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. 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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). 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.
The obverse is obviously based on Obverse 9 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.
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).