What makes a coin easy or difficult to counterfeit?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,391 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just returned from a show in Hong Kong. Saw lots of Pandas, of course. It occurred to me that they might be really easy to counterfeit, because the dies were so perfect and so simple. But now I'm wondering if I've got that completely backwards.
On the other side of the spectrum, consider ancients. They're crudely manufactured, by comparison. Yet they're widely counterfeited.
Makes me wonder which US coins would be easy to counterfeit, and which would be the biggest challenge.
Thoughts?
On the other side of the spectrum, consider ancients. They're crudely manufactured, by comparison. Yet they're widely counterfeited.
Makes me wonder which US coins would be easy to counterfeit, and which would be the biggest challenge.
Thoughts?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Check out the Southern Gold Society
How well it resembles the original depends on the resources of the counterfeiter.
The 1837 & 1838-O dimes have the simplest obverse, so maybe that one?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
When you consider the process the sovereign mints have gone through to create a coin master hub, dies, etc.....it's a very time consuming and costly operation for a counterfeiter. They don't need a coin that can fool 99% of all collectors/newbies at a huge expense....but, rather a coin that will fool 5-20% of them at very little expense. Less is more.
I expect that the 1916-D Mercury Dime would be easy to counterfeit because in G4 condition, it'll still pull in $700-900. So the counterfeiter could make 1916-D Mercury Dimes in a higher grade and then wear them down to G4. And there are lots of low-grade 1916-D Mercury Dimes around so if someone slowly introduced several hundred (or thousand) counterfeit ones into the market, no one would really notice. And adding the wear would also make each one unique. For this reason, I'm scared to buy a 1916-D for my collection as I can't afford the high grade ones.
An 1853 Seated Liberty Quarter, No Arrows.
I bought a raw one on eBay about 10 years ago and submitted it to PCGS
It came back in a body bag as not genuine.
The seller (or someone) took an 1853 SLQ with Arrows and ground them off.
I returned it to him and never got a refund. Eventually he was prosecuted for Mail Fraud because he had stolen about $80k from eBay buyers.
I got subpoenaed to testify at his trial along with about 5 others but he plead guilty before the trial started.
When someone pleads guilty the judge asks the defendant some questions to make sure they understand their plea.
One question was his education
He answered I have a doctorate of Jurisprudence from the Harvard School of Law
He explained he had a drinking problem.
of the coin.....Cheers, RickO
A couple of things about coins are that they don't have technical anti-counterfeit measures like modern bills and pre-1949 coins don't have any legal protections in China.
When you consider the process the sovereign mints have gone through to create a coin master hub, dies, etc.....it's a very time consuming and costly operation for a counterfeiter. They don't need a coin that can fool 99% of all collectors/newbies at a huge expense....but, rather a coin that will fool 5-20% of them at very little expense. Less is more.
It seems like some of them are working on coins that can fool TPGs. The stakes are higher than the cast pieces of before.
Since the TPG's are completely fluent in the techniques used by the US mint, then fooling the TPG is essentially the same as reaching US Mint standards/quality control for the era in question.
I disagree that the removing Arrows and Rays on 1853 quarters are the easiest fakes to make or detect. First of all, removing all traces of the reverse rays in a professional manner entails a good bit of work. It's probably easier just to alter a date or slap on a mint mark...or grind one off. I've never seen a good looking 1853 NA as the signs of smoothing the fields is always there. It's probably easiest to detect on the obverse "arrows." I found one of those around 10 years ago for $20 in VG grade. I bought it just for reference. It looked somewhat decent at the coin show. But, once home under better lighting it was clear the dremel had been there.
Since the TPG's are completely fluent in the techniques used by the US mint, then fooling the TPG is essentially the same as reaching US Mint standards/quality control for the era in question.
Is it that hard to believe? Many of those coins are from over 100 years ago....
Since the TPG's are completely fluent in the techniques used by the US mint, then fooling the TPG is essentially the same as reaching US Mint standards/quality control for the era in question.
Is it that hard to believe? Many of those coins are from over 100 years ago....
Yes, it is that hard to believe. The inherent "flaws" in 19th century US coinage only complicates the process of counterfeiting them. Today's coins are near perfect looking and somewhat sanitary (AGE's, ASE's, etc.). That's nearly impossible from the 19th century US Mint. This is one of the reasons why I don't think we've seen much in the way of counterfeit choice/gem 19th century coinage. When I finally see a decent counterfeit GEM BU seated, bust, or Barber quarter that has all that right looks and features of the real deal, then I'll change my mind. I don't think it's worth the $MILLIONs of dollars for a counterfeiter to invest in such technology...in essence, rebuilding a 19th century US mint. It would be easier to fake modern gold and silver coins imo. Apparently some recent South African Krug 69/70 DCAM proofs have made it into a top tier holder. One of those went through Dwight Manley's coin shop and he thought it looked a bit off.
Since the TPG's are completely fluent in the techniques used by the US mint, then fooling the TPG is essentially the same as reaching US Mint standards/quality control for the era in question.
Is it that hard to believe? Many of those coins are from over 100 years ago....
Yes, it is that hard to believe. The inherent "flaws" in 19th century US coinage only complicates the process of counterfeiting them. Today's coins are near perfect looking and somewhat sanitary (AGE's, ASE's, etc.). That's nearly impossible from the 19th century US Mint. This is one of the reasons why I don't think we've seen much in the way of counterfeit choice/gem 19th century coinage. When I finally see a decent counterfeit GEM BU seated, bust, or Barber quarter that has all that right looks and features of the real deal, then I'll change my mind. I don't think it's worth the $MILLIONs of dollars for a counterfeiter to invest in such technology...in essence, rebuilding a 19th century US mint. It would be easier to fake modern gold and silver coins imo. Apparently some recent South African Krug 69/70 DCAM proofs have made it into a top tier holder. One of those went through Dwight Manley's coin shop and he thought it looked a bit off.
I think gem coins are still harder to reach. Many, but not all, of the TPG encapsulated coins shown recently were in Genuine / Details holders. Lower grade coins can be worn down so similar diagnostics are worn away. But this does mean that lower end coins are now being disrupted. While this may not impact you or some other collectors, it will impact the overall market.
One difference between more recent coins and older coins is that coins older than 1949 have less interest from the Chinese government as those are legal to manufacture under that country's laws. Given how much effort the US uses to encourage other countries to pass laws similar to the DCMA, it seems like it would help to have similar attention for the HPA.
Regarding rebuilding a 19th century US mint, there is genuine "classic" US mint manufacturing equipment being used by Big Tree Coin Factory.
For coin collectors it would be hardest to detect a counterfeit of an item that has no genuine examples to compare it to. For example a large cent where all of the fake examples made are artificially worn down to G or are corroded. It would eventually be accepted as a genuine variety by collectors. The unique 1959 Wheat cent would be another candidate - you can't make two, as some small defect repeating will condemn both.
Those guys are mentioned in that NN article over 4 years ago. So we haven't been run over by fakes quite yet. We have a couple dozen coins of interest having gone to TPG's. Until those guys duplicate 19th century gem coinage, then there are not utilizing the full range of US Mint techniques. Having just presses is not quite the same. Again, this is one of the very reasons I went to choice unc or better seated and type material in the early 1980's...it was easier for me to spot fakes and problem coins.
My understanding of transfer die counterfeits is that you can make a transfer die if you are willing to sacrifice a coin and the results are very hard to determine unless you see multiple specimens exhibiting similar diagnostics. If this is correct, we may have a big issue if it becomes profitable to wear these coins down to hide the diagnostics and get them into holders. Another way to protect against transfer die counterfeits would be to purchase coins that are too expensive to sacrifice.
High grade, original surface coins with long provenance seem pretty safe.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry