First Page
Posted 11/08/2014 6:15 pm
Coinworldtv You say
Your alternative theory is that the mint mark was altered at the same time that the fake counterstamp was applied - both were done for numismatic purposes. This could be answered easily by looking at the wear on both features - the mint mark and the counterstamp. Based on my view of the pictures there is clear significant WEAR after the mint mark was altered. But I fail to see the same level of wear associated with the counterstamp applied to the coin.
One element could not wear while the other did not. Therefore I conclude that they were NOT applied at the same time.
In addition if someone went to the trouble to change the LIMAE monogram to Mo to make the host look more acceptable why did they do NOTHING with the assayers' initials. That makes no sense.
Also remember that most of the frauds involving the application of fake counterstamps happen to host coins that are DAMAGED. It is the damage to the host coin that makes them VERY CHEAP for the forger to buy.
What is cheaper than an altered coin where the mint mark has been changed already? That coin has little value as a collectable. The idea that two different forgers worked on the coin at different times makes more sense and it fits with the wear noted above.
You are resorting to a very weak argument to provide support for your belief the Chinese premium did not exist. I know that you and I subscribe to different points of view on the Chinese premium and silver forgeries, but don't let that cloud your logic.
Your argument "negative argumentation" is made by supposition and actually supports no additional factual data. Your argument "might be true" but it adds other issues which tend to disprove your theory while supporting mine - namely 1) differential wear, 2) the damaged status of the host and 3) the error associated with the assayer initials.
The case for the existence of the Chinese premium is ROCK solid and getting stronger as more research comes to light. Before being so ready to dismiss my ideas you should read two new books that cover the subject. The first is devoted exclusively to the question and the second provides factual; background in relation to UK sources;
1. Bailey, Warren and Bin Zhao. Familiarity, Convenience and Commodity Money: Spanish and Mexican Silver Dollars in Quing and Republican China. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, 2009.
2. Depeyrot, Georges. Documents and Studies on 19th c. Monetary History in China "The silver question (2nd Half of the 19th Century". Wetteren, Belgium: Monet, 2014.
Both of these recent research projects (the earlier one was used in the preparation of my book and the later one which was published after my book was written) treat the Chinese premium as a simple FACT. They do not treat it as speculation at all. It happened it was real it resulted in serious financial concerns worldwide. Modern research is unanimous that the premium existed and my theory is supported by that research.
Thirty years ago my theory was scoffed at by "expert dealers" because I could not provide adequate historical support. In addition it would have been bad business for them to admit they could not tell the coins apart.
The historical and scientific facts now are aligned. The premium existed and the premium was adequate to support a business. XRF can distinguish at least the later fakes from the originals. Wishing it was not so is so is only a pipe dream now. The establishment has got to admit that for decades they have been deceived.
By the way - there are many more than 2 examples of this altered mint mark that I have seen in my career. I would estimate the number conservatively at over 200. I used to sort bags of dollar coins that were purchased from China when Portrait dollars and Cap and Rays brought only a few cents over silver. There were 1000 coins per bag and I had a deal with the owner to sort out counterfeits (which I bought at his cost plus 50 cents) I in return separated overdates, rare coins and culls from the mix. At the time ca 1968, I had not yet made the connection between the altered mint marks and the Chinese premium. I was only a college kid at the time I did this job. All of the cull coins including the altered mint marks (perhaps 5% of the total) were sold for scrap. Typically 1 in 10 coins was a reject and half of those had altered mint marks.
It was the sheer number of altered mint marks in the groups of coins this dealer bought that got me to thinking there must be a reason. It took me years (until I was working in Boston after college) before I formulated my theory. That was in 1980 or so.
By the way NONE of these cull coins with altered mint marks had insurgent counterstamps either. Many were chopped and all were worn to G-F grades like most of the coins we got.
These things did exist - most may have been melted but if everyone looks at junk boxes more will come to light. What I passed up at less than $10 each in 1968 I would now pay $200 apiece for.
Quote:
Still there is a much simpler and logical reason for that, which is clearly connected with the fake countermark, which also tries to look Mexican.
Both manipulations (the mint letters and the countermark) were probably made here in order to fool a numismatic collector of rare mexican coins and does not give any additional support for your China theory (the "Mo"´s were worth more than "LME[negative][/negative]"´s only because of the "Mo" letters on them).
Still there is a much simpler and logical reason for that, which is clearly connected with the fake countermark, which also tries to look Mexican.
Both manipulations (the mint letters and the countermark) were probably made here in order to fool a numismatic collector of rare mexican coins and does not give any additional support for your China theory (the "Mo"´s were worth more than "LME[negative][/negative]"´s only because of the "Mo" letters on them).
Your alternative theory is that the mint mark was altered at the same time that the fake counterstamp was applied - both were done for numismatic purposes. This could be answered easily by looking at the wear on both features - the mint mark and the counterstamp. Based on my view of the pictures there is clear significant WEAR after the mint mark was altered. But I fail to see the same level of wear associated with the counterstamp applied to the coin.
One element could not wear while the other did not. Therefore I conclude that they were NOT applied at the same time.
In addition if someone went to the trouble to change the LIMAE monogram to Mo to make the host look more acceptable why did they do NOTHING with the assayers' initials. That makes no sense.
Also remember that most of the frauds involving the application of fake counterstamps happen to host coins that are DAMAGED. It is the damage to the host coin that makes them VERY CHEAP for the forger to buy.
What is cheaper than an altered coin where the mint mark has been changed already? That coin has little value as a collectable. The idea that two different forgers worked on the coin at different times makes more sense and it fits with the wear noted above.
You are resorting to a very weak argument to provide support for your belief the Chinese premium did not exist. I know that you and I subscribe to different points of view on the Chinese premium and silver forgeries, but don't let that cloud your logic.
Your argument "negative argumentation" is made by supposition and actually supports no additional factual data. Your argument "might be true" but it adds other issues which tend to disprove your theory while supporting mine - namely 1) differential wear, 2) the damaged status of the host and 3) the error associated with the assayer initials.
The case for the existence of the Chinese premium is ROCK solid and getting stronger as more research comes to light. Before being so ready to dismiss my ideas you should read two new books that cover the subject. The first is devoted exclusively to the question and the second provides factual; background in relation to UK sources;
1. Bailey, Warren and Bin Zhao. Familiarity, Convenience and Commodity Money: Spanish and Mexican Silver Dollars in Quing and Republican China. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, 2009.
2. Depeyrot, Georges. Documents and Studies on 19th c. Monetary History in China "The silver question (2nd Half of the 19th Century". Wetteren, Belgium: Monet, 2014.
Both of these recent research projects (the earlier one was used in the preparation of my book and the later one which was published after my book was written) treat the Chinese premium as a simple FACT. They do not treat it as speculation at all. It happened it was real it resulted in serious financial concerns worldwide. Modern research is unanimous that the premium existed and my theory is supported by that research.
Thirty years ago my theory was scoffed at by "expert dealers" because I could not provide adequate historical support. In addition it would have been bad business for them to admit they could not tell the coins apart.
The historical and scientific facts now are aligned. The premium existed and the premium was adequate to support a business. XRF can distinguish at least the later fakes from the originals. Wishing it was not so is so is only a pipe dream now. The establishment has got to admit that for decades they have been deceived.
By the way - there are many more than 2 examples of this altered mint mark that I have seen in my career. I would estimate the number conservatively at over 200. I used to sort bags of dollar coins that were purchased from China when Portrait dollars and Cap and Rays brought only a few cents over silver. There were 1000 coins per bag and I had a deal with the owner to sort out counterfeits (which I bought at his cost plus 50 cents) I in return separated overdates, rare coins and culls from the mix. At the time ca 1968, I had not yet made the connection between the altered mint marks and the Chinese premium. I was only a college kid at the time I did this job. All of the cull coins including the altered mint marks (perhaps 5% of the total) were sold for scrap. Typically 1 in 10 coins was a reject and half of those had altered mint marks.
It was the sheer number of altered mint marks in the groups of coins this dealer bought that got me to thinking there must be a reason. It took me years (until I was working in Boston after college) before I formulated my theory. That was in 1980 or so.
By the way NONE of these cull coins with altered mint marks had insurgent counterstamps either. Many were chopped and all were worn to G-F grades like most of the coins we got.
These things did exist - most may have been melted but if everyone looks at junk boxes more will come to light. What I passed up at less than $10 each in 1968 I would now pay $200 apiece for.
