Bitcoin Forum

Located in EU

Seller is flexible with how exactly the deal is handled. Not in a hurry to sell.
This is one of 16 remaining in its class.

http://imgur.com/A8HfkJ5

Note that it seems that the first-bits appear to be thicker than most of Casascius coins. Can anyone link to other cases of this?

https://i.imgur.com/p1UpEfh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/C2YqLOg.png

Photo updated

Odd how the bits are bold.  Has anyone confirmed with mike that this has been done by him?  Not implying anything i just never seen this on a cas product.

It doesn't match what I remember my 100 bar looking like, and the photo I have doesn't appear bold either. I'd also be highly interested to hear from Mike whether there were early, bolded bits.

Provenance might be important here.

Glad to see a 100 BTC bar finally hitting market...watching with interest!

https://casascius.uberbills.com/?address=18gkqUsh54DH9gHhLfka4rGrzf7ZQweZrn

The print looks very "strong" compared the other picture

Viz

Yeah...never seen any Casascius 2011 with print that dark. I have seen pics of a few 100 bars and none looked that dark.

I agree. The owner of this says he got them all from Casascius in 2011, and did a copy/paste of the 'receipt' email. I dont think there is anything going on here, but can never be too careful with a 100 BTC coin.

Of note is that the 500 & 1,000 btc bars dont have the firstbits printed at all.. they are lasered (if i recall).

Same.  Some additional pics of the hologram at different angles might help determine if it is a legitimate hologram or one of the Chinese knock offs that have become available for purchase.

http://imgur.com/a/sxq1q

Here is an album for examination. Let me know what you think.

Does anyone know if the photos on uberbills are photoshopped? Because if you look

https://casascius.uberbills.com/?address=18gkqUsh54DH9gHhLfka4rGrzf7ZQweZrn

It shows a picture of the hologram, which is not bolded,

Of course they are. It would be impossible to get scans from all of the holograms.....

I am not foolish enough to pass judgement, but I suspect someone here that is familiar enough with what to look for to spot a fake would be able to tell from those pics.

Pics are too out of focus to pass judgment on the holo IMO. Looks suspect.

Is it possible that the hologram on this coin and a few others would have more bold first bits if they're "the first off the printer"? I know it's more likely that the opposite be true, where text gets faded and lighter as ink runs out. But it's a thought to offer up.

One other option, maybe the bits were printed twice on this hologram, leading to the bolded effect.

I can't speak to the single Version 1 500 BTC. But the lone Version 2 500 BTC (redeemed) does have firstbits appearing on the outside.

Of the 5 1000 BTC bars...I'm certain that at least one of the two versions has firstbits on the exterior.

The bars were some of the first pieces...so it's very plausible Mike played with different formats, early on. Would be great to know definitively.

I have contacted Mike.

I have noticed lots of these for sale on behalf of others posts lately.  It begs the question...  In the event a seller sells someone a fraudulent coin on behalf of a 3rd party, what is the recourse there?

To expand on OgNasty's question.....Does coinfirm guarantee the authenticity of their many items for sale and if so how?   What due diligence does coinfirm do to verify authenticity?

Really need Mike to weigh in... I have held lots of Casascius coins with that hologram and printed first bits and none were like that at all. From the photos the holo looks legit, but need some real close up high res shots to be sure.

I don't think Mike can help with this.

Series 1 was inkjet printer.  So, he could have simply put in a new cartridge.

Of the bars I have seen, this picture looks like a very dark print; however, I have seen coins with such a dark print.  It is not out of the ordinary.

Also, the only way to know with better certainty is to have the person that own the only other active bar that was funded the same day.
That bar is:  18FAZLxJ

I am talking to someone now with S1 bars to post pictures, but already know they are funded earlier than the one in this auction/sale.

Basically, the darker print doesn't make it unique.  Just like lighter print doesn't make the others unique.  It's simply that it is a 100 BTC bar.

I dunno man...look at these bars and see if they are even close at all... (Not my bars, but know a guy with a few).


http://imgur.com/a/GbJpM

Interesting, the font used is a separated pixel font that shows the vertical pixel lines definitively separated while the bold font does not.

Image on the book shows it was sent by Steven Steiner.   So, Blazed, we know it's not you.


Yes, the Dark print seems off from the checking I have done.
I am more curious about the strange look at the bottom of the security label.   Looks like a label was removed and new one put on.  It's likely simply a reflection.

https://i.imgur.com/L1nxU4h.png

"Hi Elias, I have no recollection of any printing experiment and I outsourced that printing anyway. Simply as a guess, it's possible that the ink could have been affected by plastic covering, environmental factors, etc." - Mike Caldwell




Correct, I am acting as a broker, connecting buyers and sellers. I have done such sales privately between buyer and seller, but I am moving to do many of these sales openly on the forum as well.
In making the listings, I will be checking the images of coins and to the best of my knowledge, ensuring that they are legitimate. This due diligence includes is the same level that any buyer can reasonably perform when buying a coin; visual inspection. Any coin being sold via CoinFIRM is legitimate in my eyes; some may choose to put value on my judgment others may not.

While I would only sell coins in which I have full confidence, I cannot personally guarantee them because if someone were to successfully design an excellent copy of the hologram (or pull off a successful re-attachment), it would lead to my financial ruin.

As for recourse, the first line would involve me contacting the seller and seeing if things can be worked out. If I am satisfied that the seller perpetrated some kind of fraud, then any information I have about them would be made available for any civil action or recourse that the defrauded party wants to take.


P.s. It is interesting that the printing was outsourced. I was not aware of that.

Quite strange. Looking at the other images, im not sure it is a reflection. What do others think?

It would help to know if the seller here is the original buyer from Mike, and for Mike to verify. Ideally for an item this pricey there needs to be a proven chain of ownership. Still doesn't answer the bold question,  but may provide some assurance

Personally, I do not like this bar. Can you get us a some close high resolution shots? I am not saying it has been tampered with, but not saying it has not been... I have had my hands on what I consider a lot of early Casascius coins and none looked like that.

+1

I don't think that the strange look at the bottom of the security label is just a reflection. That would be the second known attempt to couterfeit a casascius product, right?

I will not make that assumption yet.

I will request additional pictures. Consider this listing to be ON HOLD for now. I'm not sure if it is proper to bother Mike with confirmations of sales (though the owner says they bought direct from Casascius), but lets see what the new photos show.

Interesting reply from Mike.  I would think the fact it was outsourced means there would be more consistency, rather than the theory that Mike had perhaps loaded a new cartridge in his printer before this particular run had occurred.  Most print shops would use laser printers as well, which should not really see much variation between print jobs (whether toner was recently replaced or not).  Environmental factors may explain why a coin would have a first bits that is faded or harder to read, but how would the environment make text appear darker and more defined? Very strange. 

I'm glad Mike replied, but unfortunately it doesn't give much in terms of confidence in the legitimacy of this coin.  Using a proxy seller is also somewhat suspicious because it reduces the ability for potential buyers to ask about the provenance of the coin, how it was stored, where it was purchased, how many prior owners, etc.   

You can't really expect Mike to give too much input as he doesn't have any idea what happened to the coin after it left his hands and probably doesn't want to give too much of an opinion because it could only have a negative effect on him.

If Mike were bored these days, maybe he could consider offering a "re-keying" business where people could have Casascius coins sent to him to have the hologram removed/replaced and a new key inserted.  Just a thought.  I don't see him wanting to do that, but you never know.

Did Mike see the picture of this bar? I am sure he would have noticed that print being completely different than any others ever made...

Sureeeeeeeee Blazed ;) lol jk

I'm in the same boat... I know a few guys with a few.


That would be me.  That S1 error 100BTC (loaded) bar is still for sale too btw :).

Let me know if there is anything I can do, but the OP's bar looks bunk to me at first glance.

Yes, he saw it and gave the reply I quoted in reference to it.