A New Type Portrait Counterfeit/Forgery

Swamperbob, I respect/appreciate to your ambitiousness to your target so much but this must be a long way to go. I know you have some historical written materials to talk about the phenomenon of C2CC, maybe your knowledge about this field leds you go further and further, and you are going to make your contributions to the future numismatists.

IMHO, I think the first step to success is to persuade the TPGs to accept the theory of C2CC, they are the most influential group in this field with no doubt. You have said that "TPGs have even slabbed Riddell counterfeits it was not a big surprise to find a silver restrike or two slabbed." Its seems those professional graders do not recognize the concept of C2CC at all. But if I am a novice coin collector, it has no ground to me not to accept the TPG's determination on the authenticity of a coin.

To me, I collect coins from 2004. I have read a lot of books in Chinese and English. I didn't read anything about what the C2CC was before I join this forum. I suppose most of the Chinese coin collector are as equally ignorant as I am. I think very very seldom Chinese people know about the Portrait restrikes after 1830 if any. So, I will expect your new book could cover some evidence about this part of history.

To any silver coin collectors, I think the most practical and persuasive tool is to teach them how to work out the difference between the original 8R and the C2CC. This is the basis of coin collection, isn't it? Would it be another coverage in your new book?

Using advanced technical method such as XRF to work out the mint period of a coin is highly acceptable and desirable but the main point is its accuracy and reliability. Does the working principle really work? Is the database sufficient enough to prove the antiquity of a coin under investigation?

Forgive my naive opinion in this topic.

I am concerned about this attitude. The TPG's do not have a magic crystal ball. They do not always get the grade or authenticity correct. Do you believe a coin is real just because it is in a slab?

The TPGs do not make the rules nor LEAD the hobby (except in the area of grade inflation and artificial rarity).

The book is going to be published by the ANS - if they (ANS) accept the premise (which the period texts do prove) and the book is published - we hope that ANA follows suit. Then the TPG's will have to fall in line with the theory and adjust their authentication policies.

They are already starting to assemble an XRF database of their own.

The subject is controversial just like the micro-O Dollars were 10 years ago but they turned out to be forgeries (they were probably made by the same people as the 8Rs) but the fact is that millions of these coins were made after 1830. They exist. All of these silver copies are NOT MODERN counterfeits.

The Chinese in Canton and Shanghai also made silver restrikes to take advantage of the inland premium paid for the older coins. Some Chinese clearly knew - some did not. From official correspondence in the US House of Representatives, the English Parliament and official edits from the Chinese government itself - the problem was well known at one time (1825-1860).

XRF database at present can identify many of the coins made with silver refined after the 1870s fairly easily. That is when the US got involved in making these coins with Nevada silver. Prior to that England was the prime supplier along with China itself. The English used old reclaimed silver which was not fully refined so the alloy is eclectic. These will be hard to ID using XRF - visual clues will be needed.

But original mint products made in Mexican mints before 1830 can usually be identified by XRF because they used silver refined by the patio process. There is negligible old world silver in the mix. So Genuine versus counterfeit is not the same problem as dating a counterfeit to classify it as modern or not.

So it is my opinion that most counterfeits can already be detected by XRF testing but determining the age of the counterfeit is going to take time. If Class 2 coins become collectible like the micro-O dollars did a solid criteria has to be devised or modern numismatic forgeries will be included and will be new targets of forgers.

You need to be patient. I first learned of the existence of this class of coins in the 1960's from one of the men that made them. It has taken me decades to piece the evidence together and locate the proof that I have.

I was wondering if in the case of known counterfeits if it would be advisable to drill in from the side to secure a "small core sample". That would be ideal for testing of the inside and it would not damage a counterfeit appreciably.

I can't recall exactly when I first noticed this particular feature. Not too far back - possibly 5-10 years tops. There are some features I have been chasing longer but not too many. Until I had examined several categorically counterfeit examples I was uncertain. I do not want to be premature - but I also felt that this had to be done now before my personal health deteriorates any further.

There are at least 6 other features that I suspect but have yet to prove are markers of counterfeits.

I have pictures of 1786, 87, 88 and 89 examples now - all are fully formed and NONE have eroded considerably more. I also have examples from all three dates that have perfectly rectangular windows (WITH THE SAME BLOCK PATTERNS).

That last fact is critical because while it is likely that block patterns were changed on matrix blocks - the pattern is the same for BOTH types - keyhole and rectangular. It is as if a single example from a matrix block gave rise to numerous copies of itself instead of new punches being made from the original block.

If these working dies were all made using one particular punch (or even if one matrix block was damaged) and they were used for four consecutive years I would expect to see a progression in the damage from 1786 to 1789. There is NONE apparent. If anything there is some slight change in shape that is OUT OF ORDER. This presents us with the very unlikely probability that the reverse dies were cut and used years out of sequence.

In Birmingham England, there has long been a suspicion that some die makers (the professional class of engravers) actually produced punches for 8 Reales to supply many different factories with counterfeit matrix sets. To me that makes sense. In the half penny series, this same thing happened. Sometimes the punches are seen on HIGH QUALITY dies while in other cases the same punch designs appear on dies are very poorly executed.

If the punches were sold from one centrally located facility this makes sense. Conversely it would not fit a pattern of each factory making their own punches from scratch.

To date no one (that I know of) has sequenced the various punches used in making the real dies. This is just the start. Before a sequence can be generated, all collectors need to be aware that one existed and that it can be re-constructed from the coins that were made.

Once a sequence is established accurately then distinguishing between the genuine and the spurious will be much easier.

Many other counterfeits await discovery in all of our collections - mine included. As I had XRF tests done - some of the coins I have owned for years changed categories. If evidence changes about authenticity, we have to adjust our theories and move on. That is the scientific method which I seek to apply to the 8R series.

Up to this point in time - no one has examined these coins with the cold eye of science and historical fact directing the theories.

For example, at first I thought that all portrait 8Rs were copied as Class 2 silver restrikes. That was what I believed to be true until I ran into a series of quotes from the 1830's describing the preference for the FAT head with the thick ribbons. Then finally in one reference a specific quote mentioned that the coins of Ferdinand were not welcomed in China even though they were in fact identical in silver content to the Carolus coins. That meant that the Ferdinand counterfeits made of silver had to be moved into Class 1 or 3 from Class 2. A few dozen examples were effected.

All of my theories remain fluid. I am bonded to none of them. If facts change the picture, I have to modify the theory. Where I can I do and where I can not I have to abandon parts that are contrary to fact,

We all need to be prepared for changes in this part of the hobby as science moves forward. The methods and suppositions of Pradeau, and Breen and Hancock are all outdated and need to be re-examined in light of new knowledge.

I am really not 100% certain. Some look VERY modern while others look really old. I think XRF will decide.

I am leaning toward mid 1800's as a likely earliest date.

Keyhole windows pieces - "Some look VERY modern while others look really old."

I had said to begin with that I had seemed to notice these only on modern-type fakes. SOME certainly are modern (like that 1788 with the crack across CarIII's forehead), but in digging up more from ebay, a least a few seen HAVE to have legitimate age/use to them... And Bob, your ideas about how that castle window can't be regal seems sensible. Thus... you indeed have a bullion restrike that was used as a model for modern-day forgery.

Bob, when you think about, indisputably worn "original" pieces (or original counterfeits, as it were) with something like this goofy keyhole window identifier are really the perfect proof for your bullion restrike theory. Feature doesn't make sense for "regal", but if a piece shows signs of legit circulation, what else could it be?

I will say this... The one thing I can't understand is if this Maria Theresa-like "restriking" or whatever you want to call it occurred on as a large a scale as you believe, involving many different locations and operations - which all makes perfect sense from the argument about the premium paid for the silver coinage... EVEN IF it was illicit and thus clandestine... how could this knowledge virtually disappear from the oral record and simply never exist in the modern (i.e., mid-1900's on) written record?

This has always been a popular "foreign" series in the States, and also elsewhere... AND YET, none of this large-scale operation ever made into the public consciousness? So not a single person who had first-hand knowledge ever felt like spilling their guts late in life, and/or ever relayed their juicy story to someone who did? In every scheme... there's always a person with a big mouth.

Clearly the coin market has been aware of SOME kind of counterfeits of portrait 8R for quite a while... I remember
reading 20+ years ago as a kid - before I was ever into this type of coinage - that there were lots of "fakes" around and that you should look at the king's mouth/smile one of the "tells"... Years later, I don't recall if they meant the "typical" goofy-looking contemp. ctfeits, OR modern fakes, or ? Were there really THAT many modern fakes of portrait 8R b4 the last 15 years or so? Or, if it was typical goofy CCs they were referring to... there's usually a LOT more there to give away that it's bogus besides the smile... Was this a wink-wink reference to your Class 2?

Yes I believe it might have been if you lived in an area where the coins were made and people were aware of them.

I first was warned about these silver counterfeits by my godfather. He was my mothers older brother. He was born in 1900 and knew people involved in making the coins. He introduced me to one.




I guess I am that guy. At least as far as I know.

I cover what I know in detail as the basis for establishing the case for the Class 2 coins.

The story as I heard it dates back to 1957-1960 or so when I first started collecting and I wanted to collect Morgan dollars and Portrait 8Rs. My uncle told me in no uncertain terms NOT TO DO IT. He was the president of the local coin club and the forgery ring was common knowledge. He introduced me to one of the last of the forgers he knew who claimed to have made these coins. He was an old man (close friend of my uncle) and he told me stories over a period of a few years. In 1960 I finally got him to part one of his coins - one he claimed to have made in about 1920. He had a wooden box with perhaps 25 or 30 coins in it. They were ALL 1805 Mo TH - exactly identical.

This same man who died before I got out of college also warned me not to buy any Morgan dollars with a tiny O mint mark. He said he knew the group that made them. The tiny O was so they wouldn't get them back in change. I suspected he was actually involved but he never confessed to that. He knew making US dollars was counterfeiting. He objected to being referred to as a counterfeiter. He said they were doing nothing wrong and anyway they were "protected".

This was no later than 1969 but I believe it was before I got out of high school in 1965. I did not take notes. The fellow had ties to organized crime but he was a family friend. He talked a lot about the coins he was proud of them. He said the only real mistake was the smile. They could never get it right. He also said it never hurt anyone because the coins had exactly the right amount of silver in them and they were shipped to China anyway.

In college, I got away from collecting for a while and I had put the story away as a possibly tall tale of an old man to a kid who ate it up.

I took the 1805 Mo TH 8R to several dealers in Boston and they all pronounced it a real one but very common. Not really worth anything much.

Fast forward a few decades and the big revelation in 2005 that the Micro O dollars were fakes. That GOT MY ATTENTION again and I wondered if he was telling the truth.

I had been collecting counterfeit 8Rs for years by that point and had a couple thousand of them. I had seen a copy of Riddell's book as a kid and I was hooked on trying to find all of them.

So putting two and two together I started pursuing the micro O subject as a way of confirming or denying the 8R part.

The micro O dollar was first identified as a variety in a sale of the Will W. Neil collection by Max Mehl in 1947 - it was a worn example referred to as "VERY GOOD". It was first cataloged and published in a book of die varieties in 1963 by Frances Klaes. This is the same time period that I was being told to avoid buying one.

The timing of the first sale in 1947 proves the micro-O coins were made and circulated extensively for years before 1947. A date in the 1920's or 1930's is certainly possible if not necessary to cause the required wear.

Later reports in 2005 indicate that Klaes thought the coins were fakes when he published in 1963 but he never said anything in that book about it.

So how did the old man know to tell me what to avoid?

It got me thinking that if I had confirmation of one part of the story perhaps I could confirm the other parts too.

Within the past couple years, I found a second eyeball witness. He is a personal friend and a relative of a former foreman at a metal working plant. The plant was the same location cited by the old man. So one day we were talking about the old days (this fellow is 10 years older than I am) and he told me about one visit to the plant to see his relative. He was a teenager and was taken to a location in a wing of the plant where they were rolling SILVER. He saw the rolling plant and heavy presses.

That really hit me because this facility NEVER made anything that was silver. Also the location my friend described the same area of the plant that the old man had indicated as the place the 8Rs were made.

The third confirmation came from a letter I discovered that made reference to the same plant in 1893 and a charge of Counterfeiting made in San Francisco by a shipping agent who operated a California to China fleet.

That letter was part of a legal file that has been sold through several different venues over the past 15 years. The lawyer involved was the County District Attorney. The charge of counterfeiting was made against an officer of the metal working plant (who was also the State Attorney General).

Since the discovery of that first letter I have discovered 4 others tied into the same incident. They point to a US Senator as being involved as well.

This all comports very well in general with stories that the US tried to officially get permission to coin Mexican 8Rs in California in 1861 but was turned down by Mexico. Mexico wanted 15% off the top.

I do a lot of adding two and two - but here I see a plan put in place by the US government to clandestinely produce 8Rs for the China trade without telling Mexico.

So unlike the MTTs which were legally restruck - these Class 2 coins were anything but legal. However, when the shipping agent in California tried to take action for counterfeiting the case was quashed by the intervention of a Senator.

Is it proof? Perhaps not but it is the best I have up to the point of finding many historical references in rare books and documenting the physical existance of numerous silver counterfeits of the 8Rs that all share similarities with the 1805 8R that I got from the old man in 1960.

It is part of the book. You judge for yourselves.

Concerning the anecdotes from your local New England ring... Interesting that you've now linked it, potentially, to a higher level. Those dots seem like they could connect. If the scope was indeed that large, it's all the more fascinating that more info concerning these operation(s) didn't leak out.

You've shown that 1805 piece before... I don't recall, have you found any twins to it?

With a brief answer, WHY exactly did they not like the Ferdinand bust, even of the Mo mint? Kind of silly, when you think about it... They were picky enough to prefer the coins with the Mo mintmark... yet rejected (relatively speaking) coins with that same mark, which would test to be the same, content-wise, because they had a different picture.

Maybe they though the Charles' big schnozzes held aphrodisiac powers...