It was likely produced well prior to counterfeit legislation being passed, therefore its existence would be grandfathered. Considering at one time it was apparently on display on behalf of the mint, impossible that it be suddenly be deemed counterfeit in today's world.
"Electrotypes were produced for display purposes in museums, The Royal Mint and wherever the 1911 silver dollar was to be shown."
$10,000 starting bid is a hefty price, yet I can understand the appeal given the unique history of the 1911 SD. I'm quite curious what it will sell for.
although it has a cool history and may be the closest one ever gets to having a genuine example, it isn't even a real coin, is it? also the has may bubbles on it which along with the colour just make it look like a cast counterfeit. if I had the amount of even the starting bid, it would go into some true numismatic pieces.
Yes, I suppose it's fair to say this item is more of a historical art piece than a true numismatic coin.
A bit of history on Robert Ready and electrotyping from Victoria Museum in Australia:
"The Readys made copies for research and display purposes and with the permission of the British Museum these were sold to museums and collectors around the world. In the early 1920s the British Museum advertised the price as 2s. 6d. each." http://collections.museumvictoria.c...ticles/13517
Quote: therefore its existence would be grandfathered.
There was no grandfathering lest some hoard of counterfeits from the past should appear and wreak havoc not to the numismatic world but to commerce in general. There is no gray area, counterfeits are illegal.
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website
The gray area is that the 1911 SD was never minted for public circulation.
If you're going to file a police report on The Royal Mint for allowing Ready to produce a public display piece almost 100 years ago for a SD that was never legal tender, it will be interesting to know how that goes. The British Museum would also be in violation by allowing the counterfeit collection of electrotyping to be sold.
Would such a happening occur now, definitely not. But at the time there was no law against it or The Royal Mint wouldn't have allowed the display of obvious illegal goods, nor enabled the production - what I meant by grandfathering.
(a) a false coin or false paper money that resembles or is apparently intended to resemble or pass for a current coin or current paper money,
(b) a forged bank-note or forged blank bank-note, whether complete or incomplete,
(c) a genuine coin or genuine paper money that is prepared or altered to resemble or pass for a current coin or current paper money of a higher denomination,
(d) a current coin from which the milling is removed by filing or cutting the edges and on which new milling is made to restore its appearance,
(e) a coin cased with gold, silver or nickel, as the case may be, that is intended to resemble or pass for a current gold, silver or nickel coin, and
(f) a coin or a piece of metal or mixed metals that is washed or coloured by any means with a wash or material capable of producing the appearance of gold, silver or nickel and that is intended to resemble or pass for a current gold, silver or nickel coin; (monnaie contrefaite)
current means lawfully current in Canada or elsewhere by virtue of a law, proclamation or regulation in force in Canada or elsewhere as the case may be;
Quote: Is the RCNA once again appearing to condone the sale of counterfeits?
Seriously? Why don't you educate yourself on exactly what this is, and why it was produced (legally, with permission of The Royal Mint, who had the originals), rather than taking a baseball bat and swinging for the fences?
"Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
I think it would be an historical piece that I would love to own , but not at that price. Electro types have been produced by various mints over time and are not counterfeits. There is no attempt to deceive at all. The purpose and intent was more likely to educate and display examples of rare coins without exposing the real pieces to theft or damage. It will be very interesting to see what this "semi official sample" sells for. I will bet it ends up in a major TPG slab afterwards. Research shows this piece sold for 2100 GBP as lot 1702 Dix Noonan Webb , the same price as the 4 piece uniface BC Gold in fitted case Lot 1701.
It baffles me how fake knockoffs illegally manufactured for profit could be confused with a historical prototype of significance that was produced 100 years ago or so, by permission granted through The Royal Mint to Ready and Sons.
This is an example of a way of viewing history that I find especially irritating --- and how common it is today that we turn our persnickety nose down toward the past in general by deeming it of absolutely no value if it does not precisely meet or conform with society of today.
It is interesting in the definition of a counterfeit that wildflower quoted above all 6 points refer to "Current" coinage. could one argue that this means the current year date? the current decade, or what could actually be used in todays market?
The notation to the Criminal Code -- "current means lawfully current in Canada or elsewhere by virtue of a law, proclamation or regulation in force in Canada or elsewhere as the case may be";
My opinion, in Canada the law that presently governs what is "lawfully current" by the Royal Canadian Mint Act. Coin issuance is and has been supported by an Order by the Governor in Council. Either in this Act or the Currency Act (can't remember where at the moment), is authority to demonetize prior Orders (nothing has been at present). "Elsewhere, as the case may be" I presume would refer to The Royal Mint in prior times. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...html#docCont
Taking that at face value then, it would seem official counterfeit legislation encompasses every Order of every coin until it is no longer current. That does not rule out intent to defraud and civil action, for example if someone were to fake a 1930 50c piece, an Order for which never existed. The technical difference between the legal usage of the word "counterfeit" and other fake coins that never existed or were never authorized by an Order would appear to distinguish the importance between Canada issued coins and currency - which legally they own, distribute and hold reserves for redemption - as opposed to fakes/illegal reproduction of effigies, etc which is a different area of law pertaining to copyright infringement and fraud.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited. Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
First Page
Posted 06/26/2016 10:17 pm
