MeadowviewCollector You ask:
Quote:
Second, how can a Confederate half be a contemporary counterfeit as it never circulated. Collectors weren't even aware of its existence until 1879.
That is an excellent question.
The answer is of necessity a bit complex.
First of all, the definitions of "Contemporary Counterfeit and Numismatic Forgery" are not definitions cast in stone that apply in the same way to all types of coins. They are meant to be somewhat flexible and to differentiate between collectible (historic and or valuable) varieties of fakes and junk.
I tried to cover some of the philosophy of how I personally classify non-genuine issues in my book. It is a subject I have been concerned with since the very start of my collecting efforts nearly 55 years ago when I was a teen. At the outset, I believed that FIRM definitions could be drafted which applied to all kinds of coins. One set of rules sounds good but it is not practical. As I matured (during the 60s when everything was being challenged) I realized that the definitions must be flexible to include all coin series yet must be specific to be of value.
I finally (rather recently) realized that each series of coins has different parameters of circulation which determine how the classifications of counterfeit, forgery and original apply.
The critical parameters are:
Dates of production.
Length of the interval of circulation.
Start date of numismatic interest.
Period of monetization.
The
dates of production is usually the easiest to determine. This can vary from a few days to hundreds of years. At the short extreme you can envision an emergency wartime issue (e.g. Newark siege issues) or an unsuccessful design that required almost immediate revision (1916 US quarter dollar or 1909 VDB cents). At the opposite extreme you have the coinage of Switzerland where essentially the same design has been in use since 1879. Varieties arise by metal used and specialists can detect die and hub varieties but in general they "all look the same".
The
length of the interval of circulation - this is more difficult to determine and often requires some research. Some coins like the Mexican Portrait 8 reales, the Austrian ducat, the Dog-Dollar of the Netherlands or the Maria Theresa Taler circulated not only in the places they were made but also over a much wider area and for far longer than a "normal" issue.
The third parameter the start of numismatic interest is far harder to determine but must be assessed to establish the possible period of numismatic forgery. It is also necessary to determine how the collecting community defines "original". Technically we all know that the King of
US coins the 1804 Silver Dollar is a non-monetary, non-circulating coin that in reality could be called a counterfeit. In that case there are NO Original coins. There are two types of these early counterfeits which are called originals and restrikes. There are no circulating counterfeits but numismatic forgeries by the ton.
Finally the period of monetization overlaps somewhat with the idea of collectability. They are together the history of the coin itself.
So at this point lets assess the Confederate Half Dollar. A reverse die was made (it is generally accepted) in 1861 and a limited number of "pattern" strikes (perhaps 4 coins) were made as presentation issues. As you point out - these were unknown or forgotten by collectors until the "discovery" of the die. The coin was never monetized nor did it ever circulate. So there are NO originals?
Scott made some restrikes on altered 1861 half dollars. He also made some strikes using a new die in place of the obverse. The die was then cancelled by cutting the surface and a second group of restrikes was prepared at a later time. All of these created over a period of over 20 years are collected as more or less "original" types having been made with the first die. They are of course not all the same age of value. In the period immediately after the die was discovered other unauthorized copies (some based on descriptions or drawings) were created. These are the "contemporary counterfeits". They are defined by their age and collectible value. These are typically fantasy die designs. They were made to pass in place of the Scott restrikes at a time when those restrikes were of minimal value but high interest as both souvenirs and collectible coins.
Later replicas were created as simple souvenirs - and numismatic forgeries. The numismatic forgeries are faithful to the original design and were created to fool collectors. These are nearly worthless.
So how do you classify these various non-original coins into useful collector groups?
If you are familiar with my book, I defined 5 categories or Classes of Portrait 8Rs (including originals as Class 5 unnamed) because that was the most useful number for that series of coins.
The 5 are:
1. Contemporary Circulating Counterfeits
2. Contemporary Circulating Silver Counterfeits
3. Numismatic Forgeries
4. Other - altered, mined, replicas, jewelry, bvuttons, etc.
5. Originals
I hope you understand the method I am trying to use. It is also driven by the original intent of the persons making the coins.
First Page
Posted 03/29/2015 4:45 pm
I had my ah-ha moment after reading your reply a couple of times. 
