| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,495 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
64 Posts |
Hello everyone, I need your assistance once again. I received this coin from my dad and I just wanted to see its real. Please help. Thank you and have a great day.   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5850 Posts |
Well, it appears to be a Liberty Seated dollar, but seeing as how they stopped making the ones without an "In God We Trust" banner on the back in 1865 and sotpped making them entirely in 1873... I'm gonna have to go with fake, sorry. |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Truth, unfortunately. That coin was last minted 5 years before the date it shows.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11951 Posts |
I agree ...ok looking ...as far as looks. If you know what your
looking at ...it is fake
But can only be fake, with that date
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5850 Posts |
No, no, wait... it's not a fake! It's a "fantasy" coin...   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
604 Posts |
Unfortunately it's fake.  However, you could send it to the Black Cabinet. Steve is the man who is busy cataloging all these counterfeits out there today for us. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5850 Posts |
Seriously, how can this be considered a fake or a counterfeit if the date does not match that of an actual coin that was minted?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
It's a matter of purpose. These were originally manufactured to pass as genuine "errors" or "rarities," not as novelties, and given their appearance they fit the legal definition of "counterfeit."
And this one is indeed fake. I'd pass a magnet over it, and if it sticks that confirms it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5850 Posts |
Quote:
It's a matter of purpose. That part has always confused me, Steve, since we can't know for sure why this coin was made and certainly the purpose becomes irrelevant once the coin gets resold to the next buyer. Are you saying that if I create a good looking replica of, say, a Peace dollar with a year that doesn't exist, it's perfectly OK as long as I'm doing it for the "purpose" of selling it (at a steep premium, of course) as a "novelty" piece, but my "novelty" would suddenly become a "counterfeit" if I made the same exact coin in order to fool somebody into thinking it was legitimate? If you ran across on of my "novelty" coins on ebay after somebody had bought it from me and decided to resell it, how would you know my original intent (especially if the reseller claimed it was a real coin)? Or is it only not a counterfeit if I'm famous enough that everybody should know that this particular "novelty" coin was one of mine and therefore shouldn't be fooled by it? The rationale I keep hearing is that modern "novelty" or "fantasy" coins are, by definition, not counterfeits since they are not exact replicas of coins that were actually produced (even if the only difference is the date and/or mint mark). But here you are saying that this coin is, by definition, a counterfeit even though it has a date that is clearly impossible. Yeah, I know this is a dead horse by now, but I have yet to hear a decent explanation as to why some "obvious fakes" are counterfeits while other (sometimes much more subtle fakes) are really just "fantasy" or "novelty" coins. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
Under current laws, if you were -- today -- make anything that looked confusingly like genuine coins you'd have to mark it "COPY" to be in compliance with the Hobby Protection Act as amended by the Collectible Coin Protection Act regardless of date or mint mark combination as all replicas made after 1973 must be marked COPY at the time of manufacture, import, or sale (whichever is first). Due to case law on the books (most notably with the recent von NotHaus rulings) even if a coin uses motifs that are close enough for an average person to be reasonably fooled, it counts -- and as such doesn't need to be an exact replica to fall within marking requirements. :-)
Virtually every one of these base-metal counterfeits made in China were made with the intention to be passed as genuine items originally in a pre-Internet era where a fantasy date/mint mark combination would be appealing to a potential buyer as a possible rarity or discovery piece -- hence why they would be "counterfeits" in the colloquial sense. Mark it with COPY and you have a "replica" or a "fantasy piece" in the colloquial sense.
With date and mint mark combinations just a Google away, the counterfeiters are changing tactics and focusing upon common dates, but getting the weight right and thickly plating them with silver so they pass casual scrutiny even by dealers. And the dance repeats itself. :-)
Edited by SteveCaruso
03/26/2015 8:36 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5850 Posts |
Quote:
Under current laws, if you were -- today -- make anything that looked confusingly like genuine coins you'd have to mark it "COPY" to be in compliance with the Hobby Protection Act as amended by the Collectible Coin Protection Act regardless of date or mint mark combination. Ah, so you are apparently not one of those people who defend Daniel Carr's practice of striking fantasy coins that look EXACTLY like the real thing except for the date and sometimes his own mint mark. I happen to agree with you 100%, but there are plenty of people around here who seem to think he does nothing wrong as long as the coins he creates are "impossible" in some minor sense. Every time I've asked what the difference between what he does and what the maker of the coin described in this thread did, however, all I seem to hear are crickets. Thank you for the clarification. As I said, I agree with your stance completely. I am wondering, btw, whether you have any of Mr. Carr's coins listed in your Black Cabinet database? Edited by barryg
03/26/2015 8:53 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
The funny/ironic thing is that I am actually a big fan of Carr's fantasy pieces, even though I do not think they're quite "right" with the law (especially his "proof" 2009 ASE... Ohh I am actively looking for one to add to my collection; I love it). :-) I don't have any listed on The Black Cabinet, presently. Due to their manufacture, they would fall under Altered Coins (which are specifically mentioned in FTC regulation §304.1d) and as such their ID numbers would have the AC- ("altered coin") prefix rather than the CF- ("counterfeit") prefix. I would also probably assign a separate category and information page for them, given their history and fame/infamy within the hobby. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11951 Posts |
OH! Are you really looking for a DC 2009 ASE Edited by GR58
03/26/2015 11:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7390 Posts |
I'd love to get a Carr Morgan for my collection  It's like having a Banksy or Shepard Fairey! He is a true contemporary pop artist his medium just happens to be coins... (dies) -I'll give the coin to my grandkids so they can jump in their seats when they take it to season 1,892 of Antiques Roadshow! |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,495 |
|
Posted 03/26/2015 11:24 am
