"1793 Smith Counterfeit" large cent!

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Jack D. Young, Jun 2, 2023.

  1. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    A new ad to my odd collection is this “1793 Smith counterfeit”.

    This particular example started as a low grade 1794 cent prior to being “Smithed”. Images and auction description courtesy my Friend Shawn Yancey.

    obv.jpg
    rev.jpg

    Description.jpg

    So, my question to the group is if this “coin” actually fits the term “counterfeit”, as it is an alteration to a genuine mint cent?

    And is it technically different from a current Daniel Carr “over-strike” which apparently isn’t considered a counterfeit?

    Best, Jack.
     
    Moekeever, ewomack, Mr.Q and 2 others like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Spark1951

    Spark1951 Accomplishment, not Activity

    Jack, If Earlycoppercoins.com lists it and describes it as a counterfeit, I would be inclined to agree that it is actually a counterfeit; a coin altered from the original design no matter the purpose. Or produced with the intent to deceive like from China.

    Regarding Dan Carr pieces…I think he is a masterful craftsman and artist but I would use “fantasy” as a descriptor to be applied to his creations. I believe many are advertised as fantasy…Spark
     
  4. lardan

    lardan Supporter! Supporter

    Good points and I think you are correct in your explanation.
     
    MIGuy likes this.
  5. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    We (and EAC) can call it a counterfeit because it was made to be passed off as a genuine 1793. An altered genuine coin is a much better and far more accurate description.
     
    -jeffB, MIGuy and Jack D. Young like this.
  6. Mr.Q

    Mr.Q Well-Known Member

    Altering with intent to deceive is a crime. Thanks Jack
     
  7. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    In my mind Carr crosses the fantasy boundary with his 1964 Peace dollars, since they were actually minted. Maybe Smith falls in a similar category, except he was "overstriking" with his tools instead of a die.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  8. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    It is like trench art in it's form. But it is also intended to deceive so I would label it as counterfeit with intent to deceive being the distinguishing characteristic.
     
  9. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Here's one I ran into while poking around. The reverse is kind of a "fantasy", isn't it? (I'm not familiar with all the varieties of real ones).
    1793cent_counterfeit_merged.jpg
    https://www.coinworld.com/voices/_a_genuine_counterfe.html says they weren't meant to fool anyone, but I don't know where that contention comes from.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  10. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    The obverse is obviously based on Obverse 9

    upload_2023-6-7_4-15-58.jpeg

    The reverse is based on Reverse G.


    This pairing would suggest a S-8. Intent of the maker is difficult to prove, but It could easily deceive the ignorant and unsuspecting.

    But some of the most successful counterfeiters before the modern copiers were poor copies printed and circulated primarily in poorly lit bars in smallish quantities.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  11. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    upload_2023-6-7_4-27-58.jpeg
     
  12. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Thanks, the ones I quickly looked at didn't have all the extra dots on the reverse, so I thought it was embellishment (and I guess I was looking at 1794 not 1793).
     
  13. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    @Insider , would ICG be interested in slabbing this in the educational holder?
     
  14. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    The coin is in hand and I took edge images:

    1.jpg
    2.jpg
    4.jpg
     
    Pickin and Grinin and -jeffB like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page