Counterfeit (Numismatic Forgery) 1882 Zs Js 8R Mexico

Bob, text in an image is 100% useless for this forum, you're just wasting you time. No one will ever find it later.

So you're going to put all the text in that image in the file name? Sorry, but that's silly.




Sorry Bob, I would not invest 5 minutes in a database that puts text in pictures.

Besides, if the topics are done as instructed, there's a perfectly searchable database right here in the forums. Topics in these forums are moved where they belong after they are dealt with. With searchable text and good pics.

One other thing, creating such pictures are not a waste of time for me because I do it already anyway. The only thing I needed to do was re-size my files. My files are saved at original size often with genuine high quality photos of genuine coins. I usually save files in a different format but conversion allows me to file two copies with the identical name of each coin in different sizes.

I already do this for counterfeits I am interested in. Primarily Spanish American. I include Contemporary Circulating as well as altered and numismatic forgeries.

The system works and "borrowing" forger's pictures has never bothered me one iota. That is one reason I wish I had asked to download the ebay files on forgeries. They might not have granted that permission but I knew they had an extensive file.

I recall discussing this but then as now there is no way for any one person to do this effectively - it needs to be a large number of members and the format needs to be searchable so that each different variety can be quickly observed. A site location other than one such as this seems unworkable and doomed to fail from the start.

I would love to see it done and would love to participate but the site design needs to be done after all input is in place.

As I recall that was the reason I gave up. Then as now my idea of what is needed to be truly helpful to novice members is no what you believe it to be. When I make suggestions like my file naming system you call the idea "silly" etc. You do not even accept the simple premise that counterfeit and forgery are inherently different topics.

Given that dynamic it is difficult to discuss this topic openly and honestly.

I've been reporting this same Chinese fake 1882 8R Zs through my ebay account on a almost daily basis including this guy from Sartell, MN today. Is reporting on coincommunity more efficient than one doing the reporting directly on ebay?

realpeso First of all - the vast majority of items taken down are subsequently reposted with no penalty either under the original seller name or a related name. That is why you have to report them so many times. That is a simple fact because ebay has no incentive to remove these linked sellers - they make too much money from selling forgeries.

alganbagerap As far as I know 1000% better than nothing is still nothing. We need to re-direct our collective efforts in a way that helps novice collectors avoid this junk. Trying to knock them all down one at a time is a waste of time.

You and everyone else are wasting your time reporting these coins the way they are done now. The dent in the forgery business made by all of these efforts is smaller than a pin prick. By allowing access by a few select individuals to take down items one at a time or 200 at a time is a placebo method invented by ebay to placate bidders. The bottom line is that nothing really changes.

The real value we have before us is the opportunity of capturing all of these images (- in particular - when the sellers are telling us they are selling fakes). Each image is proof of exactly what to look for to avoid a forgery that will appear next time with NO warning.

In the past three or four days 127 auctions of Russian fakes were reported via the forum involving just three sellers. Three pictures of three individual coins were copied to the forum. I was able to capture 25 different examples before they were gone. How much better would it have been to capture all 127 listings?

They can still be reported to ebay after the images have been captured.

Add up all of the time and effort spent by all members in reporting these coins and then look how quickly they come back and I think you will get my point.

Bobby131313 - I understand this is your forum and you can dictate what you want with no reason given. That does not however make you correct. Because I say so is the mark of a dictator.

You say:



My response is why? I believe you do not understand what I have been saying.

But before I address that - look at your defense of your belief that counterfeit and forgery are identical numismatic terms.




Recourse to dictionary definitions of forgery and counterfeit - is an unprofessional rather naïve approach. Numismatics has technical terminology that does not match the universally accepted definition of many words. In the US what does hub mean? What does hub mean to a numismatist? In England it is called Hob? The US dictionary says a hub is the center of a wheel or a central region of an area. How does that apply to coining? Numismatists define hub differently and far more narrowly than Mr. Webster.

I could list hundreds of similar terms that apply to a specific body of knowledge that the people unfamiliar with the technical definition might find silly. The argument you are presenting is a logical fallacy.

The concept of counterfeits and forgeries is something that has been discussed in numismatic circles since long before Virgil Hancock wrote his column on counterfeits in the 1950s. When dealing with ancient coins the term fourree replaces counterfeit but specialists know the definition applies ONLY to ancient circulating counterfeits. You do not call a forgery of an ancient coin made to fool collectors a fourree. That would be fraud.

When I studied counterfeiting and forgery in Boston in 1972-76 it was a well known and accepted concept among specialists. I was taught that it was essential for an authenticator to be able to identify the difference between a recently made fraud and a circulating counterfeit.

The best summation of the argument for this approach is found in Charles Larson's excellent book "Numismatic Forgery". I didn't invent this concept on my own. They are not my concepts they are concepts used by knowledgeable professional numismatists. The terminology is also familiar to serious students of numismatics and historic counterfeiting.

This simple logic seems to get lost on segments of the coin collecting community who view coins as only a commodity to use to make a profit. I have been writing for years on this forum trying to explain the difference involved and the associated value both historic and monetary.

Regarding placing the data on a picture as opposed to a database allows a novice to search a file by country, denomination, date and mint for examples of forgery. Linking the data to a photograph of both sides is essential. A database is probably not what I meant at all from a technical "computer-ease" standpoint. I use database in a non-technical sense as an "electronic filing cabinet" a source and a method of filing data about counterfeits and forgeries.

Regarding the naming convention I use - I refer to the coin that starts this thread by the name Mex-8R-1882-ZsJS-NF-001-RRG-024. That is 31 characters which I separate with dashes for readability. The physical description of the coin is Mex-8R-1882-ZsJS. The rest is a technical description of what the coin is. NF means numismatic forgery. The 001 is a non-repeating number assigned to the specific mating of the two dies in the picture. Numbers are assigned alpha-numerically as new coins are added to the electronic file cabinet. In this case 001 is the first and most common of the numismatic forgeries dated 1882 ZsJS. Sub-varieties do exist and when discovered, they are assigned an alpha-character that follows the number 001a, 001b, 001c. This would would cover die repairs, clashes or other elements covered in the text visible when the file is opened. The RRG-024 indicates myself as posting entity and the 024 would be the 24th example of the same coin in my file.

Your system had no opportunity for the fields needed to properly and professionally categorize the coin by type of fake.

Mixing CC, NF and ALT coins randomly would only be confusing. This is one of the big problems with both Calbetto and Coronado's books.

The name of the file does not have to be changed when new data comes to light. The reeded edge or engrailed edge data goes on the picture. They would be letter sub-varieties of the one die pair. The weight, diameter, sg, alloy, origin and the tells used to ID the coin all can go on the picture file. That way a tell can be checked immediately against the picture of the coin. The range of weights or any other parameter can be gathered if wanted by looking at the files. Making all of these fields searchable is possible but not critical to finding a specific counterfeit die variety.

In particular when dealing with NF coins that are still being manufactured - parameters are constantly changing. The CC types only need to be discovered and documented. No additional CC types are being made at this time of any non-current issue.

In your system how would you manage a coin like the 1842 ZsOM 8R which has 125 contemporary circulating counterfeit sub-varieties and a small handful of NF varieties? Within that number are 45 specific major die varieties of which 6 are illustrated in Riddell's book. The 39 others are either not in Riddell or represent mules of Riddell dies with dies not in Riddell.

A database type search for all 1842 Zs OM coins would be too extensive to begin with. But looking at all of the item numbers following the CC shows how many different varieties of Contemporary Counterfeits exist in the file. The highest CC entry would be 045. There could be pictures of 400 individual 1842 ZsOM counterfeits and forgeries. There are only 45 primary varieties. Under each number are all the sub-varieties listed alphabetically. So variety 001 might have sub-varieties a-z while 002 may have none.

This is not the complex system which places all of the data on the picture in the name. You did not understand me. You were making a "strawman" argument by re-stating what I said.

The last 1842 variety could be Mex-8R-1842-ZsOM-CC-045b-RRG-002. The number would apply to one picture which has all the related data on the photo. As much or as little as available can be posted. Revisions can be added as needed. Multiple examples of the same variety number can be posted to show the range of wear and what the coins look like when worn or toned.

So instead of belittling my ideas by calling them silly please tell me why my concept is unworkable and how your approach of reporting the 1882 ZsOM hundreds of times helps a novice collector?