| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 6,572 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
In the past 10-12 years or so that I have been a member of this forum we have had many discussions concerning fake coins on ebay and elsewhere. That same time period has seen a remarkable acceptance of some kinds of fake coins as collectable and very valuable. I believe we need to use clear and appropriate terminology when addressing the issue of fake coins. We have all been lazy when dealing with precision in classification. I started by using Fake as an attempt at an all inclusive term or category which could contain all coins that are simply not what they claim to be. It is a generic term. The recent past has clearly demonstrated to anyone paying attention - there are many Fake coins that are VERY VALUABLE and others that are nearly worthless. We need to be aware of and to be able to differentiate the two types at a bare minimum. Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit coins is the most widely accepted name for these typically older, rarer and more valuable fakes. These fakes were made to circulate at face (or bullion) value along side genuine coins. Contemporaneous might be a better word but Contemporary has been used for decades and I doubt that will change. The second major class are the Numismatic Forgeries. These are the nearly worthless, non-circulating and made for collector fakes. The fraud here is based on a collector value that exceeds face or bullion value significantly. We should try to use the terms Counterfeit and Forgery whenever possible simply to reduce confusion. Like it or not - collecting Contemporary Counterfeits is here to stay. Some types are already being encapsulated by Third Party Graders and this trend will grow not fade away. With regards to ebay, we should all be aware that ebay is not one monolithic company with ONE set of interpretations of the general rules. In ebay.UK there are many permissible "Contemporary Counterfeits" allowed by rule interpretation. Spain and other ebay venues also have fewer restrictions on what is sold. In Spain modern forgeries can be sold legally alongside counterfeit coins. So to satisfy complaints from US customers ebay can force sellers to restrict their mailing area so that it excludes the US. In China it is perfectly legal to make and sell Numismatic Forgeries of coins of any country except current Chinese issues. So we should be cognizant that the whole world does not share the US position on fakes. The US version of ebay classifies all types into one basket FAKES. I once asked ebay legal if an 1804 US Dollar - one of the "genuine" but technically counterfeit issues could be sold and the answer was NO. Same goes for 1913 V nickels and all other similar unauthorized issues regardless of value. |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
684 Posts |
Good point Bob. The greater degree of granularity in description or classification can only help. Not to promote collecting contemporary counterfeits but for the sake of accuracy. Have half a dozen stupid 1804 silver dollars what would you call these?
I need to clean up my language. I'm lazy and use fake in all circumstances. It is certainly easier to type or say fake than contemporary counterfeit or numismatic forgery, but sometimes I just don't know.
For example: at a local coin show there was an 1861 Mexico Zacatecas 1/8 R state copper for sale. This date in this denomination was never made at the Zacatecas mint. More crudely struck than usual, it seemed to have circulated, or maybe it was fake (that word again) wear in a tumbler. Contemporary counterfeit or numismatic forgery? Certainly fake.
|
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24150 Posts |
Quote:
Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit coins is the most widely accepted name for these typically older, rarer and more valuable fakes. These fakes were made to circulate at face (or bullion) value along side genuine coins. Contemporaneous might be a better word but Contemporary has been used for decades and I doubt that will change.
The second major class are the Numismatic Forgeries. These are the nearly worthless, non-circulating and made for collector fakes. The fraud here is based on a collector value that exceeds face or bullion value significantly. Honestly Bob, once they're 100 years old, they're both as far as I'm concerned. Couldn't care less when they were made and intent is irrelevant. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Bob,
Like I said outside of C4 its going to be a LONG road uphill.
Just a thought - perhaps now is the time to get rid of some of your GNL duplicates or triplicates via Stacks/Bowers. More education to the population - at large. LOL. Even today top dealers in the U.K. sell contemporary counterfeit halfpence and farthings as so-called numismatic forgeries and C4 YANK members normally take it from there in terms of their worth ... we see some exceptions like the platinum/gold Isabel II Spain issues which NO European dealer ever miss-catalogs ... they know the PREMIUM and the alloy drives home this information in their BRAIN quite succinctly since brass is at $75 whereas gold/platinum is > $1000+ for a XF 8 Escudo CC (19thC).
Your book will take YEARS to SINK IN to the general numismatic population. In the interim see if you have any Cross Pistareen counterfeits (1708-1771) I am looking to do a die study for these for CNL now that the Anton book is done and its just basic fine tuning in 2016 ... no rush.
JPL
Edited by colonialjohn
12/14/2015 7:49 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5362 Posts |
Westwood Arms There are only 15 Contemporary Counterfeit 1804 Silver Dollars each worth in excess of $1,000,000. These were made in 1836 or so. All of the rest - hundreds of varieties and millions of copies are Numismatic Forgeries - they are all worth under $100. The difference is really why they were created. Regarding your example of a fantasy date (which is a coin never made) which is also crudely made, I could not be sure without studying the coin, but it seems to be a good candidate for a contemporary counterfeit. The critical point is that you really can tell the difference in most cases. You just need to know what to look for. To be contemporary, the fake has to have been profitable to make. A copper fake of the correct weight represents NO profit to the counterfeiter. Brass on the other hand or a very thin copper flan say 50% of standard weight and there is an adequate margin. If the coin is full weight struck in copper it almost certainly a recent forgery meant to fool a collector. Did you happen to check the die work? Dies used in counterfeiting of copper coins in 1861 were rarely well made (small profit margins). So you expect crude hand engraving. But if the die shows evidence of lathing (parallel raised die lines in the fields) or rotary drilling (power engraving) or any other modern die making technology it is clearly modern.
bobby131313 I really do not understand your comment: Quote:
Honestly Bob, once they're 100 years old, they're both as far as I'm concerned. Couldn't care less when they were made and intent is irrelevant. First do you mean the date on the coin is over 100 years ago? Because if you do not understand how to distinguish one type from the other how do you know the age? Intent in manufacture is far from irrelevant when determining value. Counterfeits meant to circulate can be worth thousands of dollars each - yet every day and at every coin show they go unidentified. Coins meant to defraud collectors are nearly worthless. Most dealers pass up the opportunity to profit from this knowledge. Perhaps that is why most dealers bring only a few types to shows. Personally I am Morgan Dollared OUT. Diversity in collecting is every bit as valuable as in any other part of life. John I know it will take a long time for the tide to turn so to speak, but I am willing to restate my case as many times as it needs. It is simply logical in my view. Why throw away potential profit? Too much effort? I know it is easier to make a ton of money by grade-flation or by creating artificial "rarities" like a MS 70 2007 cent but both are killing real numismatics.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Interestingly - when I was collecting and specializing in West Indies Cut and Counter-stamp issues contemporary counterfeits of the period where heavily frowned upon. I agree! It was tough enough using the reference books and other sources (i.e., sometimes auction catalogs) to know which were proper host coins and what counter-marks were acceptable/legitimate. Contemporaries of the period were simply a plague and a HUGE nuisance. In this series they should be considered WORTHLESS and they only POISON your collection - well that was my opinion anyway - I can see how this think can transcend to other areas but in this series it was very problematic. In most other series ... its no bother and normally adds some flavor or sophistication to one's central core regal coin collection.
John Lorenzo
United States
|
|
Pillar of the Community
France
1591 Posts |
bobby131313 : I don't understand your point either.
I collect spanish colonial coins from the catholic kings till Ferdinand VII. That includes the mexican war for independence.
That period is plagued with almost contemporary creations as everyone wanted his piece of history.
In the middle of the coins minted (many emergency issues) and used during that war, some were counterstamped by various generals / factions - for different reasons. There were imaginary stamps made just for collectors (but not documented as such, you can imagine), there were even imaginary denominations (Morelos 4 reales, while none were ever minted) .
They are ancient, some will collect them (why not) - but they are not coins per se - and their intent was either to give memorabilies to those looking for some, or . to fool collectors with imaginary pieces no one ever had.
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24150 Posts |
It's simple, a contemporary counterfeit of a 1921 Morgan dollar is now serving as BOTH a contemporary counterfeit and a numismatic counterfeit. Original intent, in practice, is irrelevant. All should be destroyed or marked copy as they are equally dangerous to the hobby. I don't care that people collect them or what their value is or why they have that value. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
bobby131313 A copy of a 1921 Morgan dollar made in the 1930s would be a Circulating Counterfeit and would be a collectible variety (although it would be illegal) and is worth MORE than a genuine coin in any circulated grade. A copy made in 2015 in China is a Numismatic Forgery which is also illegal but is essentially valueless. They may at times substitute for one another but only to the untrained eye. Do you also believe that the micro O dollar varieties (the contemporary counterfeits which were listed in VAM) and the recently discovered over mint mark varieties should be destroyed or marked COPY? They are quite valuable to specialists and many are encapsulated. Contemporary counterfeits pose a much more limited threat to the hobby than do forgeries. Counterfeits are not as numerous as the Numismatic Forgeries. In the shop where I used to work as an authenticator, contemporary counterfeits did come across the counter - one or two a month usually, but Numismatic Forgeries were a daily event often in groups. The counter staff was trained (by me) to assess the difference and as late as last week the owner reported no problems in distinguishing them.
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24150 Posts |
You're not understanding me Bob, I couldn't possibly care less about the value of a counterfeit. A counterfeit is a counterfeit and all of them should be destroyed or stamped.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
You're not understanding me Bob, I couldn't possibly care less about the value of a counterfeit. A counterfeit is a counterfeit and all of them should be destroyed or stamped.  A Fake is a Fake regardless of who or when it is made, Full Stop  |
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
Quote:
You're not understanding me Bob, I couldn't possibly care less about the value of a counterfeit. A counterfeit is a counterfeit and all of them should be destroyed or stamped. I have to disagree: I have a number of counterfeits I am proud to own.. And I am still hunting for one. The last time I attempted to get it I was outbid at US$900.00 ( heritage auctions about 5 years ago). I can't remember how high it went. It was an 1872(or 3) Counterfeit Sovereign: Its a high value counterfeit: gold plated platinum. Some counterfeits are junk others are more valuable than the coins they were copies of. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5172 Posts |
When it comes to ancients, there are really many types that would probably qualify as "counterfeit" but are still just as ancient, only unofficial. Fourrees are one big class of such; barbarous imitations are another.
Something quite similar (to barbarous imitations, at least) happened in a more modern period, with British evasion halfpennies of the 18th century.
And for the record, yes, I agree with the non-Bobby part of this discussion that a counterfeit with a history isn't something to be destroyed (or even irreparably stamped) just for being "fake", and can very much be sold (as a known counterfeit, obviously) if there's someone willing to buy. (Of course, the point becomes moot when there isn't anyone willing to buy.)
Note that "counterfeit with a history" does not even necessarily mean that it had to be circulating (non-circulating examples include Paduan ancients, or anything by Daniel Carr... I suppose it's unclear whether Carr's creations qualify as "counterfeit" in the first place*, but the Paduan ancients certainly do, and I'm pretty sure they never circulated as money).
For a particularly silly example: would Bobby here consider a "racketeer" (gold-plated) 1883 nickel a fake, and if so, would it count a fake nickel or a fake half eagle? And does that answer depend on whether the coin was actually plated in the 1880s (and used as such), or decades later (to fool collectors)?
*) though, to be fair, do 1942-plain Henning nickels count as counterfeit even if there aren't any real 1942-plain nickels for them to copy? even here, most would probably say "yes", but many of Carr's coins are in a similar category; he's only legally safer because he uses actual coins of the same type to make them
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
I tend to think that anyone who is regarded as an expert on fake coins has a good collection of them for personal reference.
Almost all coin dealers I know of maintain a 'black' collection for the education of their staff.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
All the Machins Mills halfpennies are counterfeits of regal British halfpennies.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
I can see where both bobby and swamperbob come from and do detest counterfeits.
I'll be upfront and say that I do own some contemporary counterfeits as well. The biggest problem is indeed the production of counterfeits but as the same time, the lack of people understanding the complications of buying counterfeits fuel the production of even more counterfeits.
I believe this needs to be a two prong attack where the general public is educated about counterfeits and gradually encourage them not to buy such productions. We need to attack both the supply and demand to get counterfeiters off this hobby.
|
| |
Replies: 24 / Views: 6,572 |
Posted 12/14/2015 4:33 pm
