The Fake Paint Error Coins
New coin production techniques lead to new error coins and sadly new error coins lead to new fakes. I guess it was inevitable that the popularity and the high prices of "paint error" coins would attract the forgers and the scammers. In this article I will discuss the recent fake "paint error" coins, how to identify them and how PCGS mistakenly certified some of them. I will also give some suggestions as how to avoid something similar occurring again. As there are terms that may be unfamiliar, I will start with a short glossary.
Glossary
Paint Error - A generic term for any error in which the paint is incorrectly applied at the mint to a modern coin.
Paint Wrong Side Error (also known by the popular term Bullseye Error) - Paint applied to the wrong side of a coin. Examples of this have been found on $2 coins of various types and on donation dollars. Genuine examples typically sell for thousands of dollars.
Missing Paint Error - A coin that has somehow missed the part of the production process during which the paint is applied, such that there is no paint at all on the coin. Genuine missing paint error 2018 $2 Armistice coins have been found.
Wrong Paint Error - A coin that has paint inconsistent with the struck design. There have been several genuine examples of this involving mix ups of 2020 Women's T20 and some Olympics coins as well as mix ups on the 2017 dated $2.
Paint Both Sides Error - A coin with the paint applied to both sides. There are no known genuine examples and it is believed this error could only occur as a deliberate concoction.
Wrong Paint Wrong Side Error - A coin with incorrect paint for the issue applied to the wrong side. As far as I know this has never been observed as it would require a combination of two rare errors at the RAM.
PCGS Certificate Number - A unique number assigned to each coin that has been graded by PCGS (see figure 1).
PCGS Pedigree - Used by PCGS to recognise that a coin has once been part of a major collection - either the coin was part of a collection that had a dedicated sale or auction, or was part of a major collection on the PCGS Set Registry. (see figure 1).
 |
| Figure 1. The insert in a PCGS holder, showing the location of the certificate number (blue square) and pedigree (red square) as well as other information involved in the identification and grade of the coin. On most certificates the pedigree is blank. PCGS only acknowledge a pedigree when either the coin was part of a collection involved in a dedicated sale (or auction) or was part of a major collection on the PCGS Set Registry. Image courtesy of Drake Sterling Numismatics. |
1. The Fake Paint Error Coins
Recently a group of fake paint error coins of various types surfaced. Some were sold to collectors but another group was purchased by a dealer and ultimately mistakenly verified by PCGS. When informed of the true nature of these coins, PCGS moved with commendable speed and removed the certificate numbers from their database in less than 24 hours. PCGS have asked for the return of all these coins, but as some may not have been returned I recommend that anyone contemplating purchasing a PCGS graded paint error coin first check the certificate number. Table 1 lists the affected PCGS slabs that I know of, however there may be others.
| PCGS Certficate Number | Coin Type | Supposed Error | Alleged Pedigree | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44650781 | 2019 $2 Police Remembrance | Paint Both Sides | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 44650782 | 2019 $2 Police Remembrance | Paint Both Sides | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 44650783 | 2018 $2 Lest We Forget Eternal Flame | Wrong Paint (Armistice) | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | May be impossible to tell the difference between fake and genuine. |
| 44650784 | 2019 2021 $2 Ambulance Services | Paint Wrong Side | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | Fairly crude - some concentric sections missing |
| 44650785 | 2020 $2 Firefighters | Paint Both Sides | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 44650786 | 2020 $2 End of World War II | Wrong Paint (Firefighters) | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | May be impossible to tell the difference between fake and genuine |
| 44650787 | 2020 $2 End of World War II | Paint Wrong Side | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | Concentric circles of missing paint. Quite obvious (at least in hindsight). |
| 44650788 | 2019 $2 Police Remembrance | Paint Both Sides | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | While there are no gaps in the obverse paint, there are clear indications of concentric circles of paint of differing thickness. |
| 44650789 | 2020 $1 Donation Dollar | Paint Wrong Side | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | Clear indications of concentric circles of paint of differing thickness. |
| 44650790 | 2020 $1 Donation Dollar | Paint Both Sides | Mint Master Collection | Removed from PCGS database | Clear indications of concentric circles of paint of differing thickness, most of the paint missing. |
| 45594025 | 2019 $2 Police Remembrance | Paint Both Sides | None | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 45594026 | 2020 $2 Firefighters | Paint Wrong Side | None | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 45594027 | 2020 $2 End of World War II | Paint Wrong Side | None | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 45594028 | 2020 $1 Donation Dollar | Paint Wrong Side | None | Removed from PCGS database | |
| 45594029 | 2018 $2 Lest We Forget Eternal Flame | Wrong Paint | None | Removed from PCGS database |
Table 1. Coins incorrectly authenticated by PCGS. PCGS have requested return of all these coins, however just in case some are not returned those I know of are listed here.
The key concept in identifying genuine paint error coins is that the reverse of each coloured $1 and $2 (except the 2012 and 2018 red poppy) is designed so that when paint is applied via the paint die, the paint fills in any trough in the design. The layer of paint on the coin is now of uneven thickness, thin on the high points of the design, thick on the low points.
We will now discuss how to determine whether an example of the various types of error is genuine.
(a) Paint Wrong Side Error (also known as Bullseye Error): Paint applied to the obverse is of relatively even thickness as there are no deep surface depressions. This can be used to help determine whether a "paint wrong side" is a genuine error.Figure 2 is a genuine error coin. Note how the paint on the obverse is of even thickness. The reverse design of concentric rings tells us that any fake error coin would show concentric rings of alternating thick and thin paint, or possibly concentric rings of missing paint. (I have seen this characteristic missing paint on the only example of a 2019 $2 Police Remembrance fake that I have seen. Evidently, the forger was unable to make all the paint lift off cleanly. Due to copyright reasons I am unable to reproduce that particular photograph.)
 |
| Figure 2. A genuine "bullseye" or paint wrong side error on a 2019 $2 Police Remembrance. Note how even the paint thickness is across Her Majesty's portrait and also note how deep the concentric troughs (or perhaps we can call them paint traps) are on the reverse. Photographs courtesy of Susan Kukucka. |
Figure 3 shows a fake bullseye error on a 2021 Aboriginal Flag $2. Notice how the reverse highpoints and depressions have affected the paint that is now on the obverse. This is the key to identifying what is real and what is not.
 |
| Figure 3. A fake "bullseye" or paint wrong side error on a 2021 $2 Aboriginal Flag. This is an excellent example that clearly shows the effect of the reverse design on the paint that is now on the obverse. This picture could provide a really useful reference if you are ever faced with a problematic bullseye error. Photographs are used with the permission of someone who does not wish to be named. |
Figure 4 is a comparison of the two bullseye errors, one real and one not. Note the different texture of the paint.
 |
| Figure 4. Comparison of a real bullseye error with a fake one. Left: a close-up of the 2019 $2 Police Remembrance of figure 2. Right: a fake bullseye 2019 $2 Wallabies. Notice the difference in texture of the paint on the two coins. The picture of the coin on the right is used with the permission of someone who would prefer to remain anonymous. |
Figure 5 shows a genuine bullseye on a 2015 $2 Lest We Forget with an insert of the reverse of a normal coin. Note that after the paint die is correctly applied to the reverse, the paint is barely, if at all, visible on the high points between the concentric depressions. This is in stark contrast to the paint on the bullseye.
 |
| Figure 5. 2015 $2 Lest We Forget bullseye in original security bag with insert of compared a normal Lest We Forget. Note the difference in the patterns of paint. Photo courtesy of the bullseye is used courtesy of Mark Nemtsas of the Purple Penny. |
The only cases I can think of where the authenticity of a paint wrong side error would be difficult to establish are the 2012 and 2018 poppy $2 as the reverse design under the poppy is naturally flat.
(b) Missing Paint Error: On the rare occasion, a coin that should have paint is released without the paint. Figure 6 shows a picture of a 2018 $2 Armistice that was one of three missing paint coins removed from a Royal Australian Mint roll soon after release (1). While I know these coins are genuine, unfortunately due to the ease of paint removal demonstrated in these forgeries, it currently seems impossible to prove the veracity of missing paint errors.
 |
| Figure 6. 2018 $2 Armistice missing paint error. This was removed from a RAM roll at the time of release (and unfortunately shows fingermarks). Although I know this particular coin to be a genuine error, from appearance it does not seem possible to tell the difference between genuine and fake errors of this type. |
(c) Wrong Paint Error: Genuine examples exist. Because of the lumpiness of the reverse paint after application, it would be extremely difficult in most, but not all, cases to see the difference between a genuine example and a fake paint error. Further work needs to be done on identifying genuine wrong paint error coins.
(d) Paint Both Sides Error: A fake can be detected in the same way as for the normal bullseye error ((a) above). As we discuss below in 2(d) a genuine example would almost certainly be the result of mint sport and is dangerous to own.
(e) Wrong Paint Wrong Side Error: This is a hypothetical error coin of extremely low probability as it requires two mint errors to produce it. Once again a fake can be detected in the same way as for the normal bullseye error ((a) above).
2. Anatomy of a Train Wreck
Painful though it will be, we need to examine what occurred, with particular emphasis on what mistakes were made. By doing this we may be able to recommend procedures that make similar events less likely to occur in future. All personal names in this narrative have been changed to protect those who are innocent and those not so innocent.
This is a rough timeline based on what I have been told. However, as much of this information was verbal I am relying on other peoples' memories and what I understood them to be saying. While the dates below are in some cases guesswork, the order of events is most likely correct.
(a) 2021 or perhaps early 2022. Scammer A (I am assuming there is just one) manufactures fake $2 paint errors. For obvious reasons I am not going to give any hint on how this was done or how difficult it is to do this.
(b) In early 2022, pictures of two of these "errors" were sent to Dealer A. Dealer A had the expertise to immediately realise that these were contrived, told Scammer A this and to go away. Dealer A did not contact any dealer organization (although as we will see later this may not have had any effect on subsequent events). At around the same time or possibly earlier, Scammer A successfully sold some of these "errors" to Collector A, Collector B and quite likely others.
(c) Soon after the episode involving Dealer A, Scammer A offered to Dealer B a group of 10 rare paint error coins (including paint wrong side, paint on both sides and incorrect paint), mostly $2 but also including two 2020 donation dollars. Dealer B was told that these coins were obtained from a worker at the Royal Australian Mint. Coins such as this are colloquially known as "mint sport". Unless a "test coin", designs of coins to be released to the public must first be approved by an act of parliament, which clearly has not occurred for any of these "paint error" coins. If we consider these to be "test coins", then they may only be privately owned if they have been given as a gift by the Royal Australian Mint CEO (known as the Mint Controller in the time of Henderson and Gee) (2). Unless paperwork exists to prove the coins were a gift from the Mint's CEO, ownership of the "wrong paint" coins would be deemed illegal and the coins subject to confiscation by the Australian Federal Police.
Due to a misplaced confidence in his own ability to authenticate error coins, Dealer B bought these ten coins. I do not know how much money changed hands, but as genuine bullseye errors were selling for thousands of dollars, I imagine this would have been a substantial sum. If Dealer B had contacted people who possess greater expertise, he would have quickly found out the truth about these "paint" error coins.
(d) Dealer B then submitted these coins for grading and authentication by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) in the USA. On the submission form Dealer B claimed that these coins had the pedigree of being from the "Mint Master Collection", a name coincidentally similar to the RAM Mint Master Collection which was auctioned by Downie's Australian Coin Auctions in 2015 (3). This pedigree is contrived as the ten coins had never been part of any notable collection. It is also in contravention with the PCGS Submission terms and conditions. A discussion with Dealer C (who will appear later in this narrative) revealed that each time he has requested a pedigree for a coin it has been necessary to provide substantial documentation. According to Dealer B, no documentation was sent. It is strange that this was not necessary for Dealer B's ten bogus error coins, however that is an issue that PCGS themselves may need to address.
(e) May 2022 (roughly). PCGS incorrectly authenticated the ten coins. This could damage the company's reputation but it also has financial implications. Due to the PCGS authenticity guarantee, the company may face a payout of thousands of dollars for incorrect certification of each coin (although the misleading pedigree information on the submission form may void the PCGS warranty). Factors that could have led to this mistake include a lack of familiarity with "paint" error coins and being lulled by the supposed "Mint Master Collection" pedigree.
(f) Some time later the coins were returned to Dealer B. However, between them being photographed at PCGS and arriving back in Australia, the appearance of some, if not all, of the coins had changed. Large sections of the paint had peeled off and were loose in the holders. This should have been a warning that something was seriously wrong with these coins. So far the only people to know about the fake "paint error" coins were Scammer A, Dealer A, Collectors A and B (who thought they had real coins), Dealer B and PCGS. Then Dealer B put one or more of the coins up for sale. I have seen photos of one of the coins listed (a "paint both sides") and there is less than half the paint than appeared on the PCGS TrueView image of the same coin. Due to copyright I am unable to reproduce these pictures.
(g) Events moved quickly. It was a collector (who we will refer to as Collector C) who saw that the errors were not genuine and immediately contacted Dealer C to ask advice on how to proceed. Knowing the PCGS certificate number of one of the bogus error coins, Dealer C was able to find the certificate numbers and images of all ten coins sent in that batch. He then contacted me and we drafted an email to PCGS to alert them to the problem. In order to protect collectors from purchasing any of the fakes, either raw or PCGS graded, I alerted people on one of the facebook groups. Assuming they would warn their members that there were fake "paint error" coins around, I also contacted two senior members of the Australasian Numismatic Dealers Association (ANDA). (In the next couple of weeks, I happened to be talking to two of the ANDA dealers in Melbourne and found that they had not been alerted to these fakes).
(h) Within 24 hours of Dealer C's email, PCGS had removed those ten coins from their database and requested return of all coins. As it turned out, other coins had been incorrectly authenticated. These all had higher certificate numbers than the initial batch of ten so presumably had been graded later. Interestingly, these did not have the "Mint Master Collection" pedigree so probably were sent by people other than Dealer B. It is likely that these were authenticated because PCGS had authenticated the earlier batch of similar coins.
How To Stop This Happening Again
Any censure of the people involved is of course up to organizations such as ANDA, PCGS and ultimately the Australian judicial system. I am not going to point the finger of blame at any individual or organization but I feel that we should examine the critical points of this narrative and see what changes of behaviour or procedure could have led to a different and happier outcome.
Critical Point 1: Scammer A creates fake paint error coins and attempts to sell them to collectors and dealers. If Scammer A can be located, then this is one for the legal system.
Critical Point 2: Dealer A correctly identifies the coins as fakes. We would like to think that if Dealer A had contacted a relevant professional organisation such as ANDA then subsequent events may not have occurred. This would be correct only if ANDA had a mechanism to alert dealers in the case of fakes or otherwise fraudulent activity. As I found out they do not. Secondly, it is likely that Scammer A contacted Dealer B immediately after Dealer A declared the "paint error" coins to be fake. So even if ANDA had a mechanism to alert dealers, in this case there may well have not been sufficient time for word to reach Dealer B before he purchased the coins. However, if an alert procedure had existed in the ANDA organisation, it is likely that Dealer B would have been realised his or her mistake before the coins were sent to PCGS.
Recommendation: That ANDA takes fake coins, scams and attempted scams via fake coins more seriously than they currently do. I suggest that ANDA nominate a member to act as a contact person and co-ordinate activities such as emailing or phoning members and the general collecting community when an event such as this occurs.
Critical Point 3: Dealer B purchases the fake paint error coins believing them to be genuine.
Recommendation: Do not attempt to operate beyond your level of expertise. If you see something new or are in any way unsure, ask others. Communication is the key.
Critical Point 4: Dealer B purchases the coins believing them to be "mint sport".
Recommendation: Avoid "mint sport" unless accompanied by a letter from the RAM CEO, and if so, also check that the letter is genuine. Ownership of unauthorised "mint sport" is illegal. While the authorities have turned a blind eye to this in recent years, there is no guarantee that it will continue to be the case.
Critical Point 5: Dealer B invents a pedigree for the coins being submitted. When you submit coins to PCGS you are working with PCGS to grade and authenticate them. As such you should be trying to make PCGS' job easier, not harder. Because it may lead PCGS to make a major mistake, inventing a pedigree is as risky as for example, deliberately including incorrect variety information on the submission form or knowingly sending them forged coins.
Recommendation: Do not invent a pedigree on PCGS forms. Amongst other things, this contravenes the PCGS submission guidelines and may violate other PCGS codes of conduct.
Critical Point 6: PCGS incorrectly authenticates the ten false paint error coins.
Recommendation: PCGS have a good track record in fixing their rare mistakes. I have little doubt that PCGS have already investigated the relevant external and internal factors that caused this problem.
Critical Point 7: Coins are returned to Australia with a considerable amount of the paint peeling from them. This is an obvious indication that something is seriously wrong. Correct actions at this point would have averted subsequent problems.
Recommendation: Ask for help. If there is something you do not understand, contact others. Most people are happy to help.
Critical Point 8: PCGS are alerted to their incorrect authentication. Within 24 hours PCGS acted to remove the ten coins from their database and to re-examine other similar coins.
This is in accordance with what we would expect from a professional organization.
Conclusions
So what does this now mean for the error coin collector?
1. If the coin is in a PCGS slab, before purchasing check the certificate number online to make sure it is in their database. If so, check that the image matches the coin in hand. If not, do not buy the coin.
2. Before purchasing, use the guidelines in sections 1(a) through (e).
3. If in doubt, ask others with more expertise before purchasing.
Acknowledgements
Due to various constraints I was unable to use all the pictures that so many kind people offered. Thank you to all those who tried to assist me. Also special thanks to Paul Whenman for proofreading this article and for his helpful suggestions and to John Belcher on providing information on PCGS certificates 45594025 through 45594029.
References
(1) Vicky De Lelis, private communication.(2) "Heads I Win - The True Story of David Gee Australia's Most Audacious Forger", Jeffrey Watson, Don Thomas and Jack Bennett; Angus & Robertson 1986.
(3) Downie's Australian Coin Auctions, Royal Australian Mint Master Collection, Auction 319A, 26 May 2015.