What is the difference between a counterfeit and a forgery you say? In his book, Charles M. Larson explains this and different counterfeiting methods forgers use to make fake coins, and to arm yourself with knowledge. Simply put, a person who wanted to make counterfeit coins would make them to use in the same way they were mean't to be used, money. He might print up a couple 100 dollar bills and spend them...where as with a forgery, the forger-er would want to make a numismatic counterfeit, he knows that our money no longer contains any precious metal or intrinstic values. Making forgeries of coins, has really expanded in modern times, especially the last 30 years. No longer do you have to check your change for forgeries, so forgers have targeted numismatic coins, coins that have value, gold coins for example. They want to make coins that will fool experts...as master forger Mark Hofmann said: "If I can produce something so correctly, so perfect that the experts declare it to be geniune, then for all practical purposes it is geniune. There is no fraud involved when I sell it." Case in point, in the summer of 2002 a 'mule' wheat cent error came into an article on Coin World Magazine. It was unique (and I mean unique, there was only 1. That his why there was trouble authenticating it, there were no other specimens to compare it to!) It was a 1959-D wheatback cent. It was unusual because it had a wheat back reverse of a pre-1959 wheat cent (They were discontinued in 1958). It was put up for auction in an auction house in Beverly Hills. Bob Campbell, the past president of the ANA and a specialist on counterfeit and forgery detection, didn't think the coin seemed right. He said, " Something about the coin just didn't seem right" He said later " The fabric was there and everything pretty much looked correct, but it just felt wrong - not a physical kind of 'feel' but more of a gut like feeling) Also, when he examined the actual coin he noticed distinct die polishing marks visible on the field of both sides of the coin, which indicated it was a very early strike. There was no way it could've been 'accidentally' made, and if it was, where were all the others? Surely there must've been more struck than 1. But there wasn't... The secret service began to investigate it, the auction was delayed pending the investigation from the secret service, and then conducted some months later (The auction was resumed!) after the goverment stated that it could not prove that the coin was not a legitimate product of the US mint. According to the PCGS Guide to coin grading and counterfeit detection: "Interestingly, very few forgeries are encountered for coins from the early years (pre 1834), while the mid era and late series are rampant with counterfeits. .... As mentioned in the preceding text, very few counterfeits exist for the early US gold coins. In fact, only two commonly seen counterfeits quality for this section." Why is this, you ask? The answer is simple. The forger is aware not to make anything spectacularly rare, such as 1804 silver dollar or a 1913 liberty head nickel, as to not want to attract attention. He is aware that anything extremely rare, spectacular, or valueable is almost certainly going to be submitted to an authentication service. So what does he do? He forgers common date, mid and late era US gold. As noted earlier, very few early (pre 1834) US gold exists, and the reason is because it is excessively rare. You would think because of this, there would be more counterfeits, but oddly enough there doesn't seem to. The coins that forgers forge the most are t hose coins which buyers buy the most. Small denomination of U.S gold coins of the 19th and early 20th century. He also knows that if he prices his coins modestly, they are more likely to make a sale, than say a very rare coin which is going to be scrutized by authentication services. How did Coin World find out Mark Hoffman was the forager? Simple, greed. Mark Hoffman had written a letter to his daughter bragging that it was noe other than he, who made the coin. Maybe if they weren't greedy they would get away with it, but a forger will seldom produce just one of anything. And this also makes them easier to detect. Why? Say a coin was struck using dies, and a geniune coin was used as a host. Depressions will show up on the struck coin from that die, which were contact marks on the host coin. If a forger produces more than 1, say 2 or 3, each defect from the die will be transferred to each coin, causing repeating depressions.. They are called repeating because since multiple coins are struck from the same die, all defects will be the same on each coin struck. So if you see 2 depressions in the same exact spot on 2 coins, you can deem them fake. I hope this article enlightens a few people.
Good job !! :thumb: Something that everyone needs to understand is that common coins are the easiest to fake and get away with it, simply because people think nobody would bother with the common stuff.
Wheat and Chaff ... well, I thought so, too, at first... but GoldCoinLover's intentions being admirable, the delivery was problematic. For one thing, the example of the 1958/59 Wheat Mule contradicts the thesis that common objects are more likely forged. Here was not a 55-DDO or even a Modern Commemorative, but a unique coin. The thesis is that forgers make the coins that most collectors buy. This was not such an example. Moreover, because it was unique it won hard inspection and yet apparently fooled the experts. Randy Campbell's query based on the die polish marks is easy to answer: Seeing that the wrong reverse was chucked in, the press was stopped. Perhaps all of that run were immediately destroyed, but a worker slipped out one. Moreover, Randy Campbell's gut feeling might be reliable, but it is not replicable. Apparently, the Secret Service and other experts at PCGS had other "gut feelings." Finally, it was perhaps futile to rely on the Secret Service statement that they could not prove that the coin was not made at a US Mint. Falsifiability is a hallmark of positivism -- in other words a scientific proof requires a standard and proof requires evidence. Lack of a disproof is not a proof. A more cogent question is where has the coin been for 40 years? Apparently, everyone but me knows that the Charles M. Larson book referenced at the opening is Numismatic Forgery (Irvine, California: Zyrus Press, 2003). Mike M. Michael E. Marotta ------------------ "Critical thinking: employ it." ----------------------------
