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

I have wondered that myself many times

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

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)

 

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.

 

Think of paintings. Maybe that will help

 

Good point. You get my best answer

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)?

 

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.