Options
Look how detailed the deceptive "old" electrotypes were!
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
This item could have been authenticated with a specific gravity test if the surface had not flaked off. The electrotypes made around the turn of the 20th Century could be very deceptive! I think this one is from that time period.
The best electro I ever saw was a 1794 blue-gray half dime in AU that went through at least two major actions as genuine! We caught that piece in 1973. 
Every time I started to "write-it-up" and certify it as genuine, my pen would not move on the paper and I put it back to study it further. That's one thing lacking today. TPGS are under pressure to get it done the day before YESTERDAY! Back then, the only important thing was to get it right.
13
Comments
That is way cool.
Thanks for sharing with us.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Thanks for sharing - do you have photos of the whole coin you could post?
Some antique electrotypes were very well made. The Birch Cent electrotype was evidently made from a host coin that was used to make examples owned by at least two other Forum members (a mold may have been used as well). The Vermont Landscape copper electrotype shows a level of detail that would be unusual in a real piece (usually seen with significant flaws).
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I like seeing these and am glad they are being preserved and studied. But why aren't they being condemned the way some people condemn Chinese counterfeits?
It is almost as if the word "electrotype" adds some degree of credibility. Until my post, nowhere in this thread has the word "counterfeit" been used.
I am not trying to be argumentative, but am just curious about the distinction.
IMO there is a huge difference.
Long ago, electrotypes were made by reputable sources as the mints, and museums. They were made for study and exhibit. They actually looked like genuine pieces. Additionally, all through time, counterfeiters have made copies of current coins and those from the past. Many circulated as genuine. Contemporary counterfeits are eagerly sought after and many fakes (example: Mexican 8 Reales) are worth more to collectors than the genuine pieces!
Until a little over a decade ago, just about everything from China was worthless crap, unfit for even teaching any one other than brand new collectors. That is still the way it is for 95% of their crap yet even longtime collectors write pages of comments on coins that wouldn't fool my dog by scent alone!
Here is the thing. The knowledge of collectors and dealers varies. The quality of fakes varies. The more knowledgeable a collector is the less attractive a low quality fake is to them. Additionally, we have reached the point in time where a hand lens is virtually worthless! That's because a small percentage of counterfeits made buy countries around the world (like Bulgaria) - including China are so well-made that they may defy detection by experts for awhile! These are the fakes that are important for the folks who collect counterfeits. These are the coins that will join the ranks of deceptive fakes from the past such as the "Micro O" Morgan dollars and the Electro's posted above.
Well as the collector ages so goes the eyes.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Prediction (not that I am the first): if/when the era of Chinese counterfeits ends, they will one day be collected, books written about them, etc.
Yes, the micro O is a classic. One of the best ... except maybe if you prefer counterfeiting a boatload of nickels, lol.
Those are amazing contemporary electrotypes.
Get 'em now while they're cheap.
Insider 2: NO, NO, NO. Forum members hate electrotypes!
Seriously, I fully agree with what you wrote above. Poorly executed electros are all over the place. Some of the really good ones, still in top-notch condition, are quite deceptive. And very interesting, running the gamut from 17th- and 18th-century patterns, tokens, and historic medals to pieces produced from altered host coins. One of my electrotypes is of a Good Samaritan Shilling (branded a fake by Eric Newman almost 60 years ago).
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I want a Jackie Robinson gold electrotype.
Yup. "Historical significance" comes with age. All kinds of double standards when it comes to "counterfeits", "electrotypes", "fantasy", "cinderellas".
I also feel the same way about "cleaned" versus "curated" or "conserved".
Very cool.
Hoard the keys.
What is a "cinderella"? I'm not familiar with this term in relation to coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
The electrotype shown below was made using a 1721-H French Colonies 9 deniers host (these circulated in North America). It was once graded PCGS XF, and now recognized as an electrotype.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I've only heard the term associated with postage stamps. It is an entire category of stamp-like "labels" not issued by a postal authority or good for postage. Neat stuff.
Sort of like Easter Seals?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Come to think about it, just as a Dan Carr Piece. A Cinderella token. They fit the definition and they are neat too.
Oops, there goes my thread...
Interesting question. I never thought of Easter Seals as Cinderellas, but they could be. To me, Cinderellas are fantasy stamps, but that might be too limited a view.
We can post the question over on the stamps forum if you can wait a few weeks for an answer.
To get this thread back on track, it always seemed strange to me that electrotypes never carried the stigma that other counterfeits carried. Why is this or am I way off base?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
What I think does not matter. I guess it depends on intent. If a museum sends an electro to another museum so what. If it gets out on the market and is sold as a genuine, that's a different thing. Counterfeits are all (?) made to deceive. So in the end case, both are the same.
"To get this thread back on track, it always seemed strange to me that electrotypes never carried the stigma that other counterfeits carried. Why is this or am I way off base?"
A few reasons, I think. As a technology, electrotyping began in the early 19th century in Europe. The technology and improvements were brought to the US Mint by Franklin Peale, who began making electrotypes at the Mint in the 1840's. Second, this required significant skill to pull off, and very high skill is needed to fool an experienced collector. Third, electrotyping doesn't lend itself to mass production---these pieces were not put into circulation to fool merchants. Fourth, some well-known 19th-century U.S. dealers and collectors were involved too. Museums wanted 'study' pieces for their collections. Collectors who could not afford scarce varieties wanted cheaper alternatives. Electrotypes are part of the history of U.S. numismatics, at least in my opinion.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Yes, it is a philatelic term usually. I sometimes apply it to coins myself, but the usage is not common.
Are they? There are all kinds of "counterfeit" souvenir Morgans sold in shops in Asia. I'm not sure either the buyers or sellers are even pretending they are real in all cases.
Short of the very-obvious flaking, what is the best way to tell if a coin is an electrotype copy?
Cool thread! Here are 3 I've purchased over the years.
A few hints that a piece is likely an electrotype:
1. A thin seam along the edge. Sometimes 5x magnification is needed to spot this, particularly if the maker tried to cover it up by burnishing.
2. Electrotypes were made from two thin electroformed shells (obverse and reverse) that had to be joined together after a filler was added (usually lead). The weight will not match that of a genuine piece.
3. Most electrotypes have surface blemishes: some of the filler peeks through a hole in one of the shells, especially if there is wear as a result of careless handling.
4. There may be surface imperfections (blems or pimples) on one or both sides that result from bubbling during the electroplating process itself. Pieces that look 'as made' (analogous to mint state) will not be lustrous.
5. There is a known coin, with a traceable provenance, having marks and strike qualities that match the electrotype. Rather like identifying a transfer die counterfeit by finding the host coin.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Thank you for sharing your finding in details @Insider2 as well as your follow ups
Interesting !!!
Have you ever seen an electrotype with a reeded or lettered edge? My understanding is that electrotypes were coins with a plain edge and were mostly copper coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Also ...unlike the genuine counterparts, electrotypes will fail the 'ring test' as they were not struck.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Very educational thread. For years I worked in an industry that did metal plating (Printed Circuit Boards and electronic components)...Gold, copper, tin-lead, silver...and a few of our more 'innovative' people did try some electrotype work in the dark hours....among other things.
Cheers, RickO
"Have you ever seen an electrotype with a reeded or lettered edge?"
Yes. While it is true that most electrotypes have plain edges and copper shells, there are some that were given treatments after the shells were filled and joined. For example, the pieces could be plated with silver or gold. A small number, very skillfully made, were given edge treatments (with a specialty machine?): reeding, lettering, vine and bars.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Thanks. I learn a lot here. I get the feeling sometimes that if someone here doesn't know something coin related, it probably isn't worth knowing.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
My 1786 Vermont "Baby Head" is as nice as I have seen:
Yes. I have a Proof 187(?) half dollar in copper that is an electrotype. I'm virtually 100% sure it is Mint made as there is not a blemish on it. The only way to tell is the seam on the edge where the shells were put together. In all honesty, I never bothered to take its SpGr and keep forgetting to see what the experts think. I'll need to find it!
Interesting Coin Week article on the subject:
https://coinweek.com/education/coin-grading/coin-profiles-electrotype-1804-dollar/
" I have a Proof 187(?) half dollar in copper that is an electrotype."
If you ever want to part with it, send me a PM.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]