Odd Chinese 10 Cash - "Huipeh Peovince" (Sic) - Contemporary Counterfeit?

Certainly has the look of a CC. Here is one I have, lettering is quite similar between the two coins :)

The coin does have the appearance of a contemporary counterfeit. Unfortunately that is not conclusive proof. You need to do more work. First see if you can locate other examples that match and check provenance. If examples have been known since the early 1900s it is contemporary. Second review publications for notices of counterfeits of the same variety and when they first appeared.

You can also confirm the existence of a "profit margin" for the maker. This may have been minimal but should indicate a reduction in value - namely the metal content - so it should be light weight and/or use a cheaper alloy of copper.

Part of the definition of Counterfeit NORMALLY includes a profit margin for the manufacturer. Since the definition of terms Counterfeit versus Forgery lies in the motivation for manufacture there must be a clear profit to be gained in passing or selling the coin at face value at the time of manufacture.

This is one reason why the collector value of fakes (counterfeits or forgeries) is based on the knowledge base of the collector. Remember a fake of an old issue can be made recently and artificially aged to look contemporary, so caution must always be taken when adding to the list of known counterfeits. I treat all "newly appearing examples" as Forgeries until I develop scientific proof that it is more likely than not to have been made for circulation and not just to take advantage of an uneducated collector.

The best proof is of course a previously published image of the same variety that dates to a time BEFORE the coin was viewed as collectable and while it was still in circulation. That is why in the case of 8 Reales the book "Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad" by John L. Riddell published in 1845 is so important.

I have read somewhere about a book (now extremely rare) that was published in the 1950s that illustrated many forgeries known to exist at that time. That book would provide a no later than date for the coins illustrated. Alloys of known coins of known provenance (disclosed by XRF) could then be used to compare to newly discovered coins. They should be consistent with alloys made while the coin circulated. The same technique can be used with die making and minting/casting techniques.

A coin made using a technology or alloy that was developed in the past 50 -100 years can be used to identify examples of many older issues.

On the more modern forgery versus older contemporary counterfeit question - one thing that can be telling is if there seems to be a slew of them in the marketplace, or has been at some point, and what sort of premium is (was) being asked for them. As Bob has rightly pointed out, there has to be some profit to be made one way or the other. On the other hand, if there are very few that've surfaced and they're not currently or recently being hyped and priced as "rare errors" or such, that'd come down on the side of a "genuine" fake as opposed to one contrived to fleece collectors. You might even check the website that cannot be named (as in "___ ____ and the Forty Thieves") to see if there are any being hawked there, which'd be a red flag.

All I know is that it is not uncommon to have oddball spellings of English words on Chinese coins. I tend to focus on silver coins, so I know little about copper.

The circumstances you describe lead me to believe it's much more likely than not that it's indeed an older, previously circulating contemporary counterfeit.


Here's an official issue for which "KUO" was rendered as "KIIO" - this is a recognized, cataloged variety.

It's common to see butchered western language on asian coins, generally more pronounced on the contemporary counterfeits, but found on both genuine and CC types :)