@3stars said:
So educate me - if a coin is counterfeit, would it also then be considered intellectual property theft (unless US Mint designs are considered public domain)? It's not your design, but you are using it to produce new products for financial gain. Intent would not be part of the equation anymore. Seems like lawyers would have a few ways to skin this cat, but then again they are also excellent at finding the loopholes, so who knows. After all, they got Al Capone for tax evasion instead of his "regular" crimes.
Designs made by governmental actors acting within the scope of their employment are within the public domain and since most coin designs are created by Mint personnel then most coin designs are within the public domain. There are rare exceptions like certain modern commemoratives.
@3stars said:
So educate me - if a coin is counterfeit, would it also then be considered intellectual property theft (unless US Mint designs are considered public domain)? It's not your design, but you are using it to produce new products for financial gain. Intent would not be part of the equation anymore. Seems like lawyers would have a few ways to skin this cat, but then again they are also excellent at finding the loopholes, so who knows. After all, they got Al Capone for tax evasion instead of his "regular" crimes.
@jwitten said:
I like my fakes, thank you very much
No one criticized people who knowing choose to collect counterfeits. The criticism is directed towards those who produce counterfeits.
I didn't read the whole thread, just the title. Which asks if COLLECTORS should say no to all counterfeits, not if producers of the fakes should stop... lol
I understand your frustration but there are people like me who enjoy collecting copy’s of a certain coin types. I will probably never be able to own one of these rare coins but I do enjoy collecting copy’s of them. Now I would never ever ever say it’s ok to sell a copy as the real thing now counterfeiting it a real problem!
@jabba said:
I understand your frustration but there are people like me who enjoy collecting copy’s of a certain coin types. I will probably never be able to own one of these rare coins but I do enjoy collecting copy’s of them. Now I would never ever ever say it’s ok to sell a copy as the real thing now counterfeiting it a real problem!
I don’t understand that line of thinking. If someone knows that it is no good than why acquire it? I may as well download an image of a Rembrandt, place it in a frame and hang it up on a wall.
In addition, I have seen instances when someone is vehemently adamant that the “coin” he has is genuine and won’t listen to reason.
I have a couple of counterfeits...both purchased from an antique shop (discounted when I showed them they were fake) to get them out of circulation. Reproductions, as long as marked and sold as such, are harmless. There is a difference between the two. In coins, a 'reproduction' would be a counterfeit if not in some manner intentionally discernible from an authentic coin. Most reproductions are marked in some manner. We will never be able to stop the reproduction industries. Just not enough financial clout. Cheers, RickO
@jwitten said:
I like my fakes, thank you very much
No one criticized people who knowing choose to collect counterfeits. The criticism is directed towards those who produce counterfeits.
I didn't read the whole thread, just the title. Which asks if COLLECTORS should say no to all counterfeits, not if producers of the fakes should stop... lol
You're right. This thread went so far off topic that I had forgotten what t was about! Nice Omega piece.
IMO, an honest man can tell another honest man with out any difficulty.
BTW, I've tried to make a counterfeit gold cob using a furnace, scrap gold, and a crude hand cut die. I had a reason to try it. Does that make me a counterfeiter? See? Yes and No. Suppose I had more gold and tried to produce a $20 Saint.
Reproductions might be of interest to some collectors. When the price of the real thing was way out of my reach, I bought a Gallery Mint 1796 half dollar. The piece did nothing for me so I didn't go any further with that sort of collecting. The only Gallery Mint set that tempted me was their 1796 "Proof set,' but I resisted the urge.
The "counterfeit problem" the Gallery Mint products occurred a couple of times when a wise guy effected or filled in the “COPY” stamp and “circulated” on one of their early cents and got it into numismatic circulation. There was an announcement among the members of the EAC club that a new Sheldon variety had been located. It took a short while for the advanced collectors to figure out what it was. To this extent even these pieces, that were totally on the up and up, could be used for nefarious purposes.
Properly marked copies can be used for educational and hole filler purposes for those collectors who like them. The trouble is abuse is still possible.
As you can see, I am conflicted about this issue.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@BillJones said:
Reproductions might be of interest to some collectors. When the price of the real thing was way out of my reach, I bought a Gallery Mint 1796 half dollar. The piece did nothing for me so I didn't go any further with that sort of collecting. The only Gallery Mint set that tempted me was their 1796 "Proof set,' but I resisted the urge.
The "counterfeit problem" the Gallery Mint products occurred a couple of times when a wise guy effected or filled in the “COPY” stamp and “circulated” on one of their early cents and got it into numismatic circulation. There was an announcement among the members of the EAC club that a new Sheldon variety had been located. It took a short while for the advanced collectors to figure out what it was. To this extent even these pieces, that were totally on the up and up, could be used for nefarious purposes.
Properly marked copies can be used for educational and hole filler purposes for those collectors who like them. The trouble is abuse is still possible.
As you can see, I am conflicted about this issue.
What ever happened to the person altering the Gallery Mint pieces? Was he identified and apprehended? If so, was he convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor?
Restricting this type of discussion to properly marked replica coins seems like an artificial limitation as even real coins have been altered with mintmarks and dates so even real coins provide opportunity for the nefarious, like 1916-D dimes and the like. Should anything be done about often selected host coins?
IMO, an honest man can tell another honest man with out any difficulty.
BTW, I've tried to make a counterfeit gold cob using a furnace, scrap gold, and a crude hand cut die. I had a reason to try it. Does that make me a counterfeiter? See? Yes and No. Suppose I had more gold and tried to produce a $20 Saint.
IMO, an honest man can tell another honest man with out any difficulty.
BTW, I've tried to make a counterfeit gold cob using a furnace, scrap gold, and a crude hand cut die. I had a reason to try it. Does that make me a counterfeiter? See? Yes and No. Suppose I had more gold and tried to produce a $20 Saint.
Do you still have the cob and die? Do you have any photos? Would be interesting to see how far you got.
I have never bought reproductions of US coins, but I don't have issues with products struck from dies simulating US coinage designs that are clearly marked "COPY" in compliance with the HPA.
Every beginning collector who gets burned by a fake is a probable lost collector to the hobby. With the amount of counterfeits, alterations, and issues not complying with the HPA trading on the market, the number of collectors who dropped out could be in the thousands. Additionally, potential collectors who read about the huge number of fakes flooding the coin market can decide not to enter the hobby.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Dan makes awesome stuff I wish the mint would have done. I don’t see anything wrong with his work and I know for a fact that if you took him original dies and asked him to mint more coins he will only do it if they have copy ot letters added to show that are not original coins
@jabba said:
Dan makes awesome stuff I wish the mint would have done. I don’t see anything wrong with his work and I know for a fact that if you took him original dies and asked him to mint more coins he will only do it if they have copy ot letters added to show that are not original coins.
You mean he would add a distinguishing mark like the Omega man? If so, how would the pieces not be counterfeit? On another note, is a small change in a single numeral of the date really that much different than adding a Greek letter? No Saints were ever made by the Mint with Greek letters.
@BryceM said:
Collectors can't agree on ANYTHING, but it's a nice sentiment. Demand creates supply. You can try to regulate the supply side, but enforcement is a continuous problem. Demand from ignorant individuals is even harder to manage.
I imagine this discussion will degenerate into another polarizing Dan Carr thread within another 10-20 posts. I own some of his stuff and I think his fantasy pieces are clearly identifiable, not produced or sold with nefarious motives, and rather impressive accomplishments. I will admit that they're possibly confusing to non-numismatists.
Why when DCarr makes a fake die and strikes coins it is great for the hobby but when D Lee makes it, people break out their pitch forks?
Intent as a valid argument but 99% of the time the collector is arguing about the intent of resellers which isn’t germane to the conversation. Also if I shoot you in the leg to warn you but you bleed out I still get murder1 because I meant to shoot you. DCarr intends to make fakes everyday...that’s intent. He doesn’t decieve buyers so I am ok dropping those charges.
To me, intent is mostly only relevant in the sentencing portion. Anybody making computer aided dies that looks like American issues to be used to make coins that look like American coins is a crook. Others feel differently
When DCarr makes a reverse die for a Broken Sword Peace Dollar from an original cast bronze pattern and executes an 'as intended' high relief reverse die I don't call that fake.
@jabba said:
Dan makes awesome stuff I wish the mint would have done. I don’t see anything wrong with his work and I know for a fact that if you took him original dies and asked him to mint more coins he will only do it if they have copy ot letters added to show that are not original coins.
You mean he would add a distinguishing mark like the Omega man? If so, how would the pieces not be counterfeit? On another note, is a small change in a single numeral of the date really that much different than adding a Greek letter? No Saints were ever made by the Mint with Greek letters.
Yes, a microscopic mark that went undetected for years is much different than the coin's date: a large, obvious and noteworthy element of the coin. One can make a reasonable case against Dan's work, however, this comparison is not reasonable.
When DCarr makes a reverse die for a Broken Sword Peace Dollar from an original cast bronze pattern and executes an 'as intended' high relief reverse die I don't call that fake.
Yes, he turned Real 1921-1935 US silver dollars into Fake 1917 and 1918 (and other not-real date) US silver dollars. Just admit it. 😃 The truth will set you free!
@Zoins said:
What if the reproduction is just on one side?
These are used by many dealers.
What do the other sides look like?
Dealers will often place their name and contact info on the other side, a bit like a Civil War storecard. Some people will use these when running for ANA Governor or President as well.
This is interesting because some people raise the issue of dies with similarity to coin designs but don't discuss pieces like these so I'm wondering if these are considered ok or not by those concerned.
@Baley said:
Yes, he turned Real 1921-1935 US silver dollars into Fake 1917 and 1918 (and other not-real date) US silver dollars. Just admit it. 😃 The truth will set you free!
I think when private mints hawk 1933 $20 gold double eagles, "America's most loved of all time" tribute coins (lavishly clad in 24kt gold, a strict limit of 5 per household but if you call in the next 10 minutes you can get another 5), only $19.95 each, their only objective is to distract and deceive the public. Yes, they are compliant with the law, but funny how they never show the bottom 1/3 of the reverse while it is rotating under the floodlights.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
@Zoins said:
What if the reproduction is just on one side?
These are used by many dealers.
What do the other sides look like?
Dealers will often place their name and contact info on the other side, a bit like a Civil War storecard. Some people will use these when running for ANA Governor or President as well.
This is interesting because some people raise the issue of dies with similarity to coin designs but don't discuss pieces like these so I'm wondering if these are considered ok or not by those concerned.
Some of the dies arguably appear to be technical violations insofar as the dies very closely approximate official coinage dies. No one would ever pursue trivial violations IMO, and the purpose and intended use for creating the dies is relevant. Anyone interested should read the statutes for themselves and conduct their own case law research. Factually, creating the dies to create tokens which are obviously distinguishable from genuine issues is different than creating dies to strike exact replicas with trivial alterations. The difference is the degree of similarity, use, and prosecutorial discretion IMHO.
as far as cameonut2011 post I really miss the disagree post I really disagree with every thing you say as far as Dan Carr coins no one gives a Dam about your opinion
@1940coupe said:
as far as cameonut2011 post I really miss the disagree post I really disagree with every thing you say as far as Dan Carr coins no one gives a Dam about your opinion
Ditto for yours. Someone specifically asked about how those who were critical of his dies viewed the dies used to produce the tokens in this thread. I answered. I'll continue to post my thoughts just as fanboys like you post yours. There is far too much ass kissery here and group think. It is an issue of relevance and importance to the hobby, and I will not be silenced (nor would I attempt to silence the other side).
P.S. I was not the one who introduced Carr in this thread nor were my initial comments specific to any one entity. There are plenty of businesses that produce deceptive, HPA non-compliant pieces.
@291fifth said:
I'm glad the disagree button is gone. If it weren't this thread might be setting a new record.
I never understood the obsession over the disagree button. Why care if others disagree? If everyone posted the same ideas, this place would become boring very quickly.
IMO, an honest man can tell another honest man with out any difficulty.
BTW, I've tried to make a counterfeit gold cob using a furnace, scrap gold, and a crude hand cut die. I had a reason to try it. Does that make me a counterfeiter? See? Yes and No. Suppose I had more gold and tried to produce a $20 Saint.
Do you still have the cob and die? Do you have any photos? Would be interesting to see how far you got.
NO. The die was carved into carbon disk that would not be affected by the heat. The gold pooled up yet left a good impression that would have been sharper if I had made a carbon blank to push down the gold blob while it was in the furnace. Trust me, a jeweler with the casting equipment could have done much better.
Short story. In 1973, a famous authenticator was calling lots of genuine foreign coins cast counterfeits. It was not his fault as he had no training and was being lead by the nose by a scientist using x-ray diffraction and possibly a jeweler friend. Hoskins and I challenged him to take some ANA money and produce a cast piece that was deceptive. Several months later he showed up at the office with a PL token. Looked great to the eye. I took it over to the stereo scope and the piece "fell apart" (looked fake). He left it with us and we put it on a SEM at GWU Hospital. I still have one of the polaroid's someplace. It actually looked like a piece of gray swiss cheese! I don't recall the power the image was taken. We returned the piece, showed him the images, and I told him his coin wouldn't fool a blind beggar ( I still don't have much tact). This was my second run-in with the authenticator. He never spoke directly to me again but he got his revenge in the end. Such a shame as Hoskins and I could have taught him a lot - even back then when I knew nothing.
IMO, an honest man can tell another honest man with out any difficulty.
BTW, I've tried to make a counterfeit gold cob using a furnace, scrap gold, and a crude hand cut die. I had a reason to try it. Does that make me a counterfeiter? See? Yes and No. Suppose I had more gold and tried to produce a $20 Saint.
Do you still have the cob and die? Do you have any photos? Would be interesting to see how far you got.
NO. The die was carved into carbon disk that would not be affected by the heat. The gold pooled up yet left a good impression that would have been sharper if I had made a carbon blank to push down the gold blob while it was in the furnace. Trust me, a jeweler with the casting equipment could have done much better.
Short story. In 1973, a famous authenticator was calling lots of genuine foreign coins cast counterfeits. It was not his fault as he had no training and was being lead by the nose by a scientist using x-ray diffraction and possibly a jeweler friend. Hoskins and I challenged him to take some ANA money and produce a cast piece that was deceptive. Several months later he showed up at the office with a PL token. Looked great to the eye. I took it over to the stereo scope and the piece "fell apart" (looked fake). He left it with us and we put it on a SEM at GWU Hospital. I still have one of the polaroid's someplace. It actually looked like a piece of gray swiss cheese! I don't recall the power the image was taken. We returned the piece, showed him the images, and I told him his coin wouldn't fool a blind beggar ( I still don't have much tact). This was my second run-in with the authenticator. He never spoke directly to me again but he got his revenge in the end. Such a shame as Hoskins and I could have taught him a lot - even back then when I knew nothing.
Did you take any photos? It would be interesting to see what you were able to come up with.
I did it in a lab when I worked at the Smithsonian. I don't think I even owned a camera back then. I was a curious coin collector playing around. I'm sure U-tube has tons of videos on all the types of casting.
Comments
Designs made by governmental actors acting within the scope of their employment are within the public domain and since most coin designs are created by Mint personnel then most coin designs are within the public domain. There are rare exceptions like certain modern commemoratives.
No one criticized people who knowing choose to collect counterfeits. The criticism is directed towards those who produce counterfeits.
US mint designs are public domain.
I didn't read the whole thread, just the title. Which asks if COLLECTORS should say no to all counterfeits, not if producers of the fakes should stop... lol
I understand your frustration but there are people like me who enjoy collecting copy’s of a certain coin types. I will probably never be able to own one of these rare coins but I do enjoy collecting copy’s of them. Now I would never ever ever say it’s ok to sell a copy as the real thing now counterfeiting it a real problem!
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
I don’t understand that line of thinking. If someone knows that it is no good than why acquire it? I may as well download an image of a Rembrandt, place it in a frame and hang it up on a wall.
In addition, I have seen instances when someone is vehemently adamant that the “coin” he has is genuine and won’t listen to reason.
I have a couple of counterfeits...both purchased from an antique shop (discounted when I showed them they were fake) to get them out of circulation. Reproductions, as long as marked and sold as such, are harmless. There is a difference between the two. In coins, a 'reproduction' would be a counterfeit if not in some manner intentionally discernible from an authentic coin. Most reproductions are marked in some manner. We will never be able to stop the reproduction industries. Just not enough financial clout. Cheers, RickO
I'd rather rid the universe of phony people. There are way more of them.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
You're right. This thread went so far off topic that I had forgotten what t was about! Nice Omega piece.
Honest reproductions don't bother me at all.
My YouTube Channel
How do you define honest? In compliance with the hobby protection act?
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I should state that I collect copy’s not fakes and as to why I collect them it’s because I like them silly
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
LOL. Honest is as honest does.
IMO, an honest man can tell another honest man with out any difficulty.
BTW, I've tried to make a counterfeit gold cob using a furnace, scrap gold, and a crude hand cut die. I had a reason to try it. Does that make me a counterfeiter? See? Yes and No. Suppose I had more gold and tried to produce a $20 Saint.
Reproductions might be of interest to some collectors. When the price of the real thing was way out of my reach, I bought a Gallery Mint 1796 half dollar. The piece did nothing for me so I didn't go any further with that sort of collecting. The only Gallery Mint set that tempted me was their 1796 "Proof set,' but I resisted the urge.
The "counterfeit problem" the Gallery Mint products occurred a couple of times when a wise guy effected or filled in the “COPY” stamp and “circulated” on one of their early cents and got it into numismatic circulation. There was an announcement among the members of the EAC club that a new Sheldon variety had been located. It took a short while for the advanced collectors to figure out what it was. To this extent even these pieces, that were totally on the up and up, could be used for nefarious purposes.
Properly marked copies can be used for educational and hole filler purposes for those collectors who like them. The trouble is abuse is still possible.
As you can see, I am conflicted about this issue.
What ever happened to the person altering the Gallery Mint pieces? Was he identified and apprehended? If so, was he convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor?
Restricting this type of discussion to properly marked replica coins seems like an artificial limitation as even real coins have been altered with mintmarks and dates so even real coins provide opportunity for the nefarious, like 1916-D dimes and the like. Should anything be done about often selected host coins?
It is an interesting issue.
Small bag of educational toys. I love breaking these out for club members to learn from.
An ethical man knows he shouldn’t create counterfeit coins, whereas the moral man Actually wouldn’t. Or so Ducky would say.
Technically yes.
Do you still have the cob and die? Do you have any photos? Would be interesting to see how far you got.
I was once a fan of the work that Carr was doing but he went too far. All he needed to do was mark his product.
I have never bought reproductions of US coins, but I don't have issues with products struck from dies simulating US coinage designs that are clearly marked "COPY" in compliance with the HPA.
Every beginning collector who gets burned by a fake is a probable lost collector to the hobby. With the amount of counterfeits, alterations, and issues not complying with the HPA trading on the market, the number of collectors who dropped out could be in the thousands. Additionally, potential collectors who read about the huge number of fakes flooding the coin market can decide not to enter the hobby.
What about 19th century electrotypes and the Smith, Bolen, Robinson, Idler, Dickeson, Wyatt, etc. copies?
Dan makes awesome stuff I wish the mint would have done. I don’t see anything wrong with his work and I know for a fact that if you took him original dies and asked him to mint more coins he will only do it if they have copy ot letters added to show that are not original coins
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
Yep. All of them
Lafayette Grading Set
The answer is "no". Trying to get everyone thinking and acting alike is dangerous.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
You mean he would add a distinguishing mark like the Omega man? If so, how would the pieces not be counterfeit? On another note, is a small change in a single numeral of the date really that much different than adding a Greek letter? No Saints were ever made by the Mint with Greek letters.
When DCarr makes a reverse die for a Broken Sword Peace Dollar from an original cast bronze pattern and executes an 'as intended' high relief reverse die I don't call that fake.
Yes, a microscopic mark that went undetected for years is much different than the coin's date: a large, obvious and noteworthy element of the coin. One can make a reasonable case against Dan's work, however, this comparison is not reasonable.
I'd love to get those fake Bust $1/2's!
BHNC #203
So, then, you call it Real?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I call it as intended.
Intent has nothing to do with the neutral adjective used to describe the piece.
Please read DCarr's production blog on 1917 and 1918 Broken Sword Peace Dollars to understand the origin of his high relief die
Yes, he turned Real 1921-1935 US silver dollars into Fake 1917 and 1918 (and other not-real date) US silver dollars. Just admit it. 😃 The truth will set you free!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
What if the reproduction is just on one side?
These are used by many dealers.
link?
What do the other sides look like?
Dealers will often place their name and contact info on the other side, a bit like a Civil War storecard. Some people will use these when running for ANA Governor or President as well.
This is interesting because some people raise the issue of dies with similarity to coin designs but don't discuss pieces like these so I'm wondering if these are considered ok or not by those concerned.
These are Fantasy items.
I think when private mints hawk 1933 $20 gold double eagles, "America's most loved of all time" tribute coins (lavishly clad in 24kt gold, a strict limit of 5 per household but if you call in the next 10 minutes you can get another 5), only $19.95 each, their only objective is to distract and deceive the public. Yes, they are compliant with the law, but funny how they never show the bottom 1/3 of the reverse while it is rotating under the floodlights.
Some of the dies arguably appear to be technical violations insofar as the dies very closely approximate official coinage dies. No one would ever pursue trivial violations IMO, and the purpose and intended use for creating the dies is relevant. Anyone interested should read the statutes for themselves and conduct their own case law research. Factually, creating the dies to create tokens which are obviously distinguishable from genuine issues is different than creating dies to strike exact replicas with trivial alterations. The difference is the degree of similarity, use, and prosecutorial discretion IMHO.
as far as cameonut2011 post I really miss the disagree post I really disagree with every thing you say as far as Dan Carr coins no one gives a Dam about your opinion
I'm glad the disagree button is gone. If it weren't this thread might be setting a new record.
Ditto for yours. Someone specifically asked about how those who were critical of his dies viewed the dies used to produce the tokens in this thread. I answered. I'll continue to post my thoughts just as fanboys like you post yours. There is far too much ass kissery here and group think. It is an issue of relevance and importance to the hobby, and I will not be silenced (nor would I attempt to silence the other side).
P.S. I was not the one who introduced Carr in this thread nor were my initial comments specific to any one entity. There are plenty of businesses that produce deceptive, HPA non-compliant pieces.
I never understood the obsession over the disagree button. Why care if others disagree? If everyone posted the same ideas, this place would become boring very quickly.
NO. The die was carved into carbon disk that would not be affected by the heat. The gold pooled up yet left a good impression that would have been sharper if I had made a carbon blank to push down the gold blob while it was in the furnace. Trust me, a jeweler with the casting equipment could have done much better.
Short story. In 1973, a famous authenticator was calling lots of genuine foreign coins cast counterfeits. It was not his fault as he had no training and was being lead by the nose by a scientist using x-ray diffraction and possibly a jeweler friend. Hoskins and I challenged him to take some ANA money and produce a cast piece that was deceptive. Several months later he showed up at the office with a PL token. Looked great to the eye. I took it over to the stereo scope and the piece "fell apart" (looked fake). He left it with us and we put it on a SEM at GWU Hospital. I still have one of the polaroid's someplace. It actually looked like a piece of gray swiss cheese! I don't recall the power the image was taken. We returned the piece, showed him the images, and I told him his coin wouldn't fool a blind beggar ( I still don't have much tact). This was my second run-in with the authenticator. He never spoke directly to me again but he got his revenge in the end. Such a shame as Hoskins and I could have taught him a lot - even back then when I knew nothing.
Did you take any photos? It would be interesting to see what you were able to come up with.
I did it in a lab when I worked at the Smithsonian. I don't think I even owned a camera back then. I was a curious coin collector playing around. I'm sure U-tube has tons of videos on all the types of casting.
It's all there at his website and quite revealing I think. dccoin or moonlightmint