New Record For The Sale Of A Gnl Listed Counterfeit.

Excited yes - incorrect NO.

I am drawing conclusions based on the way I see and understand the market just as you do. You are an expert in the MTT just as I am with regard to counterfeit 8Rs. I have been collecting counterfeit 8Rs since 1960 and over that period of time I have assembled a collection of about 600 Portrait (500 varieties about 10 new varieties per year average) and 3000 Cap and Ray counterfeits. I have no counts on types yet.

Regarding rarity versus market I completely agree that rarity is no guarantee of market value.

My belief is that the market for any item is driven by publication of knowledge (advertising). Unless and until collectors know about a type of coin it has no market at all which is what I would presume about any coin with a mintage of 5 or even a few hundred.

But I have numerous examples of historic counterfeits that became interesting after a champion arose.

How did the market for the 1804 Dollar (15 coins) develop? How did the market for the 1913 V nickel (5 coins) develop? Advertising.

People are interested if they know about a commodity. If rarity is kept a secret and no one knows - no one collects. I am trying to correct that omission.

So I believe that my statement is correct when I say that counterfeit 8Rs are selling for much less than what they should bring (in a perfect world). My belief is that when folks know there will be natural interest and prices will increase. This has already happened with several types - Machin's Mills, British Evasion and counterfeit half pence, Bectler Gold, Davignon Bust Halves and Kleeberg 2Rs. I believe that 8Rs should be seen as part of the same group and all else being equal they should go the same way.

You say



That depends on your definition of routinely. Over my 5 decades of experience I have found that at a really good show I might find one new counterfeit variety. Most shows I find a couple duplicates. That is my routine. Prices were low because there were few of us looking. Prices are now up. I have 8 dealers now actively hunting for examples for me. They sent in 23 Portrait examples in the past year but only three were actual new varieties. That is routine. When I started collecting in 1960 I once paid $3 for a counterfeit. Many or most were free. I never saw $50 before about 1990 except in the bigger richer auctions and there it was in relation to other more well known counterfeits.

I said I have not recorded over 100 of any individual portrait counterfeit. In reply you say:




Of course it is my record, however, I based my opinion on data I have shared with other counterfeit collectors as well. The statement regarding a 100 count estimate was first made in a conversation I had with Dave O'Harrow in 2000. It was his number not mine originally. He started collecting counterfeits decades before me. My actual number of recorded varieties was inflated from 22 to 100 to allow just such a safety factor as you propose.

I think you are incorrect about the number of survivors however. This is because of the simple fact that most successful counterfeits contained an amount of silver that was worth recovering. Average figures in Riddell indicate about 40% of the correct amount of silver was present. So it is my belief (supported by other counterfeit collectors) that a 30 cent recovery on the dollar was attractive when compared to the alternative of no recovery. Most of these coins were melted to recover the silver they contained.

The only varieties that exist in anything like large numbers are the Birmingham issues particularly the ones with the BOE stamps and the base metal copies with a wash of silver.

Regarding my statement that "many unique" you again say



Not by me alone but by every collector of counterfeit 8Rs I know. The general experience is that few examples except the Birmingham issues appear in numbers above a handful and many are one time finds. This is true in relation to many Cap and Ray coins shown in Riddell as well.

Regarding the Sixbid example you presume I missed - I can only say that not only did I not miss that coin but that it is the second most common variety I am aware of and one I believe will hit 100 recorded examples within the next few years. It is a silver wash type - one of the kind most likely to miss the melting pot.

Your statement that some dealers and collectors refuse to go near these "things" is unfortunately true but it used to apply equally well to the types of counterfeits I listed above. The dismissive use of these "things" is objectionable to myself and I presume to all other serious collectors of colonial era counterfeits. These counterfeits are every bit as important as any of the others listed. They are of the same age, rarity and spring from the same historical background.

The popularity of Bank of England Emergency issues (even their counterfeits) is based on a long period of positive advertising by many people in the business. That case illustrates my point that discussion leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to collector interest and interest leads to increased prices.

Finally if advertising didn't pay who would be paying a premium for an MS 66 coin over an MS 63? The misuse of the Sheldon Scale is a hoax of extraordinary proportions perpetrated on an essentially gullible audience based on grades that only "experts" see and never agree on. There are other examples as well - the proliferation of low mintage proof collector coins is another hoax. Hyped when first sold these artificial rarities sell at melt in a few years.

The number of counterfeit coins ever made is a fixed number that will not increase.

Austrokiwi & Everybody -

Speaking of that unusual auction of pieces ...

In that sale you may seen a farthing obverse brockage on a halfpenny host. I purchased that but its UNUSUAL. It has alot of room to be considered a fake or not made during the period. Interestingly - and not mentioned in the cataloging on the reverse non-brockage side are the letters GEO of the style of Georgian 1/2d! So the next question is what of the depression of the farthing obverse onto the coin. Under a stereo microscope there is some but not a lot of flow lines. But this could be a contemporary counterfeit farthing impression not made with a Royal Mint press but of a counterfeiting operation on say a bench type press but the impressed areas look really old. A most unusual piece ... I saw your piece ... but funds were limited ... this auction house did a good job ... particularly with those 1/2d errors and U.K. Evasions were all really KOOL. A noted California collector bought most of these ... could be some type of set-up piece to test the dies? ... also what needs to be entered into this equation ... why would anybody impress a farthing coin into a 1/2d planchet at this time? Why use a farthing die or coin? The depressed area does not look at all MECHANICAL it just looks like not as much pressure as one would see from a Royal Mint error from this time based on lack of flow lines? ... but again ... not sure ... next time I am in the bank I will check some 18thC errors in terms of flow lines ... something I have not done since buying a stereo microscope only two years ago ... in terms of it being flattened it does not appear so - the planchet is irregular and as with CC1/2d's its of this uniform thickness (i.e., thinner) - but irregular and oval as the vertical and horizontal diameters are more than a 1.0 mm differential ...

http://www.timelineauctions.com/lot...penny/58051/

JPL

Mr.A -

No need ... an old mentor of mine William Anton said most people you meet in this hobby are pretty much into it just for the social ramifications. He use to call them simple-minded accumulators. 99% of the people I meet in this hobby are SMA's. Some examples - someone who has collected their entire lives and never wrote a coin article, people who chase MS66 type coins CONTINUOUSLY, people who when attending a gathering never go beyond type/grade in a show and tell among their peers, people who write an article never advancing any information - just compiling real time data. I could put names to all of these Mr. A ... not you ... I like your aggressive behavior ... I am the same way ... but you can't bad mouth SMA's which has been my problem from time to time. Dave Bowers once said the average collector spends about 20 minutes/week with his coins. Just because someone is a SMA and is a type collector with big pockets does not make him an IDIOT. Although his name is often on the cover of an auction catalog ... the bottom line ... he is still more often than not JUST a SMA.

JPL (hopefully not in your eyes a SMA)

LOL

I am not sure that I like the term SMA. Collectors are important but I do think there is a distinct difference between those who just follow catalogs and those who contribute new information(an analysis of a coins monetary value isn't new information IMO) to the hobby. My comments were not meant to be elitist but to highlight a difference between those who conduct proper research and those who just collect.

I have some financially valuable coins in my collection but Some of my greatest discoveries and IMO the most valuable numismatic pieces cost less than US$50.00. A collector would see them as valueless. A numismatist is less worried about financial value and more worried about information.

Assigning a classification to people in the field of study or the collecting of any given genre is in itself a form of study. I have read innumerable social investigations of the collecting phenomena simply because I do appreciate their attempt at a fixed taxonomy.

Three findings that reoccur with some frequency from those surveys and reviews is that: (a) 'collectors' attempt to control some part of their lives by their choices for their collections; (b) express creativity in doing so, and (c) receive a sense of accomplishment and self worth from those choices.

The field of numismatics, which, by definition, is the study of coins, extrapolates that single topic into countless subdivisions. It offers the opportunity to take advantage of the infinite possibilities of choice. It allows for the shaping and creation of specific goals and the prospect of success, however defined.

I have been 'kicked' a few times on this forum for my own definition of a collector, or a numismatist, or an accumulator, or a hoarder. But by offering such terminology I do not mean to belittle any class nor elevate one above another. I do believe that by submitting my own designations of these definitions I can share some knowledge and be further educated by any responses to my presentation.

A hoarder is not what the TV show would have us believe. A hoarder suffers from a mental state that offers no relief from their gatherings. It is the gathering itself that stimulates the least relief and the piles that surround them, assembled for the 'some day' of potential use, is no more than an after affect of their need.

The TV show often presents people who are too lazy to put an empty can in the garbage, let alone put a garbage can out to the curb on a given day. That is not hoarding. Those are just plain pig-people.

The difference between an accumulator and a collector is exceedingly easy to define. An accumulator has an idea of what they own, but makes no inventory, and purchases as the opportunity arises with little thought to assembling any precise grouping. A collector knows what they have and has made at least some effort to inventory what they own, as well as list what they are searching for in a 'shopping list' manner.

Often a collector wants only one of each, while an accumulator is perfectly happy having X of any given item.

This is not to say that one or the other is preferable. The accumulator may enjoy 'forgetting' what they have so that they can rediscover choice pieces when they take the time to explore their stash. But the collector will receive a sense of accomplishment as 'the holes are filled' that will likely allude the accumulator.

This definition receives the greatest noise as an accumulator often feels they are being inadequately described. If an accumulator has no interest in making an inventory and has no need to acquire anything specific, then they are happy. I do not wish to negate their enjoyment nor am I subjugating their position as lower, only different.

The numismatist need not be published. The gathering of knowledge about a subject may in itself satisfy a numismatists own craving and gratify their search accomplishments. Too, it is possible they feel inadequate for the task of presenting their findings. It is frequently true that someone with the mind set to realize an expertise will make their findings available to others. Those who publish such knowledge often receive the same gratification as a collector who finally finds that last piece of the puzzle needed.

Last, as the subject has been broached by others, I would note that the laws of supply and demand DO NOT apply to finite collectibles in the same sense as a commodity.

The potential available assets of those interested parties for an item is more influential than the number of interested parties. While the rarity or commonality of an item will affect the number of interested parties, the amount those folks can spend is more important.

In other words, you might only have two people interested in a given item, but if their available monetary expenditure is large the item may sell for a large price.

On the other hand, you may have a large number of interested parties who, by the selection of their interest, have already defined themselves into a lower price bracket. Even though there are dozens of folks who might want to buy a truly unique state sales tax pattern with a remarkable provenience it is likely that few of them have enormous sums to bid on such a truly unique piece.

Sales tax token collecting is often chosen simply because it can be done for very little money. As an example, only.

Again - the number of people interested is not as important as the total possible cash outlay by the people interested.

I regard my self as a collector and student of numismatics......All my on going research seem to achieve is teach me how much I don't know. I do feel very uncomfortable with pure collectors describing themselves as numismatists. Some of this view point comes from living in a country where there is a long established Numismatic department at the local university. When I have talked with faculty members I have always been struck with how much more I need to learn.

John,

I enjoyed your write-up on SMA vs numismatist. I would like to expand on it a bit. I would say there are 4 main categories of coin collectors: The Ignorant, SMAs, Numismatists, and Scholars.

The Ignorant: These folks don't really know why they collect coins. They typically just follow trends and follow advice they heard from manipulative or bad sources. These people are followers. You can see them at your local coin club (only to never return) or ebay bidding blindly on anything and everything with no rhyme or reason.

SMAs: Similar to what John described, these folks are your everyday coin collectors. They seek to learn a bit about their preferred area of collecting but overall they tend to be type collectors. These folks tend to only collect slabbed coins. These folks are the ones driving the market. They are the reason Coin World and the Red Book exist. This IS the coin market.

Numismatists: These folks are coin collectors who choose to put education and research first and foremost. They believe in "buy the book before the coin". These folks may collect slabbed coins but understand what makes a coin collectible, beyond its subjective numerical grade. These folks contribute to the hobby in some manner, big or small. Maybe they write an article, help a younger collector, or organize a social coin group.

Scholars: These are the folks who write the books and articles in obscure specialty areas of numismatics. They submit, for both praise and criticism, new information that may or may not change the opinions of something related to numismatics.

Not attempting to disparage anyone. Just calling it like I see it in response to this thread.