Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

Why Aren't "Restrikes" Just Counterfeits?

 
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
342 Posts
 Posted 05/17/2019  10:52 pm  Show Profile   Check AES's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add AES to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Call them what you will. I would not be pleased to find through research that a coin in my collection was a "Clandestine Strike" or "Restrike".
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
9752 Posts
 Posted 05/18/2019  12:16 am  Show Profile   Check spruett001's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add spruett001 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Ultimately, I believe that the term "restrike" exists just for this purpose. They are what they are.

I have a copy of a restrike of a Confederate cent and even though it has no value, really, I'm not gonna chuck it because it's not "the real deal." It's not even a genuine "restrike" using the original dies, but it's as close as I will ever get to holding/owning something like the original. That counts for something to me.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
-Lucretius

"Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you."
-Kurdt Kobain

My Want List: http://goccf.com/t/282022
Bedrock of the Community
United States
15393 Posts
 Posted 05/18/2019  08:19 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Conder101 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I don't know the direct line of authorization, was it okay at a Congressional level? I'm not sure.

Back then in general as long as the bullion was accounted for they were happy, The mint was happy to fill requests for proofs, previous issues, even pattern coinsas long as the dies were available and the bullion used was accounted for.
Gary Schmidt
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12009 Posts
 Posted 05/19/2019  12:53 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Yes, such a coin would be a genuinely minted in the USA coin.

No, it would not be a genuine USA government mint product.

Yes, it would be struck in the genuine USA mint.

No, it was not authorized to be struck, which means it is spurious and not genuine.


The mints own actions show they disagree with you as they should. Authorization only impacts legality for ownership.


Quote:
#2 Please take the time to explain what is "reckless" about calling an 1804 dollar a counterfeit. I fully understand your claim that it is inaccurate, but what is reckless about it.


I didn't have time to respond to this the other day. The reason why it's reckless is that as you admit it is inaccurate and the long history of them as well as their place in the market show that. In the case of the 1804 dollars it probably doesn't matter to much as the people with that kind of money know better anyways.

However, the act of just saying whatever or expressing personal opinions as facts especially when they go against known facts without a disclaimer is what I found to be reckless. As great as the internet is for sharing information and the spread of information, the same also goes for false information. There are already many things in numismatics and with the TPGs especially where they were just said enough online and now a significant portion of people believe them.

Questions are one thing, even trying to make a case for it with support would be another, but to just throw it out there is completely different
Valued Member
United States
386 Posts
 Posted 05/19/2019  06:22 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add joecoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Merriam Websters definition:

Counterfeit: made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive.
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12009 Posts
 Posted 05/19/2019  06:26 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
You just proved the point. A mint cannot make something with intent to deceive it wasn't made by the mint. A counterfeit has to be made by someone else
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
2437 Posts
 Posted 05/19/2019  09:12 am  Show Profile   Check BigSilver's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add BigSilver to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
I didn't have time to respond to this the other day. The reason why it's reckless is that as you admit it is inaccurate and the long history of them as well as their place in the market show that. In the case of the 1804 dollars it probably doesn't matter to much as the people with that kind of money know better anyways.

However, the act of just saying whatever or expressing personal opinions as facts especially when they go against known facts without a disclaimer is what I found to be reckless. As great as the internet is for sharing information and the spread of information, the same also goes for false information. There are already many things in numismatics and with the TPGs especially where they were just said enough online and now a significant portion of people believe them.

Questions are one thing, even trying to make a case for it with support would be another, but to just throw it out there is completely different

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

#1 Am I to understand that my original post which begins with the word
Quote:
maybe
and ends with
Quote:
just a theory...
can be accused of

Quote:
just saying whatever or expressing personal opinions as facts

#2

Quote:
is that as you admit it is inaccurate

I don't think that happened. I wrote that I understand your claim that it is inaccurate. That was to contrast with your claim that it was reckless which I did not understand. (Now I do understand your claim of recklessness and I disagree with it) Moreover, even if I had conceded the point and agreed that my previous theory was inaccurate (which it likely is), how does that affect the recklessness of suggesting it before that concession? Do you honestly think that I wrote something, that I knew to be inaccurate, just to create and perpetuate misinformation in order to harm the hobby?
If the hobby ia too frail to withstand my earlier post, then surely it is doomed.
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
282 Posts
 Posted 05/19/2019  10:47 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Sharkman to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
A clandestine strike is not a product of action by the mint. It is the product of an unlawful conspiracy to temporarily and surreptitiously misappropriate mint property and equipment to create a coin in imitation of the original with the intent to deceive others into believing it is a genuine original. This meets joecoin's definition of counterfeit.
Joecoin's logic concluding that such coins are spurious is correct. It looks like a valid syllogism to me.
I know of no actions by the mint approving the clandestine strikes and refuting joecoin's position. I only know of the mint's efforts to recover and destroy clandestine strikes. It recovered all presently known 1804 Dollar type two restrikes, which were clandestine strikes, and destroyed all but one which is now in the Smithsonian collection. This doesn't look the mint disagreeing with joecoin's position. In fact, after striking of the illicit 1804 dollars was discovered, Congress required the mint to destroy old dies so this could not happen again.
In the context of this discussion, authorization is not a question of the legality of owning a counterfeit. Authorization is central to the issue of whether the clandestine strikes are genuine mint products which they are not. I recognize the numismatic significance of the type two and type three 1804 Dollar restrikes, but I cannot logically accept them as genuine mint products. If mint employees were involved, they knew they were acting outside the course and scope of their approved employment. That is most likely the reason these restrikes were made secretly.
Valued Member
United States
386 Posts
 Posted 05/19/2019  11:25 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add joecoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Merriam Websters definition:

Counterfeit: made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive.



Quote:
You just proved the point. A mint cannot make something with intent to deceive it wasn't made by the mint. A counterfeit has to be made by someone else


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.
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12009 Posts
 Posted 05/20/2019  02:33 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
The mint did not make the pieces in question, a mint worker(s) made them without authorization.


The mint doesn't make anything, employees and machines that employees run make it. The mint is a building. If buildings are coming to life to make things well thats just scary.....


Quote:
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.


Completely irrelevant.


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


Another inaccurate false statement. No one actually knows, they could have been and again anyone who thinks records from 100+ years ago are complete is kidding themselves including some researchers
Edited by basebal21
05/20/2019 02:35 am
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12009 Posts
 Posted 05/20/2019  02:44 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add basebal21 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
and destroyed all but one which is now in the Smithsonian collection. This doesn't look the mint disagreeing with joecoin's position.


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.


Quote:
I recognize the numismatic significance of the type two and type three 1804 Dollar restrikes, but I cannot logically accept them as genuine mint products.If mint employees were involved, they knew they were acting outside the course and scope of their approved employment. That is most likely the reason these restrikes were made secretly.


Prove it


Edited by basebal21
05/20/2019 02:51 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
6829 Posts
 Posted 05/20/2019  04:22 am  Show Profile   Check westcoin's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add westcoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Back then (when the restrikes regular or clandestine) were being produced the value wasn't all that much on them, certainly not like more modern times have shown us some people are willing to pay for them. Most of these examples were being sold or traded for at or around face value, doesn't make it fair or right that only a select few got them, others were just lucky, Take for example Edward Cohen a collector that received an 1804 dollar over the counter at the local exchange in 1865 in Richmond, Virginia. That coin left the mint and was eventually spent as regular money and put in circulation, does that make it an unlawful coin? I can't answer that, as I don't know how it left the mint or even the circumstance as to why it was made.

Hence why this area still needs so much more research. Proving these questions may or may not be possible, there are still so many records misplaced or incorrectly filed at the National Archives (never been but would love to spend some time there going through old coinage documents). Back in the 50's through the 80's we had the few Walter Breen and Don Taxay, Eric Newman, etc. doing so much research, and today there are a handful of researchers that poke through the archives trying to locate tidbits of information. Just from the volumes of fantastic literature produced in the past couple of decades from Joel Orosz, Len Augsberger, Kevin Flynn, Del Bland, Bill Eckelberg, Rick Snow, David Lange, etc. some real go getters when it comes to hunting out the minutia and unknown facts. This is a great thing, along with Eric Newman's generous donation through his coin collection sales funding the NNP online archive.

I guess for now it is up to the individual to decide in his or her mind what restrikes, clandestine or otherwise mean to them, until it's actually proven through Mint records and notes, or a court of law.
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013!
ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1982, EAC Member #6202, NBS Member, 2 variety collector.

See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440
Valued Member
United States
386 Posts
 Posted 05/20/2019  09:15 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add joecoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
The mint doesn't make anything, employees and machines that employees run make it. The mint is a building. If buildings are coming to life to make things well thats just scary.....



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."


Quote:
...anyone who thinks records from 100+ years ago are complete is kidding themselves including some researchers


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.



Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
282 Posts
 Posted 05/20/2019  12:26 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Sharkman to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
It is somewhat fashionable to criticize Wikipedia, but I have found it to be generally accurate and a good starting point for research. After reading the Wikipedia article on the 1804 Dollar, which is very complete and detailed, I suggest you read it if you want me to "prove it," basebal. The government clearly treated the 1804 restrikes as illegal. I have no access to any records or evidence explaining why the government kept the one illegal restrike it didn't destroy at the Smithsonian. Your suggestion that the Smithsonian kept it because of its great value is pure speculation. It is also inconsistent with the government's destruction of the other illegal restrikes which one would suspect were also very valuable.
Saying the mint doesn't make anything is like saying General Motors does not make cars. I find such a proposition so preposterous I don't know where to even begin explaining why.
Pillar of the Community
United States
6829 Posts
 Posted 05/20/2019  2:24 pm  Show Profile   Check westcoin's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add westcoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
In the context of this discussion, authorization is not a question of the legality of owning a counterfeit. Authorization is central to the issue of whether the clandestine strikes are genuine mint products which they are not. I recognize the numismatic significance of the type two and type three 1804 Dollar restrikes, but I cannot logically accept them as genuine mint products. If mint employees were involved, they knew they were acting outside the course and scope of their approved employment. That is most likely the reason these restrikes were made secretly.


"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.
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013!
ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1982, EAC Member #6202, NBS Member, 2 variety collector.

See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Coin Community Member eBay Sales

Certified Coins   Certified VAMs   Certified Errors  




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 - 2019 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

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2019 Coin Community Forums
It took 1.08 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05