What exactly is a counterfeit coin?

This comes from another thread, but its unfair to post this on that thread so I am continuing it here. I am honestly interested in people's position on the matter.

At what point is a coin a "counterfeit", versus a replica, fantasy piece, etc.?

In order of my own guesses of "severity", I will list the following items. We are assuming all of them were made last month in China lets say.

1. Exact reproduction, (correct planchet as well), of an 1803 silver dollar
2. Exact reproduction but not correct metal composition of an 1803 silver dollar
3. 1803 silver dollar but incorrect number of stars
4. Exact reproduction but dot on reverse field
5. 1803 silver dollar but S in STATES is an 8
6. Exact reproduction but an added D mintmark
7. Exact reproduction but wrong reverse type for an 1803
8. Exact reproduction but date changed to 1805

Lets say all of these were bought from a seller in China who told the buyer they were fakes. You see all of them on a dealer's table at a coin show, and he does not mention they are fake. Which of these do you personally consider counterfeit?

Does the idea that the manufacturer sold these as fake change your answer? Does the fact the seller is not mentioning these are fakes change your answer as to whether the coins are counterfeit? Does the fact they were made in China versus anywhere else change your opinion?

Do you think any or all of these legally should be required to be stamped COPY in accordance to the Hobby Protection Act?

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is a debatable matter, and sometimes an emotional one. IMO, the first 7 are counterfeits...reproductions of real coins, most with sloppy errors, and the last is a fantasy coin because it doesn't exist.

I consider Daniel Carr's '64-D Peace dollar a fantasy coin. Others feel strongly it is a counterfeit.
Lance.

 

I am not trying to make this about any particular thing, just trying to get clear in my mind where the line is. So your view would be a sloppy error anywhere else on a coin does not invalidate that a coin is a counterfeit. It is ONLY an error on the date which changes your opinion? Why is that error so severe as to completely change the nature of your judgment?

You say its because an 1805 does not exist, yet an 1803d does not exist either. Neither does a 1803 small eagle reverse, nor a incorrect stars variant.

Not arguing with you sir, I am trying to understand.

 

I don't know. I think there's a real fuzzy line between counterfeit and reproduction. Someone might make a reproduction with good intentions, like in your scenario, and then somewhere along the line a person could use that same piece to deceive someone. So is it a counterfeit when the fabricator makes the piece or not until someone uses it unlawfully? I think purpose defines what is counterfeit or not, and that is something we can only speculate on. Only the one who made it knows the answer.
Guy

 

I think all US coins that are NOT from the US MINT should have some kind of stamp, saying copy or if its from a year never made then be stamped with something else to identify it.

If a coin is NOT from the US MINT and has a face value stamped on it, it should have some kind of stamp stating its not from the US MINT.

just my opinion.

 

Are you sure you are not cofusing the verb to counterfeit with the noun, a counterfeit? Under your definition, none of the coins in my "black box", of imitation 1914d's, ancient greek, byzantine, etc are "counterfeit" because I am not selling them. In fact, under your definition there is no such thing as a counterfeit except for those few coins being actively sold right now.

What do you call then my 1914d cent that was not struck by the US mint?

 

Quite simply put, a coin is counterfeit if it is not original.

Proving the originality of a coin is up to those who have an indepth knowledge of what an original piece looks like.

 

I'm not sure where you got that from Chris. The only definition I eluded to was the intent of the maker. Remember, only a few countries have a hobby protection act requiring stamping of COPY or such designations. So, if a guy in China makes a replica of a US coin, what makes it different from a guy in the US making the same but within the US law. Both were following their respective laws, yet most would see the Chinese coin as being counterfeit because it doesn't apply to our laws here. It only becomes counterfeit when someone here buys it and uses it to deceive a buyer. So, yes, I guess counterfeit has to encompass the verb and noun meaning to fully comprehend the definition.

 

That would include most of the large cents over the years.

How about, Counterfeit coins are the coins that are replications of the official mintage by the issuing body of the coin.

Ruben

 

Counterfeiting is not the only form of coin fraud.

 

But does it? Again, what would my 1914d cent that was made by others, (I don't know who), than the US mint? What is this object called? Are you saying its a reproduction until it is being passed as genuine? That the object itself can never be a counterfeit coin unless at that moment the owner is lying about its authenticity?

Maybe that is where I am missing between our two arguments.

Sorry if I sound argumentative.

 

In a nutshell, yes. But thats just my definition.

You don't argumentative. You sound like a guy trying to understand some elses side of a conversation.
Guy

 

It appears the word "fradulently" and the phrase "with intent to defraud" are an integral part of the law. If there is no intent to defraud, mere possession is not illegal. I think the terms "counterfeit", "forgery", "replica" and "copy" are all being used interchangeably.

 

I understand what Chris is getting at here. Here are the definitions I've used in my thesis:

Imitation - a coin made by someone other than the normal issuing authority without intent to deceive
Contemporary counterfeit - a coin made by someone other than the normal issuing authority with intent to deceive in commerce
Fake - a coin made in modern times with the intent to deceive collectors

Also, in British numismatics, you will see the term "evasion." This is used for a coin that is a contemporary counterfeit produced with just enough variation to evade counterfeiting laws.

So essentially, the intent is what defines it.

 

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but in my view anything that generally resembles a genuine coin is a counterfeit, unless the design includes "copy", "replica", or other clear and positive indication that it is not what it resembles.

 

I agree with both Ardatirion and Jloring. The term counterfeit only comes into play when the coin is employed to deceive. Until that happens the coin is just a copy......altered or otherwise.

 

It's fairly cut and dry to me. Any coin made to deceive, is a counterfeit. Coins made with dates that didn't exist in circulation and sold to collectors are fantasy coins. And coins with the word "copy" or "replica" should be thrown in the trash.

 

You are correct.