Why Aren't "Restrikes" Just Counterfeits?

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.