What is a counterfeit?

You seem to miss the point that a piece can switch from replica to counterfeit depending upon the intent of the owner and its literal surroundings. As was (almost) discussed in a different thread, if PCGS put it in a slab with a replica label is it a counterfeit? The piece is the same, it surroundings have mearly changed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No...counterfeit's are counterfeit's. It's that simple, their status doesn't change if someone else acquires the piece and doesn't spend it.

As an example, I am sitting here on my computer and my phone is sitting on the desk. I am currently not using it...but it's still a phone. It's not just a black rectangle sitting on the desk. The fact that it is currently not being used to make a call or send a text does not change what it is.

 

Ok that is a horrible analogy but I have been thinking about it and I have come to the conclusion that you are right, to a point. If mint workers or other insiders were to make coins with proper blanks and dies and whatnot and slipped them out and they were not found out till later, or maybe not even found out at all (has the former happened?) then those would be counterfeit (there would be an official mintage that would be off by the number minted illegally) till the day they turned to dust and the owner would still not be intending to defraud. That is the only way I can think of having a coin that is always counterfeit. It would have to be indistinguishable from a “real” one.

 

On a lighter note my 10yo just informed me that according to his red book if I find a 23d or 30d merc they are counterfeit.

how is that for a coincidence

 

My analogy was stupid to make a point. If I’m not using the rectangle as a phone in that instant it must not be a phone at that time. That’s the same thing you are saying about the counterfeit coin. Unless it’s actually be used in real time it’s not a counterfeit. My TV is currently off...it must not be a tv. Just a box in the dresser.

 

It sounds like you didn’t read my post. No worries. The coin is a coin (noun). The phone is a phone (noun). The counterfeit coin needs an action to be counterfeit which is why counterfeit is used as a adjective. Your phone is a ringing phone only when an action has been placed on it, again adjective. What you are trying to say is “it’s a counterfeit” and use it as a noun, but that has to refer back to the adjective which requires an action. That is not true of phone or coin. So basically a straw man argument mixed in with an analogy. That is why I said it was horrible.

 

A counterfeit is: a copy, a fake, a replica, a forgery, an imitation of something but not the real thing. I don't feel that intent to defraud is part of the definition.

 

That wasn't "fat fingers." It was atrocious. And if you are going to lecture someone about English, it behooves you to make sure that said lecture is written in good English form, or you risk coming off as an arrogant know-nothing. Your post wasn't even close. I didn't even point out the obvious typos, because that was not the point.

As for not "understand[ing] the legal ramifications of what you are writing" . . . perhaps not. I do hold a J.D. magna cum laude from Georgetown and have been practicing for more than 25 years, but I've never tried a case involving counterfeiting. So I certainly will admit I could learn more about that aspect of the law.

On the other hand, I believe this thread asked for an English definition of "counterfeit" and not "the legal ramifications" of counterfeiting, which would definitely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based on statute and case law. I think I have provided a pretty good definition. I think that you . . . haven't.

 

I have tried many fraud cases, after passing the Cal bar on the first try with time to spare in each of the 6 sessions and receiving only one B in a string of As at a law school that puts yours to shame cause mine actually taught me how to think and not what to think like your seems to have done, involving both bills and securities so yeah I know more about this than you.
As for my typing, if that is what you think makes you a better judge of what is counterfeit then you know nothing about how to judge intelligence. I bet you think people that stutter are stupid.
As far as what was asked: I think you could probably look at the thread title and find out. It says “what is counterfeit” which is a legal question just like “what is murder.”
So make sure you check my spelling and syntax since that is all you have to prop up your argument.

 

Curious . . . what law school is that?

 

A small private law school. It had a different name when I went but it’s now the Monterey School of Law. Small schools are better for people who don’t care about the fancy title and don’t want 250k in debt. I hit the ground running with 10k in debt that I paid off the first year. And only snobs care where I went to school and I would never want to represent them anyways.

 

LOL. Color me . . . unsurprised. That's OK, I know two abject morons who graduated from Yale.

For the record, it was not a legal question, and your comparison to murder is . . . extremely weak. Murder is inherently a legal term because its very definition involves the law: the unlawful premeditated killing of one huiman being by another. So "murder" has no meaning outside of the law.

Nothing in the definition of counterfeit involves the law. At all. It just doesn't. Certainly there are laws concerning counterfeiting, and they apply legal definitions of that word. But the word counterfeit itself is not inherently one that invokes the law, any more than the word malice does (which also has a "legal definition"). Even if there were no laws anywhere applying to counterfeiting, the word itself would still have meaning - the very same meaning it has now. A more appropriate comparison than murder would be the word "killing."


BTW, the Cal bar exam was a joke. Yeah, it was three days (at least when I took it more than 25 years ago), so it was a bit fatiguing. But it was not particularly challenging intellectually. Everyone in my firm passed on the first try. Yawn. The only reason the pass rate was so low was that they let all sort of essentially self-taught imbeciles sit for it. The Virginia bar exam, for example, was much more difficult. That is why it is so sad that we have a VP candidate who wasn't even smart enough to pass the California bar exam on the first try.

 

So a long winded way to prop yourself up and miss that the fraud part of the definition of counterfeit is also inherently legal.

A killing is part of a homicide true but it is an action. You would have been better to go with the “body” part of the homicide definition, but that still doesn’t get you anywhere because you can’t take the law out of murder anymore than you can it out of fraud which is part of the definition of counterfeit.

I bet you went to one of them fancy schools... is GT on the list?

I was told no politics so kindly delete that part before I respond and get in trouble.

 

The Virginia Bar: I did some digging. Nobody but you ranks it harder than Ca (sounds like it covers a bunch of topics which is supposed to make it hard but if you know your flow charts who cares?) and then there is this...

Applicants who come to the Virginia Bar Exam are expected to dress in court-appropriate attire. Court-appropriate attire is a suit or jacket with tie (due to COVID-19, ties are not required), a dress, skirt and jacket or pant suit.

What in the name of elitism is that all about?

 

Seems any thread TVO “touches” dies a slow, contorted, nonsensical death...

 

While I acknowledge your feelings, neither dictionary compilers nor legislators appear to share them. I haven't been able to consult with Humpty Dumpty.

 

Yeah it’s my fault people are confused.
What have YOU done to make it sensical?

 

I am going back to the start to re-read the title of this thread. I really do not recall it being about pissing contests

 

That is a sure way to derail a thread and turn it into one. You have no comment on the actual topic at hand?

 

I'm with @CamaroDMD on this one. Counterfeit can also be a state of being. Not sure what the literary term for that is.

A copy of something without fraudulent intent is rightly called a replica.

A copy of something with fraudulent intent is rightly called a counterfeit.

Z