Author Topic: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product  (Read 16851 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PandaCollector

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2450
  • Karma: 77
  • Gender: Male
    • Pandacollector.com
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2017, 02:06:40 PM »
Should now be considered a counterfeit/curiosity since it is found to be NOT an official mint issue.

Something to keep in mind; this is not an official statement from China Gold Coin, China Banknote Printing & Minting, or the People's Bank of China.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
China Pricepedia
The Gold & Silver Panda Coin Buyer’s Guide 3
www.pandacollector.com


Offline 1668Chris

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Karma: 34
    • Coin Armour
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2017, 02:15:26 PM »
I am taking Mr. Zhao's argument with a huge pinch of salt. I do not collect these coins, and so do not have them at hand to examine all the microscopic characteristics. But from the way he made his assertion, I think his argument is flawed. He said that only one set of master hub was used, and so there was no way to have two different sizes for D. We don't even know at which stage that D was added. It is highly possible that D was added later than the master hub. So yes, only one master hub was used, but still there may be two different versions of D if it was added later on.

I also do not own any small D's. 

This goes back to, for example, the 1994 unicorn proof.  You have 3 different locations for the "P"....how is this possible under Zhao's argument...its not.  I go back to the theory of hand punching dies.

Offline PandaCollector

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2450
  • Karma: 77
  • Gender: Male
    • Pandacollector.com
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2017, 02:22:24 PM »
I am taking Mr. Zhao's argument with a huge pinch of salt. I do not collect these coins, and so do not have them at hand to examine all the microscopic characteristics. But from the way he made his assertion, I think his argument is flawed. He said that only one set of master hub was used, and so there was no way to have two different sizes for D. We don't even know at which stage that D was added. It is highly possible that D was added later than the master hub. So yes, only one master hub was used, but still there may be two different versions of D if it was added later on.

Dies can be altered and marks (like mint marks) added, but it requires the original die. It is interesting that the statement ends by disparaging the motives of unknown persons. Evidently the writer has somebody, or somebodies, in mind. I certainly hope that more information will be forthcoming.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
China Pricepedia
The Gold & Silver Panda Coin Buyer’s Guide 3
www.pandacollector.com

P.S. I also do not own this variety.


Offline KeyDate1/2ozPandas

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Karma: 196
  • Gender: Male
    • China Mint Coins, LLC
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2017, 02:57:43 PM »
Are we saying that btw the two most highly respected grading companies in the world, they got it wrong?  Its one thing to say that you cannot find any mint evidence of the dies, etc. but how does that lead to say it was minted by a private mint?  Does he have evidence of this....not sure.

Also, who are the experts here???  Are they in the US or are they in China??  maybe the experts should collaborate and come to a common view before information is published.

NGC and PCGS get it wrong more often than you would think.  Graders may spends a few seconds on a given modern coin to determine its grade and authenticity.  I had over 130 mislabeled coins at one time from just NGC, mainly 1992 and 1993 SD vs LD.  There also countless times PCGS slabbed counterfeit 2000 mirror silver panda as genuine and other times NGC would state authentic 2000 mirror panda as questionable authenticity.   When NGC got more involved with older chinese coins they slabbed fake imperial coins as authentic because their top graders were less experienced compared to PCGS. 

From what I understood was the coins were authentic but the printing of the D was aftermarket done later by either by an official mint or private mint.  Imagine a dealer got a 2000x 2001 silver pandas lying around and asks the mint or a private mint to stamp a D on them so they are more desirable.  Or alternatively the mint got a bunch of unsold 2001 lying around in 2010 and rather than distributing them to the US, they decide to punch a D on the coin and sell them domestically.  In the first scenario NGC should not certify them because they are aftermarket, while in the second scenario NGC should certify them but label them as SP (specimen) similar to 1979 1oz silver matte year of child coin that was actually produced in 1988 despite date on the coin of 1979.

The 1992 1oz silver proof with the mark or 1992 12oz silver panda proof with 1/10oz gold inlay are authentic coins but with aftermarket alternations as a result NGC refuses to certify them. 

In the end the question will come down to when were the coins actually produced, by what mint, when were D imprinted on the coins and which mint imprinted the D, etc.  The uncertainty will certainly bring the price down as more sophisticated collectors/investors/dealers will dump first and ask questions later, while the deer in the headlight collectors will just stand pat and wait for it to shake out without increasing their position despite prices possibly going down 35%-75% over the next year.  This is common theme in the collectibles market as new information and hoards come out, those that act on the information quickly do well, while those that just take passive view often suffer losses.  It has happened to me several times when I buy something I know very little about, whether it is US coin or publicly traded stock, I sit passively and if I had simply acted on my impulse at the first sign of trouble or the first cockroach I would have cut my losses and saved a lot of money.

Finally as for experts developing a common view, that is very hard to do when data is not available.  When comparing two coins of comparable rarity it is like picking which candidate is best to become president, 50% vote one way, 50% vote another, are those that pick the winner really going to convince the other half their view is superior, almost never.   What makes MCC attractive for someone like me is the data is not available so the market pricing is very inefficient for many coins and picking sleepers is very easy compared to say the US coin market for which a lot of data is available.   Now with goldsheet being published and more sites in China publishing price and information the market is becoming more efficient, which means less opportunities for those that have skills to interpret subtle information found in auction records, pop reports, dealer patterns, investor patterns, etc.

Offline Hippanda

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: 76
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2017, 05:04:25 PM »
I haven't looked at this coin for quite a while, nor do I have one to inspect closely.  And clearly working from photos alone hampers accuracy of anaylsis. But I seem to recall there are a few mysteries that are difficult to easily resolve?

While there are apparent die differences between the three coins (standard, Large D, Small D)
it seems difficult to group. For example,  Standard and Large D seem to have different 999 style than Small D.  But Standard and Small D seem to share the belly indentation while Large D does not. So the hypothesis of someone just stamping a Small D on Standard coins seems to be at odds with details (as seen on photos)

Perhaps the biggest question to me is : if the Small D was added after, how can it be possible that there are no apparent small differences in positioning?  (Or are there ?). My examination under magnification of the Large D and Small D gold coins didnt show any variability from coin to coin in placement among samples of those two, which might be expected if D was added later.  How would consistency and tight alignment tolerances be achieved if the D's were added later?

Somebody needs to post magnified superimposed gif image study of the three to further illuminate.
SANDAC ?


"He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good."

Confucius

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Karma: 118
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2017, 07:56:33 PM »
Well, here I thought the 2001 "small D" controversy had died a quiet death but it is back!

I'm certainly no expert of minting process and I leave the debate to Mr. Zhao, NGC & PCGS.  However, I've seen & done numerous overlay comparisons of  panda, unicorn, dragon & pheonix, historical figures, etc, mostly from Shenyang mint that have numerous date & text shifts (I probably should provide links here, but it is a long list.  Do CCF search with keywords "shenyang shift" will provide a number of examples).  It's not just me, CCF members 1668Chris, poconopenn, hippanda (just a few names I recall from the top of my head) all have discoveries/discussions about date shifts. 

There may only be one master die or working hub, but I'm speculating that date & text were punched in the working die, at least at the Shenyang mint.  That's why there are so many text shift examples even for small production runs.  This does not prove Mr. Zhao is wrong, a private mint can punch a small D in a working die just as well as Shenyang mint.  It is just a possible explanation for the "small D" being made in an official mint.

Offline Kelvin C

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: -1
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2017, 10:14:17 PM »
The title 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product" based on Mr. Zhao claim should be changed.
At present this is one mans opinion. It surprises that this has been confirmed by title that his statement is fact. (From reading these posts and others over the years, if anything one has learned it is to question everything.)
Allowing this title to exist sets precedent for perhaps a "50% of all Chinese Panda coins are not genuine and have been and continue to be minted by a private mint" title.

Regards to this small d Panda. One questions why go to all this trouble. Where is the instant profit. (dealers were buying these from other coin dealers in Shanghai, Beijing and other coin markets- for the same price as 2001 large d's might add)
Why go to the trouble of only making a few hundred? If one knows this coin will be questioned. Why not keep cashing in until exposed? Many have been seen in Shenzhen Guobao Mint package.. Details of these so called puppy coins have fooled NGC, PCGS and Chinese dealers for years?   

I would kindly ask Arif to expand on this comment: "In China it was known that small D was not an official issue" China is a big country? Where in China was this known?- When and how long was this known?-And that the small d is not an official issue..By what sources and evidence?

It appears that some in this forum would like to see this coin as not an official issue. However, it is premature to confirm this in the title at this time.

Additionally, "Imagine a dealer got a 2000x 2001 silver pandas lying around........." Facts are not based on imagine things. "Imagine the China mints are going to re-strike gold pandas to there original mint issue numbers in the future??

"I think its time the China Mint step up and start revealing information about many things as opposed to leaving collectors in the dark ( I cannot stress this enough). " This would help. However, are many members of this forum familiar with how things were run there 15-20 years ago?

Lastly, NGC and PCGS authenticated these as genuine Chinese Panda coins. Surely they did some research before deciding to grade hundreds of these pandas?

On contact with a Chinese dealer yesterday.. His thoughts.. it make sense to always watch the magician other hand when he perform his trick.. I am not state his opinion deceitful but history is filled with profits of great wealth by wrongful claim and unsubstantiated rumor.

Please consider if the opinion of one man is justification to verify by this post title at this time a panda coin is not genuine. The opinions and claims of men even and especially respected may have serious consequence on other coins and perhaps panda market in as a whole in general.


Offline poconopenn

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
  • Karma: 225
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #37 on: May 19, 2017, 12:15:00 AM »
Since we do not have clear and high resolution pictures for comparison, attached are pictures of 2001, 2001 LD and 2001 SD, 3 coins for  each version, for future reference. They were copied from PCGS site and all are MS69.

Offline KeyDate1/2ozPandas

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Karma: 196
  • Gender: Male
    • China Mint Coins, LLC
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #38 on: May 19, 2017, 12:16:40 AM »
My information about small D came from Shanghai.  A US customer asked me to get him a sheet of small D coins from Shanghai after they started showing up in the NGC pop reports, when I asked around I learned there was a controversy about its authenticity, which was also  discussed on this forum.   I told the customer what I learned and he still requested I get him a sheet since NGC was grading them he was fine with the risk, he graded the coins and kept 4 for his collection at zero cost basis.   I emailed him about this thread and he said he only has 1 left and will ride out whatever happens.  I have never owned one for my collection or sold a slabbed coin, because controversy existed about the coin, I don't want to sell a coin to a collector that may turn out to be disaster unless the customer asked me to source the coin for them. 

There are a few coins that have controversy, some people like to get involved with those coins, while I tend to avoid those high risk/high rewards scenarios.  There is a 1978 CU/NI macau grand prix coin that I started accumulating in 2009-2011, kruse book stated a mintage of 11, but I somehow accumulated 6 pieces at an average price of $700 over 3 year period without much effort.  I and those that sold the coin to me knew the mintage number had to be wrong.   I sold several on ebay but stated in the description that stated mintage is probably wrong so don't blindly buy because you are expecting a 11 mintage coin for only $2000.  Another one that has a lot controversy is 1984 silver pagoda set mintage of 260, some believe the mintage is closer to a 1000.  Another example is the 1996 1oz gold russian tiger with stated mintage of 1000, but that coins is so common that everyone is sure the mintage is a lot higher.

Those that want hard facts will be disappointed with modern chinese coin market, because I don't believe we will ever get those beside small updates to what has been already published, all we can do is study availability, pop reports, prices, dealer patterns, etc to determine what is truly rare and authentic.  I worked as an engineer back in 2001 at a factory that produced $30M of revenue per day, ask me what I remember from that year, I can't think of single hard fact that I remember about production numbers, yields, cost metrics, average selling price, unsold product, etc. despite being an analytical person who had access to every database about our production metrics.  If I can't remember and given the china mint folks probably had access or tracking to just a fraction of the information and less education, I have to assume the facts will never be discovered.   

I don't rely on anyone opinions on what is the rarity of a given coin, I do my own research and block out all the noise of collectors, investors, authors, dealers and promoters.  What I do rely on is others opinion on whether a coin variety is authentic especially if it is trading at significant premium or if the mint packaging is different from what I have seen in the past. 

I will watch this play out from the sidelines with nothing at stake.

Offline poconopenn

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
  • Karma: 225
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2017, 12:17:41 AM »
Pictures of 2001 SD.

Offline poconopenn

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
  • Karma: 225
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2017, 03:41:01 PM »
This forum has accumulated lots of information of MCC. If you dig hard enough, you always can find the very valuable treasury. The following two posts, IMO, have substantiated the statement made by Mr. Zhao that 2001 small D was discovered very late, in later part of 2012, and supplied by an exclusive source. It is my understanding, after being forced to restrike of few culture sets by Germany distributor during 2001-2003, the new rules were imposed to stop the possibility of restrike by China Gold Coin Inc. Any restrike will require the permission of top management of China Gold Coin Inc. and will have the paper document to substantiate the activity of restrike. In addition, restrike is not allowed for any coin after one year of issued date.


My survey of the 2001D is done, out of the 886 2001D S10Y NGC photo examined, I can not find a single case of small "D".  In my opinion, there is some possibility of the small "D" being a fake, but I'm more inclined to think a collector has recognized the variety early on and accumulated a significant sample of them secretly and then submit them in one lot to NGC with sufficient sample size to establish their authenticity.  Time will tell, I shall monitor the 2001D population with considerable interest, there are a couple theories I want to check out.

:blush: :drool: I Graded 1 sheet sold some coins as is: a few lucky folks got small d as regular d:)  I had 4 left from that original sheet I graded , and I conserved them and relabeled, I know where all coins that are for sale currently came from except for the gentleman (dragondollar I believe his handle is) who just got the 70, this original source had 12 or 13 sheets , I believe less than 150 coins currently have been found , I do have a sheet untouched put away  ,and am not currently selling :) , so there you go............. maybe there is a 70 in that sheet:) N30 

Stamping mint mark on coin had been done for US circulated coin. For example, it is known that S mint mark in many rare 1909-S VDR in the market place is added later by counterfeiters inside China. But it has to be done on a transfer die, since S is the raised part of the device. However, D in 2001-D is not a raised part of the device and can be easily stamped directly on the regular 2001 coin at a precise spot without any technical issue. Many private mints in Beijing and Shanghai are capable to do this type job. Those mints routinely stamp numbers and letters on the edge of low mintage copper medals made in their plant.

The differences in design of regular 2001, large D and small D are very small, even within regular 2001 or large D, some small difference can also be seen and may be simply caused by different production dies or different stages of the production die. It is a very tough task to spot an alteration if the genuine coin is stamped with a mint mark, especially by well-equipped private mint inside China.

Interestingly, Mr. Zhao does not call 2001 small D as a forgery/fake, but a fantasy coin (“臆造币”或“戏作币”). IMO, he knows the source but does not want to cause the source to be in legal trouble。

Here is the definition of fantasy coin by Edward Kann:

Fantasy coins of Chinese vantage are decorative imagery, supplemented by whimsical inscriptions, designed and struck by private parties working “underground”.



Offline 1668Chris

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Karma: 34
    • Coin Armour
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2017, 04:07:42 PM »
if the original 2001 coin was stamped with the small D by a private mint....NGC would be forced to not grade the coin, and label it counterstamped (similar to the 1992 proof with torch mark)......hence significantly decreasing the value. 

Offline dynamike51

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • Karma: 39
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2017, 04:27:06 PM »
if the original 2001 coin was stamped with the small D by a private mint....NGC would be forced to not grade the coin, and label it counterstamped (similar to the 1992 proof with torch mark)......hence significantly decreasing the value. 

This I agreed. From all we have seen and heard, the coin itself is genuine. However, to designate 2001-small D as a distinct variety is very questionable.

Offline dynamike51

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • Karma: 39
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2017, 04:37:48 PM »
Furthermore, how the 2001-small D was discovered is fishy at best. Based on what SANDAC stated in December 2012, "My survey of the 2001D is done, out of the 886 2001D S10Y NGC photo examined, I can not find a single case of small "D".". Yet since early 2013 small-D started showing up everywhere - some even showed up with sheets of them. The entire scenario just defies logic.

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Karma: 118
Re: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2017, 04:59:03 PM »
There is a significant amount of discussions about 2001 small-D on CCF starting from reply #5:
http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=2193.0

14 pages later was my conversation with dragondollar (from whom I purchased my only 2001D small d) and his reply:
I have one sheet of 10 small Ds, and possibly several others in individual pouch like the one I sold. I need to check that out when I get back home. I was not aware of the variety before, so this is quite lucky. In 2007 a french friend asked me to bring him back 250 2001-D. Since I liked the design and the seller gave me a very attractive price I got 1 full sheet and 20 others in smaller sheets (2 or 4 together) for myself. When I read the topic, I asked my friend if he got some small D in his sheets. He does not know which one I provided him already, but he does not have any small D right now anyway. I was less lucky with the 2003, I also have one sheet of 2003 panda but no special variety.
http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=2193.msg44120#msg44120

Based on that conversation, small-D is already in the marketplace in 2007

The small-d I purchased (probably not the best one from dragondollar's collection) was perfectly brilliant.  I had hoped it would graded 70, but I received a 69 instead (NGC3764927-005) as pictured here:
http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=2193.msg47557#msg47557

The ratio of ms70 in 2001 small d is unusually high, much higher than the 2001D population.  It is almost like they were first strikes.  If they were punched later on, whoever punched them had good eyes for high quality coins and managed to picked out the very best coins for modifications knowing full well if discovered those coins would be worthless, that is certainly an unusual and unlikely strategy.