realeswatcher You are close to correct about my purpose for this thread - except I am dealing with a well known US seller and collector who really should know the difference. My position taken in correspondence is position # 2 and his is position #1.
Background is that a "cast" counterfeit was put up for auction. It was called a "falsa de epoca" and it would have stopped there except for the fact that the seller said:
Quote:
Not listed in Gurney-Lorenzo.
Given that my book was mentioned in the description, I felt it was ok to comment that the coin would never have been included as a Class 1 counterfeit and I provided my reasons why it would not have made the cut.
The result was not a "learned" dispute based on facts but an insulting reply questioning my honesty. I was accused of meddling, having a friend write to say virtually the same thing and offer a small fraction of the asking price. This accusation referred to as "low balling" as if I was involved in a deceptive practice to make a profit.
The last comment is that I have NEVER engaged in sales of counterfeits for profit. I have traded counterfeits with friends and even sold some minor denominations because I am not interested in them. So how it was "low balling" to provide my estimate of value was a conclusion with no merit.
I understand all too well that the term "falsa de epoca" is often used to deceive collectors of contemporary counterfeits like myself, in particular by some sellers located in Spain. I have fallen for that "misdirection" on more than one occasion. That is because a contemporary circulating counterfeit and an early numismatic forgery can sometimes resemble one another in photographs as you said. As a result, I am far more cautious since my book was released to assess "new" GNL coins with more suspicion than before the book was issued.
For my book I had to devise a limiting method - a way of dividing contemporary from numismatic based on how and why the fake was made. We were overwhelmed with cast counterfeits in particular.
The two questions I use are dissimilar. How is method of manufature and Why addresses typical motivation for counterfeiters versus forgers. We decided to do this because the three contributors to the book were of different opinions regarding cast counterfeits. The compromise worked out was to include only those casts that fit distinct parameters. The mold had to be made using a technology that was invented BEFORE the coin in question became scarce in circulation and that in the case of a RARE type or Key date issue the proof had to be overwhelming that it was not an early numismatic forgery. EVERY cast copy that made it into the book was personally examined by one or more of the three of us and we each had the opportunity to ask for removal. A two out of three vote allowed the coin to come in - often with a comment in the write up.
I included in my note to the seller answers to both question starting with the motivational issues.
a. Counterfeiters (for circulation) do not make rare coins to avoid scrutiny.
b. Counterfeiters target coins that are common in circulation because they pass unnoticed.
c. Forgers tend to manufacture rarer issues to maximize profit.
Then I moved to technology:
a. A cast counterfeit using a technology to duplicate the image that did not exist while the coin predominated in circulation must be a numismatic forgery.
b. In this case the design was directly transferred from a genuine host coin to a mold - the method of transfer provided sharp transitions, fine details and demarcations similar to electro-typing (after 1840) or direct fine grain plastic (flexible) molding matrix material (after 1940).
c. It appeared but was not 100% conclusive that the mold was re-dated to create the Key date of the series.
d. The alloy used to create the forgery "looked" late to me. This was a simple observation but not having the coin in hand and not having XRF confirmation of the alloy would have resulted in my voting against inclusion. One of the three authors almost NEVER voted yes for casts - so the result would have been exclusion.
So I indicated that the coin in question would have been classified as a Class 4 Numismatic Forgery for my book and had it appeared it would not have been called a Class 1.
So I was trying to make absolutely sure that my facts are all in order and that "falsa de epoca" does mean a contemporary circulating counterfeit (without the uncertainty of US English language usage regarding the word contemporary).
I am not interested in identifying the seller. I would ask that no one who may be able to figure this puzzle out mentions him by name or handle.
Posted 10/20/2016 07:13 am
