Why Aren't "Restrikes" Just Counterfeits?

And you just disproved the point. The mint did not make the pieces in question, a mint worker(s) made them without authorization.

If one of my employees built something using my materials in my building (whether they were on the clock at the time or not), then sold that item to someone, that item would be a counterfeit. Why? Because the employees acted on their own, without going through proper mandated procedures, as set down by the controlling authority (me).

The item could in all other aspects be identical to an item that my company produced under the mandated procedures, but as it was unauthorized, it is not genuine. If the person who purchased such an item brought it to me during the warranty period, I would not have a record of said item being built.

The 1913 V nickels were not an authorized mint product, and yet they were produced by mint employees within the walls of the mint.

So the mint just wants to show off counterfeits is that what you're trying to argue? How about the Smithsonian they're saying "here's a fake mint coin"?

Logically think it through. If they didn't think it was real and worth a boatload of money they would have destroyed every last piece or kept it private as a way to identify fakes. Not put them in museums and tote things around the country to display at coin shows as a bounty.




Prove it

Oh you got me there. Gosh durn it, I wuz gonna capitilise the wurd Mint but I dun forgot.

If I had, perhaps you would acquiesce to recognize the word as representing the official authority and all its assets and employees.


"COUNTERFEIT
In criminal law. To forge; to copy or imitate, without authority or right, and with a view to deceive or defraud, by passing the copy or tiling forged for that which is original or genuine. Most commonly applied to the fraudulent and criminal imitation of money. State v. 11c- Kenzie, 42 Me. 302; U. S. v. Barrett (D. C.) Ill Fed. 309; State v. Calvin, It. M. Charlt (Ga.) 159; Mattison v. State, 3 Mo. 421."




Only some researchers? Which researchers do believe 100+ year old records are complete?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here's what I have read and believe to be from reliable sources. Now, I understand that you believe that nothing is 100% provable. So where does the burden of proof lie?

RECORDS SHOW:

On December 13th, 1912 Mint Director George H. Roberts sent a letter to Mint Superintendent John H. Landis that read, in part,"Do nothing about five cent coinage for 1913 until the new designs are ready use."
In the December 1919 issue of The Numimatist, Samuel W. Brown, of North Tonawanda N.Y., ran an advertisement offering to pay $500 each for any 1913 dated Liberty Head nickels.

Samuel W. Brown just happened to have been the Storekeeper of the Mint during 1912-1913. What an amazing coincidence.

But wait, there's more! Samuel W. Brown raised his offer to $600 in the January 1920 issue, requesting that said five cent pieces be "In Proof if possible".

In August of 1920, there was an exhibit at the ANA Convention. The exhibit consisted of five proof specimens of 1913 Liberty Head nickels. You're not gonna believe this, but the exhibitors name was Samuel W. Brown.

In 7 months, Samuel W. Brown had at least one and possibly as many as five people sell him their 1913 Liberty Head nickels! That's unbelievable!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The 1974 D aluminum cent was not confiscated, it was voluntarily given to the Mint.
"...The case proceeded after Judge William Q. Hayes denied the government's motion to dismiss March 26, 2015, stating "it is plausible that a Mint official, with proper authority and in an authorized manner, allowed Harry Lawrence to keep the 1974-D aluminum cent. Drawing reasonable inferences, it is plausible that Harry Lawrence lawfully obtained possession of the aluminum cent, giving Plaintiffs superior claim of title to the aluminum cent.[21]" The US Mint does not claim the 1974 aluminum cents were "never authorized", they were recalled and are considered government property. They are subject to seizure by the US Secret Service.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'll write your response for you, to save you some trouble.

So what, your sources may be faulty. You can't rely on records from over 1 year ago. Even if someone is a thief, they are still a real person, not a building. You are just expressing your personal opinions as facts based on facts, which I find to be reckless. You used Wikipedia as a source for your arguments, everyone knows Wikipedia is always wrong.

"Acting outside the course of and scope of their approved employment"

THIS ^ Is why no official records will ever be uncovered, there is NO way a person/person involved in such activity would have put anything in writing or recorded it in official ledgers.

Through die markers though we can tell of a coin in question was struck with the exact same die or pair of dies, on one side or both as the original was. Then using mint records and historical information, we can only assume which employees had access and the ability to do this. Some answers will never be known.

Unless we can invent a time machine and travel back to observe.

What makes the coins valuable is directly related to the market and the interest from collectors. Even the unscrupulous collectors that will purchase stolen or questionable coins.

Example: The 1933 Double Eagles, there are quite a few collectors that have owned them despite the fact they supposedly didn't exist, beyond the one example that had the pedigree from the Mint. We now know of at least 10 other examples, I've heard rumors it's a lot more than just 10, more like a 15-20 that are out there. Now that the Secret Service and US Court has ruled they are illegal to posses, they will remain hidden, or only trade in the black market between wealthy collectors, probably outside of the USA.

I wonder if that is the same with the 1964-D Peace dollar? We know they were minted, then melted, how can we be 100% sure not a single example got removed somehow? Maybe in the future one will surface, but doubtful, at least not in the public's eye, as this coin would attract great attention, and become the focus of the Secret Service immediately. My bet on the 1964-D dollar? There is at least one out there in someone's safe, but it's not going to see the light of day beyond a backroom clandestine deal. Whatever the case is it is certainly not a counterfeit coin, but how could we even prove that if it does show up? The dies were like the 1921 Morgans, they would have been made completely from scratch, and I do believe the original dies were destroyed, so no way of comparison to anything from the mint.

I suppose the holder of the coin could always say it's a "fantasy piece" to skirt the law, without original dies or another copy in the Mint's control to compare with, they could get away with keeping it on that basis. I've talked to a person that worked at the Denver Mint during the striking of those coins, they said there were several employees that had some in hand around the building, but supposedly all were put back into the pile for melting, how really knows if that was the case. Security was not as tight as it is today at the mint, it was good, but still, one or more could have been removed.

Reading this thread and the responses here, I believe the OP used an incorrect term. The correct term should have been "forgery" instead of "counterfeit".




That is correct but in the case of coins/currency this applies to those pieces in circulation. If a rogue mint employee used mint resources to print/mint currency for the purpose of passing it as legal tender, this is counterfeiting.

In the context of what is being discussed here based on the replies I've read, I get the sense that the subject matter is based on singular pieces designed more so for collectors and not for circulation. This form of fraud would then be considered a forgery. A theoretical rogue employee can absolutely use mint resources to print/mint currency for the purpose of defrauding collectors. Granted this would be a unique case as forgeries are generally by design meant to replicate something already in existence. To unlawfully print/mint something new is a bit of a grey area. I would still lean towards forgery as the intent is more likely than not to defraud collectors as opposed to pass off the coin/paper as tender.

Going back to the OPs original question, a restrike, if sanctioned, is not a forgery or a counterfeit. It is a genuine article and is just that... a restrike. Non sanctioned restrikes would fall into the category of a forgery, as they would have probably be made to defraud collectors as opposed to circulating as legal tender.

I apologize in advance for repeating the same point several times. Just wanted to underline the distinction between the two.

One other thing to remember: we shouldn't judge the actions of the past by present-day definitions, laws and regulations. Back in the early 1800s, Congress didn't have direct oversight over each and every coinage design and issue - the only guidance Congress provided was in the Coinage Act of 1792 that established the Mint and laid down the guidlines for its operation.

Section 10 of the Act gives the regulations regarding coin design: that the obverse of the coins must contain "the year of the coinage". Note that it doesn't actually say "the year of issue" of the coinage, just "the year" - it doesn't say or even imply that it has to be the truthful and correct year, they could in theory put any numerals on the coin they pleased, so long as it qualified as a "year". So the Act doesn't specifically exclude the mint director from making restrikes. Indeed, it would have been foolish of them to do so, as it was common practice in mints around the world at the time for dies to continue to be used until they wore out; legislating to force the mint to retire a die just because the year was incorrect would have been wasteful.

As such, the mint director was fully entitled to the opinion that any restrikes he personally authorized were perfectly legal, without needing any higher authorization. So long as somebody somewhere in the chain "paid" full face value to obtain it, as per sections 14 and 15 of the Act, then the coin was fully legal, as far as anyone present on the day was concerned. It never occurred to Congress that the Mint Director might authorize restrike coins, for sale to collectors. Once they found out that this was happening, of course, they put a stop to it.

I don't believe they did destroy the illegal restrikes, because they WERE very valuable. Those restrikes were plain edged pieces. But all of the lettered edge restrikes known today are from the exact same dies in the same die state. All of them trace their pedigrees back to William Idler and John Hasiltine, a Philadelphia coin dealer known to have close ties to the Mint and who seemed to have a never ending supply of proofs and pattern coins. Most likely the restrikes were edge lettered and then funneled out through Idler to recover some of that value.



I think that is a bit of a stretch, I read "the year of the coinage" to mean the year in which the coin was struck, not the year it was issued. And I can't see how you can stretch any date on the coin to make it relate to "year OF THE COINAGE". We do know that often in the early years dies would be used in subsequent years if the dies were still in good condition as a matter of not wasting valuable steel dies. Quality tool steel was not something available in significant supply in the early US and it had to be imported and even then it was not easy to get in quantity.