[WTS] 2011 S1 100BTC Bar (16 exist) Unique 'BOLD BITS'

[Blazed]

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

[digicoinuser]

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.

[Michail1]

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

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.

[elianite]

"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

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?

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.

[elianite]

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.

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

[monkeynuts]

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

[Blazed]

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.

[Lincoln6Echo]

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.

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

The bar was peeled and then a new, fake, overprinted hologram was applied.
Unless this can be proven otherwise, this is what I vote for.....

+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?

[elianite]

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.

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

The bar was peeled and then a new, fake, overprinted hologram was applied.
Unless this can be proven otherwise, this is what I vote for.....

+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.

[hybridsole]

"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

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.   

[OgNasty]

"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

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.

[Blazed]

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.

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

The bar was peeled and then a new, fake, overprinted hologram was applied.
Unless this can be proven otherwise, this is what I vote for.....

+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.

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...

[BayAreaCoins]

(Not my bars, but know a guy with a few).

Sureeeeeeeee Blazed lol jk

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

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

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.

[elianite]

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.

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

The bar was peeled and then a new, fake, overprinted hologram was applied.
Unless this can be proven otherwise, this is what I vote for.....

+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.

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...

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