In Numismatics, is there a difference between forgery and counterfeit?

Are these used interchangeably or is there a difference? If so, is it the intent of the person who faked it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, I do think many mistakenly use the terms counterfeit and altered. Counterfeit should mean both the planchet and the dies which struck it are fake, whereas altered means it is a genuine mint product that was somehow modified, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

Isn't forgery a word used as in forged signature?
It's not a real signature but a forgery.
Or.. It's not an original painting but a forgery.

 

To demonstrate that they are equivalent, you have to show that:

1. A counterfeit is a forgery.
2. A forgery is a counterfeit.

The first is pretty much a definition of what a counterfeit is. The second is a bit trickier. If the system in which we try to demonstrate equivalence is closed to only the coins themselves, then the second is true, as there are no forgeries that are not counterfeits.

If you broaden the system to include other numismatic items, you can have forgeries that aren't counterfeits. Two that come to mind are forged signatures on a document and non-period love token or hobo nickel carvings made to look old. In the case of a document is a real document, perhaps containing information as to the nature of the coin (which may be a fabrication), but the signature, presumably there to give the document credibility, is forged. It's not a counterfeit document, it's just BS with a forged signature. In the case of a modern engraving on a Hobo nickel, one could engrave something in the style of Bo or Ron Landis and try to pass it off as such. The coin is not counterfeit, but the artwork is forged.

Edit: An alteration is a genuine coin made to look like another genuine coin. If the date is changed or a mint mark added, I suppose one could consider that to be a forgery, meaning that the second condition (a forgery is a counterfeit) could be false when considering only the coins, making the terms not equivalent.

 

My first thought after seeing your title.....

Forgery= Copied document, signature, banknote, works of art, etc..

Counterfeit= Money

 

@GDJMSP

But then they wouldn't be a genuine Mint product. Genuine means at all stages it was under the control of the Mint, from the contractors making the planchet sheets up until ejection from the chamber.

 

We're getting perilously close to the territory of previous discussions about That One Particular Guy's work. I can tell by the smell of scorched earth.

 

In counterfeit, an innocent buyer may be deceived by a party trying to add value to the coin which is undeserved, by cleverness only caught by another expert, okay? Now, in the other case, the case of forgery there is the DELIBERATE intention of cheating another out of "his fair value" offering the other person, much less than the bargain...."he thinks he has when he buys such a coin with dreams of pots of gold at Rainbow's End? You THAT LUCKY, mate?

 

I will be DANned if I know whom you are speaking of...

 

This makes the 1913 V nickels forgeries.

 

Pretty good book.

https://www.amazon.com/Numismatic-F...rds=Numismatic+Forgery&qid=1583939138&sr=8-1#

 

No, if it's made by the original mint with genuine dies like that, it becomes a fantasy piece or an unauthorized (but genuine) strike. Those are a separate type of strike, and are collectible in their own right, but are not counterfeits.

A counterfeit has to be made with the intent to deceive someone as if it was a real issued coin. Most fantasy/unauthorized pieces do not meet that condition.

Yeah, but they aren't. I don't think anyone would seriously consider them to be forgeries any more than the 1933 double eagles are forgeries.

 

They are quite similar but come from a different angle.

"In short, forgery is about the act where counterfeit is about the result."

 

I disagree. The planchet and the dies were created under the control of the Mint. It was the striking of it that was illegal.

 

It's the other way around. That One Particular Guy gets perilously close to the definitions I explained, but is careful not to cross the line.

 

The previous discussions, on the other hand, aren't so careful.

 

Yeah, they tend to be mostly emotionally charged train wrecks, so I avoid them.

 

Yes it's an illegal coin that was never authorized by the mint.
And yet they have not been confiscated as other illegal coins have been.