A Story Of Three Counterfeit Three Cent Coins.

Actually Biedercoins, to stay within the HPA (Hobby Protection Act) it needs to be COPY not FAKE. But either way, that's a fine, upstanding thing to do.

Bob, I saw the '71, it didn't look right compared to my genuine item. It sold at 305 last night.

I didn't see the other two (I don't look at a lot of raw low grade 3cs), but they passed at the time, they're passing now. I guess it's a bit much to assume any old random seller can tell them at a glance for what they are.

Especially for the general collector (and since teaching counterfeiters of 100 years ago what to do), can you point the diagnostics out? The usual one I look for this the non-straight outline lines.

Swamperbob, I have a similar interest to yours. I own a couple contemporary 3CS counterfeits (a picture of one which made it into a recent book about counterfeits). If I can pick them up inexpensively enough, I'll buy more.

Jerseyben makes a point. Do NOT destroy contemporary counterfeits, such as those made 100+ years ago, by marking them. Those are collectible, have numismatic value, and usually fairly easy to properly identify.

Thanks again for another great post on counterfeits...

I think that it is extremely important to avoid blanket statements in this hobby- ie. 'All counterfeits are bad and illegal' ( ebay 'policy')

ebay's current policy regarding contemporary counterfeits unfortunately directly leads to situations as illustrated above- An unmarked modern fogery nets the most, while sellers of historical, collectible contemporary pieces are forced to inaccurately describe or describe in a manner that does not allow for a seller to explicitly state what a piece actually is...

Right Conder. And if he were to mark the 1871 current Chinese counterfeit, it would need to be COPY not FAKE.

Note that he's not legally required to mark it, BUT: It cannot be SOLD without the marking.

Biedercoins You say :



Yes. When a counterfeit is properly described or described well enough that the average collector recognizes what it is THE PRICE WILL GO UP.

The you say:


This is not quite correct - the law requires that COPY must be stamped into coins imported after 1974 which are replicas, copies or counterfeits. It is part of consumer protection law and is focused on newly created and imported coins not on counterfeits of non-current or non-monetized issues. Fraud and counterfeiting are cover under other types of law.

BStrauss3 You ask about the diagnostics. The 1860 Three Cent coin has been published on several occasions and is identified by the crude outlines to the star which cross at the corners. The outline is also too wide. The details of the shield especially the scrolls at the top are out of proportion to one another. The bundle of arrows is also badly drawn.

The overdate coin has outlines that are not parallel to one another. The scrolls on the shield are too small. Even the shield itself is too small.

The 1871 is very easy to ID as a forgery. There are poorly transferred details. Very poor surfaces. There is also the tell-tale second seam near the edge.

To reiterate the comments of other collectors of counterfeits only Numismatic Forgeries need to be marked COPY. Early contemporary cancellation markings like the word FALSA or COUNTERFEIT can actually add value for some counterfeit collectors. COPY is simply too new.

jdmern You have actually summarized my point exactly. The one category fits all approach of ebay is promoting not stopping the sale of Numismatic Forgeries. Current ebay policy accepts at face value seller statements. The only coins that are stopped are examples like Tommy Thomas' coin because it is obvious he knew the coin was a counterfeit. He also knew it was a valuable counterfeit. The first seller likely had no clue as to the nature of what he had. The third seller also had to know.