Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 4234760, member: 1765&quot;]To demonstrate that they are equivalent, you have to show that:</p><ol> <li>A counterfeit is a forgery.</li> <li>A forgery is a counterfeit.</li> </ol><p>The first is pretty much a definition of what a counterfeit is.&nbsp; The second is a bit trickier.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you broaden the system to include other numismatic items, you can have forgeries that aren&#039;t counterfeits.&nbsp; Two that come to mind are forged signatures on a document and non-period love token or hobo nickel carvings made to look old.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It&#039;s not a counterfeit document, it&#039;s just BS with a forged signature.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The coin is not counterfeit, but the artwork is forged.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit:&nbsp; An alteration is a genuine coin made to look like another genuine coin.&nbsp; 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.[/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