> > for a "no grade". I don't remeber seeing a "coin is a counterfeit" as a
> > possibility for a no grade.
> If a grading/authentication service can't or refuses to say for sure if
> a submitted coin is a counterfeit, copy, or altered specimen, I wouldn't
> entrust it to interpret the subtleties in the MS grade ranges either.
> Like PCGS or PCGS-slab purchasers would really care what I think....
Remember the story of the double headed coin that the slabbing services
thought was likely legit but none of them would slab? I think sometimes
they error on the side of caution when making such pronouncements,
especially when they spend maybe all of 30 seconds looking at a coin. my
guess is they know to an absolute certainty of the time that a coin they
label as "doubtful authenticity" is indeed a fake, but there are probably a
small percentage of cases where they just do not know. there have been any
number of such cases (cal gold and gold slugs come to mind) where the
services just won't slab things that they are not completely sure of either