Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Troodon, post: 25496913, member: 4626&quot;]Didn&#039;t immediately occur to me, but yes it&#039;s possible it was a contemporary monetary counterfeit, meant to be spent, rather than a fake meant to fool collectors.&nbsp; At the time if it could be produced for less than the coin pretends to be worth, it would be worth the effort to fake it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Reminds me of the supposed &quot;micro O&quot; Morgan dollars PCGS mistakenly thought were a newly discovered variety of New Orleans minted Morgan dollars.&nbsp; They even certified a few of them, but on closer examination they were discovered to be counterfeits made sometime in the 1940&#039;s (kind of an embarassment to them, but they offered refunds to anyone that paid for certification of these, and declared they would no longer certify the micro O &quot;variety.&quot;)&nbsp; Ironically, they actually had <i>too much</i> silver in them; some of them were up to about 94% silver rather than the 90% they should have been (they also oddly had other metals like tin and lead in them).&nbsp; In the 1940&#039;s that much silver was worth less than $1, so it was worth the effort to fake.</p><p><br /></p><p>In Ecuador, that uses the US dollar now, ever since hyperinflation of the Ecuadorian sucre, they&#039;ve discovered counterfeit Sacagawea dollars.&nbsp; The portrait of Sacagawea was often amusingly cartoonish; I guess they assumed nobody would look at them that closely (or just weren&#039;t that good at copying the portrait).&nbsp; Some of them have made it back to the US.</p><p><br /></p><p>So TLDR version: not all counterfeit coins are made to fool collectors; some are just meant to be spent.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in