Why are some counterfeit coins collectible?

While on one hand we deride the flood of Chinese counterfeits, on the other hand we find some counterfeits desirable and sought after, and in many cases bring high dollar amounts.

For instance, the Henning 1944 no mint mark Nickel. Then there are the 1923-D and 1930-D Dimes thought to have been produced by the Soviets. Probably the most proficient of the counterfeiters was the "Omega Man" who made perfect copies of High Relief Double Eagles, Indian Eagles and Three Dollar gold pieces. The many Micro-O Morgan Dollars are known to be counterfeits. Not exactly in the same category, but passed off as fakes were the Tatum gold plated 1883 Nickels.

There are likely hundreds of other examples that haven't been detected but are as good as the Mint's output. The only reason the above examples were found out was because, in the case of the Hennings and the dimes, the date/mint mark combination was an impossibility. The only reason the gold fakes were detected was because their great numbers led to a closer detailed examination and the counterfieter's "signature" was found on each.

But that doesn't answer the question of why these are collectible while others are not. As the Chinese copies become more sophisticated will they eventually become acceptable?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It depends on what you mean as "counterfeit". I would say any coin struck contemporaneously as the original and intended to be used in commerce to be very collectible. The only counterfeits I refuse to collect are modern counterfeits made to fool collectors.

So in your examples, I would say the Soviet and Henning counterfeits, as well as the micro O's possibly, to be very collectible. They were used as money at the same time as the originals. The Omega pieces, or fake racketeer nickels, I would not collect.

Now, if the Chinese were to counterfeit a bunch of dimes or quarters to be snuck into US commerce, and were successful, I would consider them collectible. All of their counterfeit coins made to fool collectors, though, I would absolutely refuse to own.

Do you see the difference? I collect coins used in commerce at the time. If one happens to be a fake, but made to be passed off and used just like the official product, I consider that coin also a monetary artifact of that period. Fakes made after the fact are simply lies made to fleece collectors, and are never meant to be used in commerce.

 

The key is whether they were contemporary counterfeits, made to circulate alongside the genuine item, or counterfeits made to deceive collectors. Collecting the contemporary counterfeits is almost a bit of a tip of one's hat to those to got away with it, and also shows an appreciation for the history surrounding them. The disdain for counterfeits meant to deceive collectors is no less than an obscene gesture to those engaged in the deception.

I could go on for a Long Time about the Micro O counterfeit Morgan dollars (there are 27 die pairs of this family known), and I probably will at Summer Seminar next week.

 

Well said by both . Contemporary counterfeits are a whole different animal , than the Chinese fakes for the reasons stated above . Though I will collect some of the better made Chinese fakes to study , after I stamp COPY on them in large letters .

 

No..

 

My new book addresses these issues due out in 2017.

John Lorenzo
Numismatist
United States

In the interim see Amazon Books - Gurney - Counterfeit 8 Reales - click - LOOK INSIDE link. Its FREE.

 

Contemporary counterfeit Bust $1/2's are very collectible, and a ton of history.

They were meant to deceive, and circulate.

 

I kinda feel the same way as messydesk. While I don't collect these per se, I do admire the counterfeiters a wee bit for getting by with it. I have one example I would not part with - an 1872-CC dime with a brassy composition that was among my grandfather's coins that I inherited. I think it's interesting that this was made to fool the public rather than a collector because it is well worn, also that it's a counterfeit of a scarce date (though I sure wished Grandpop had also saved a real example of one of these CC dimes, too!).

 

Do you know if ANACS or one of the other TPGs grade/attribute them as "Counterfeit - Davignon-X" variety?

 

I like the ooh!, factor of showing a big Morgan cartwheel to kids and their eyes get big and they see the date and exclaim this is 1800!

 

I would bet the ICG would. They have a special yellow labels for these that is clearly marked "counterfeit" in several languages. They've slabbed a couple of the Micro O counterfeit dollars.

 

This would make an excellent book/monograph.

ICG will slab them as counterfeits, I doubt they would grade them and I donot know if they would attribute them or not. They might if you identify the Davignon variety for them.

 

Forbidden fruit/temptation- (although mere possession isn't illegal, for some it pushes the envelope and might produce some sort of thrill).

 

I recently examined two US nickels, they were remarkable counterfeits! One a Jefferson and the other a 1915 Indian head. When tested both were of the proper weights, both correct specific gravity, both correct thickness, both right diameters (though the Jefferson was 1/100th of an inch smaller). Both were struck coins. Of the two the Jefferson was the more remarkable. Upon close inspection, several of the letters on the Jefferson were off, slightly altered serifs etc, but the alterations were quite minute. Both had a color which was slightly off -- put on a table with 25 other nickels and both stood out, somewhat more rosey. What I marvelled at was why anyone would go to the trouble to make such dies, and such inexpensive coins?? I admit, they were far better than any of the Chinese copies. The owner said she purchased them in Missouri at a show. I wonder... In the end, I wished that she would have sold them to me, as I found them very interesting, both had no "copy" marks on them. So I guess this may be an answer to the OP's question.

 

Leroy Van Allen has written a monograph about these, but it's a few years and probably at least 10 die pairs out of date. I suspect he'll come out with another before too long. I promised the guys at Coinweek an article, too.

The counterfeit Micro O dollars are both graded and attributed.

 

I collect the vintage Morgan Dollar counterfeits (micro-o and related family). They contained the full amount of silver that they should have. They were likely produced prior to the end of WW1, and they circulated heavily alongside genuine coins (most are quire worn - very few are XF or better). I wrote an article about them: http://www.moonlightmint.com/VAM_privately_made/00.htm
I'm also listed as the discoverer of two VAM varieties of vintage Morgan Dollar counterfeits (1893-O VAM-7 and 1902-O VAM-92).

 

Modern counterfeits have a legitimate place in numismatics as study pieces. It's sort of a snake eating its own tail type of situation, but with so many of the better fakes you really need to have them in hand. Pictures really will not help all that much.

 

Great question, I'll try to find out

Do you have any?

Perhaps we should start a thread about them

 

I agree that there are valid reasons for owning them such as those you speak of.