In Numismatics, is there a difference between forgery and counterfeit?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by JCro57, Mar 11, 2020.

  1. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    I have wondered that myself many times
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. HaleiwaHI

    HaleiwaHI Active Member

    I think as part of this conversation should be: "Are all counterfeits/forgeries or copy's the same? & Are they all malicious with the intentet to defraud?" Much can be said about this in that some people copy Jewelry so that they can wear the fake stuff instead of their genuine articles for safety reasons. Even courts accept copy's of the original as used as evidence as long as they are clearly marked copy and not submitted as originals. Copy & pasted signatures are also allowed in Electronic documents. I have also heard that companies often contract exact duplicates in currencies for any number of reasons. To display for one. I would imagine that this position is only a part answer and certainly open for all kinds of scruteny. (for one, the spelling. I am a terrible speller)
     
  4. lehmansterms

    lehmansterms Many view intelligence as a hideous deformity

    There is a whole galaxy of terms which could be applied to copies of various kinds, but there are questions to try to answer before assigning a tag.
    First you need to consider (or try to determine) the intention of the creator. Was this made in hopes of deceiving someone for any reason, or was it made to be an innocent copy and nothing more. Then, if it was not created to deceive, has it later been re-purposed in a deceptive role - that needs to be considered and noted as well.
    Next you have to consider what role it may actually play in "today's" numismatic world.
    A counterfeit (at least to me) is an illicit copy of legal tender created to deceive. Forgery is a similar term with negative connotations covering a larger range of non-official doings.
    If it's a non-nefarious "copy" for whatever purpose it was created, then you also need to consider why it was created and whether it was an approved or accepted copy - eg: a significant percentage of the extant stock of reduced majorinae of the fallen horseman FEL TEMP REPARATIO were contemporary copies and not produced by official mints but circulated side-by-side with the official issues they emulated. Many potentially very deceptive copies are produced and sold as copies. They might currently be being promoted and offered as authentic and original which changes their use, but not their initial nature. Many ancient copies were not made to deceive anyone - they were produced as a local stopgap effort to provide the cash necessary to keep trade alive in times of scarcity of official coinage. The "Limes Falsa" copies of 1st century AE's in Britain and northern Europe were similarly created to fill a vacuum created by a lack of official coinage - they certainly weren't made with the intention to fool anyone into thinking they were the official item.
    Some pieces were meant to be deceiving in antiquity, but those are primarily items like the foil-wrapped fourrèes, obviously made to deceive.
    The one word which is virtually meaningless in all of this discussion is "FAKE" which means nothing at all without considering the origins, the presumptive motivation and intended use implied in the creation of any non-official mint issue.
     
  5. Cheech9712

    Cheech9712 Every thing is a guess

    Think of paintings. Maybe that will help
     
  6. Cheech9712

    Cheech9712 Every thing is a guess

    Good point. You get my best answer
     
  7. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    This group contains all struck "counterfeits" and one altered example; all were apparently made to deceive as they obviously did the TPGs...

    combo.jpg
     
    JCro57 and Pickin and Grinin like this.
  8. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I'm not sure which particular comment of mine your referring to with this post. What I mean is this - I never claimed anything "was" a genuine mint product. All I did was talk about things that were not genuine. So help me out a bit here with what you mean, what you're talking about.
     
  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    This is an example of what I was talking about in my 1st post in this thread when I said there would be many different answers. What I didn't expand on at the time was why there would be. And the answer to the why is because many individuals have their own personal definitions for any given word.

    For example, a fantasy piece. To me the only kind of coin that qualifies as even being a fantasy piece, that can be defined as being a fantasy coin, is a coin that looks like or resembles a genuine coin, but is a coin that has never existed to begin with. In other words there had never been a genuine coin minted with that specific date, that specific mint mark, that specific legend, etc etc. Only then can that coin be called a fantasy coin. That's because a fantasy is by definition something that has never existed. And if it has never existed then it cannot be a counterfeit.

    So I agree with you on one point, a fantasy coin is not a counterfeit. But I suspect our definitions of what is and what is not a fantasy coin differ.

    But what I was talking about in my comment quoted above are additional examples, of genuine coins that really did exist, but were minted without any official authority to mint them.

    I'm trying to do two things here, define a genuine coin as being one made from genuine planchets, with genuine dies, by the original mint, and authorized by the powers that be.

    Take any one of those things out and the coin is not genuine. And if coin is not genuine it is by definition a counterfeit.

    Like I said, it's all about definitions, what words mean to me, and what they mean to you. Your definitions are apparently different than mine.
     
  10. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    ahhh. i gotcha.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that in my opinion, if (1) the planchet was made by the approved Mint contractor, and (2) the approved dies were made/hubbed by Mint employees, then an unathorized strike cannot be a "counterfeit." What's fake about it, the planchet? No. Were The dies that struck the designs into it made outside the Mint's control? No.

    An unatuhorized or illegal strike is just that- not approved for Mintage. The actual planchet/coin is not counterfeit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
  11. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Yep. I disagree there.

    To me genuine is:
    • Genuine dies
    • Genuine planchets
    That's it.

    If a coin is struck with genuine dies and genuine planchets by the original mint, then it can be authorized or unauthorized. Authorized would just be a typical coin. Unauthorized could produce a fantasy piece like the 1913 V nickels, or it could produce a non-monetized coin. This is a genuine coin indistinguishable from others struck by the mint, except it never receives authorization to be monetized. It's not a counterfeit! All coins essentially go through this state prior to release. If someone sneaks that coin out of the mint and uses it to purchase goods, it becomes a counterfeit at that time (though it is academic as it is more than likely indistinguishable from a business strike).

    If the coin is struck by another source with genuine dies and planchets, then it could be a fantasy piece (if the actual coin was never produced), a restrike (if struck with the intent to produce a restrike), or a counterfeit (if struck with the intent to defraud).

    But the key disagreement here is in the importance of intent. Without intent to defraud, you cannot produce a counterfeit, even with the same materials and processes used.

    This is not just my opinion, it is the actual dictionary definition of the word counterfeit, as well as the interpretation of the term by the US Government.

    If you look up the word counterfeit you'll find something like this:

    "Made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud. A fraudulent imitiation."

    In other words, if the intent to defraud isn't there, it's not counterfeit.

    The US Government also agrees with this definition. If you read through the Counterfeit Deterrence Act of 1992, in every section that introduces a definition for the act of counterfeiting, it uses similar language to this:

    "Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be..."

    So no physical part of the process of producing the coin makes it a counterfeit, only the intent to defraud does.
     
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Well, like I said just above, it's a matter of definitions. An unauthorized or illegal strike is by definition a counterfeit. And mints are of the same opinion.
     
  13. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    The phrase "falsely makes" - that's making/minting coins without authority to do so.
     
  14. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Nope.

    "with intent to defraud, falsely makes"

    Means you first need the intent to defraud. If you falsely make it without the intent to defraud, it's not a counterfeit. It is very explicit about this - if you make a fake banknote, but you did not do this with intent to defraud, you are not guilty of counterfeiting.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
  15. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    Official Mint literature also mixes up the terms "counterfeit" and "altered," so I forgive them for their error in judgement on what a counterfeit is. :)
     
  16. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Like I said, difference in definitions.

    If someone mints coins without authority to mint them (falsely makes) and keeps them, that person has intended to defraud the govt./issuing authority.

    edit - we're gonna agree because you simply see things differently than I do.
     
  17. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Not necessarily. Take for example a high school kid making exact copies of bills for a school project on monetary policy. No intent to defraud. Not counterfeiting.

    Take also a club making a token for a club anniversary that is an exact copy of a classic US coin. No intent to defraud. Not counterfeiting.

    From a legal standpoint, whether you make the false currency, own it, or spend it, you must have intent to defraud for it to be counterfeiting.

    Now, I will admit that what you're saying in your definition happens to be true most of the time because there frequently is intent to defraud, however, it is purely coincidental. Realize it is only the intent to defraud that makes it a counterfeit.

    You talk about difference of opinion, but I'm not sharing my opinion here. I'm providing the literal definition, with examples.
     
  18. Martha Lynn

    Martha Lynn Well-Known Member

    Let me throw this into the mix. During the civil war, rebel
    forces seized three U.S. mints. In April 61' they were still
    in control of the mint in Dahlonega, Ga. and produced 1000
    to 1500 1861 D coins. The die used for the obverse was
    the 1860 D die.
    Would these coins be considered forgeries or genuine ?
    The governor of Georgia ordered that these mints start
    producing confederate coinage. Would The governors
    authority determine whether these were forgeries or
    genuine? They were U.S. mint dies on the obverse after
    all. I don't know what was used for the reverse. If the rebs
    created the reverse die then it is all kinda of crazy mixed up
    about it being genuine or not.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
  19. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    That's a good example, they were definitely counterfeits because there was no official authority to issue them. And the rebels certainly didn't intend on defrauding anybody - they fully intended to use them as legal money.

    But that does not change the fact that they were not legal money.
     
    Martha Lynn likes this.
  20. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    So, my recent struck fakes are certainly counterfeits by any definition but what about the one genuine example altered into another "variety" and certified as "genuine" (actually straight graded VF30)?
     
  21. lehmansterms

    lehmansterms Many view intelligence as a hideous deformity

    I'd simply call it "altered" and leave it at that. Unless I were trying to expand my black cabinet in that direction for some reason, the word "altered" is every bit as good as "counterfeit", "forgery", or even the dread "fake" in my consideration of a piece for sale, etc.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page