Why Are Fantasy Coins Being Graded By The Big TPGs?

This is the very "Core" of my objections to the Daniel Carr Fantasy issues.
And these are now being graded and encapsulated by one of the lower tier TPG's

The seller is using slabbed fantasy (toy) coin with fake year to trick buyer to believe the coins are "authentic and antique". They are genuine fantasy coins but not antique.

I've reported that to " ebay Counterfeit Reporting for all World Coins and Currency".

I'll touch on this "fantasy" topic again with this: Let's say there is an old or obscure location called "Pemba". And in it's day there were coins from this place. Now comes a private mint creating newly made coins with this name. Not original. Not old. Not what is found in the old coin collecting books, but it has the same name. So maybe it's a "fantasy". A coin made present day having the same name as and old location. Perhaps a private mint making coins with names some collectors wish they had. Now compare that to a silver coin made in China maybe a hundred years or more ago having the image of a princess or empress with perhaps some dragons, birds or symbols. In one case you have mint officials making some pretty nice looking coins of silver but with no approval of the central government. And in the case of a present day "Pemba" piece, you have a modern coin with an older name being cranked out and bought by collectors that may or may not want an authentic original coin from that place but can be satisfied by at least having one sample or another to add to their pages having that name. So there must be some sort of difference where the word "fantasy" just doesn't quite cover it well enough.

Mr Kann catalogued the Fantasy coins back in the early 1900's But who is to say that the Fantasy coins available Now are indeed from that period and are Not newly produced ?
As these Fantasy issues do Not have any Mintage figures or any other official provenance anyone could produce these at any time.

IMHO if it's dated 1908 then it have better been made in 1908, otherwise TPGs should have the integrity to deny slabbing the item or at least label it a TOKEN, JETON or IMITATION (while also keeping the "fantasy" designation).

Albert, Wade, trout1105, gxseries and anyone else interested.

There is only one item in the case that started this thread (unknown mintage) that can be identified as "Genuine". PCGS has chosen to identify that one precise type. I do not know if they are correct or not but it is a point from which to start. These can and should be encapsulated and graded. As a better example I would compare this to the unauthorized confederate cent - Lovett made dies and 12 original copies were struck in copper-nickel in 1861.

A very closely aligned sub-group of "genuine" are actual "restrikes" made using the original dies. These can be private issues made later in time. The criteria is the use of the same original dies. These also should be encapsulated. Carrying forward the example above, Lovett sold the dies and coins to either Maris or Hazeltine in about 1873 or 1874. They arranged with Kindler of Philadelphia to make re-strikes. There were 6 gold, 15 silver and 55 copper. The original dies broke on the 55th strike. There are NO coper-nickel restrikes. So all of the restrikes of 1873-4 can be encapsulated safely. So far 83 total coins.

A third class would be restrikes created from transfer die impressions of the original dies. The 1961 Bashlow restrikes of the Confederate cent were made from just this type of die. They are identified by the broken and rusted surfaces. Over 10,000 of these "restrikes" were made. These can be identified and encapsulated. So there are about 11,000 confederate cents that can be safely encapsulated and dated.

All other examples of the confederate cent are "not Genuine". These would include strikes from newly engraved dies (which could be called fantasy dies, replicas, copies or other names), cast copies made by transferring the image of any of the 11,000 restrikes. The entire group of all these new issues could simple be called "Numismatic forgeries" since they are made to defraud collectors (or could be used to defraud collectors). These of course can be encapsulated as fakes. That would fix in time a date when they already existed for future reference.

I do agree that numismatics needs a better set of terms than are used today.

If the Confederate Cent had actually circulated - contemporary circulating counterfeits (CCC) would have likely been produced. These can be identified in most cases by technology or metal used in production. While these do not actually exist for the Confederate Cent they do exist for most types of circulating coins.

I have tried to come up with an all inclusive list on many occasions unsuccessfully. Here is my best to date. I refer to the thing as an item which would include coin, medal, token or any other term denoting a coin-like object.

I. Genuine Item - the original items however made.
a. Cast Genuine - This can be subdivided by the way the
molds were made.
1. Engraved molds
2. Punched molds
3. Hubbed molds
b. Struck Genuine - This can be subdivided by the way
the dies were made.
1. Engraved dies
2. Punched dies
3. Hubbed dies
c. Engraved originals - one example made at a time

II. Re-Issued Genuine Items
a. Recasts - Items from original molds
1. Recasts made at later dates
2. Recasts made in other materials
b. Restrikes - Items made from the original dies
1. Restrikes made at later dates
2. Restrikes made in other materials
c. Casts made using original dies as molds

III. Re-issued - Duplicate Items - Officially re-issued
items
a. Casts made using a set of newly created molds.
1. Using original materials and mold type w/ date
2. Using other mold types (named) and materials
(named) w/ date
b. Strikes - Duplicate Items - Officially re-issued
1. Using original materials and die type w/date
2. Using other die types (named) and materials
(named) w/ date

IV. Contemporary Circulated Counterfeit - Unofficial
a. Profit derived from debasement or fiat
1. Identify method of manufacture - varies as above.
2. Identify materials used - varies as above.
b. Profit derived from premium placed on coin
1. Identify method of manufacture - varies as above.
i) Matches genuine method.
ii) Differs from Genuine method.
2. Identify materials used - matches genuine

V. Numismatic Forgeries - Unofficial - Fraudulent

VI. Replicas - Non-fraudulent - easily recognized

VII. Altered Items
A. Genuine Items - Altered for fraud
1. Altered dates - mint marks or designs
2. Coated or plated for fraudulent purposes
3. Polished or repaired to increase value
fraudulently
4. Mined to remove precious metals.
B Replica Items - Altered for fraud

VIII. Other Coin Like items - Not Fraudulent
A. Genuine Items - Altered
1. Engraved coins - love tokens - dog tags
2. Re-used - gears - badges
3. Buttons
4. Decorations - conchos
B. Non-Genuine Items - Altered

Interesting dialog everyone, thanks for exposing this conundrum, boy!

Silverai, your link for fantasy coin on ebay is now $512.00 with 25 bids and counting, wish I had that disposable income!

Crazyb0, I hope those bidders really know what they are bidding.

As you can see from the discussion, "fantasy" is not a standard term. I just want to point out a slabbed fantasy coin can be MISLEADING. A smart seller can send an unknown coin for grading, once the coin is slabbed, the seller can claim the "authenticated" coin is made in 1800.

If other members don't agree that, can they please tell me who made those 2 "fantasy" coins and in which year?