Can Anyone Identify This Old Square Coin? (Counterfeit Of 16th Century Hungary Klippe Denar)

Ok thx for the additional pics. I'm still a bit hesitant on this one but am looking forward to the results that you get from NGC. Please circle back with us on this thread regardless of the outcome. Thx!

...and there you have it, NGC have stated non-genuine sadly. Well done to those who said so.

Sorry about the outcome, but thanks for sharing, as it helps us all learn.

If it's a reputable seller, you can always see if they would take it back. (The one time I got burned, I kept it to remind me of the mistake).

I would classify this as a fantasy, not a counterfeit. It's not a copy of any coin that actually circulated or was minted.

One other remote possibility would be a coin weight (which it resembles in shape when compared to its contemporaries.)

It very loosely shares some semblance to a gold 1/4 dukat pattern of Kristof Bathory; the obverse is a crude hodgepodge of styles loosely based on the Bathory issue (with C mint mark in the left field, even) but PATRON instead of PATRONA, and the remainder is a caricature at best, but if it's a weight, they wouldn't have spent too much time on it.

The obverse is double struck on the LH side, which would make sense for something being stamped into a block of metal (as opposed to being die-struck.)

It gets into murky waters. To me, a counterfeit has to be a coin that was a copy of an existing "real" coin. But I tend to agree that just changing the date does not make a coin a fantasy.

There were no 1775-dated regal halfpennies of England - although you can find thousands of them out there fairly quickly; but they are almost always called counterfeits (because they were intended to pass as money) and not fantasies. An 1818 half crown struck in brass and tin or silver washed is a counterfeit, because it's based on an actual coin that was minted; if it were dated 1918, and had Queen Elizabeth II on the obverse, that would be a fantasy piece IMO.

I consider this "klippe" a fantasy because it is not a copy of a "real" coin and was obviously not intended to circulate or pass as a real coin (unless someone can prove otherwise.)

Authorized restrikes are also in a grey area - if The Royal Mint commissions a run of 1,000 Gothic Crowns struck from direct copies of the original dies, in the correct alloy, at the correct size and weight, with the correct dates and devices and legends, are those counterfeits? Most people would say that they are not. They may be exact copies of an original coin struck by the Mint, but they are not intended to circulate or pass as real coins. However, if the same were to be done by a pair of bored but extremely talented and skilled diesinkers and engravers working in the basement using modern minting technology, with the intent of deceiving collectors, would the resulting Crowns then be counterfeits? Probably so, because they were done without the imprimatur of HM the King or the RM itself and were clearly intended to deceive. Both coins would be nearly identical in every aspect, but only one would likely be called a counterfeit by collectors.