It would have been much tougher had they not used the same reverse die for all 3 fakes.
If you were referring to the micro-O Morgans, that was my understanding, that a common die among different dates eventually uncovered the scheme many decades later. That is what I meant when I mentioned forensics. Were it not for that, the forgeries might have escaped detection, at least by the larger numismatic community (per @Insider2 's post above).
The fact that an authentic micro o [1899-o] exists, likely made it easier to accept the others.
@Insider2 said: @PhilLynott said: "Counterfeit production and counterfeit detection both are always improving as time goes on. Like PCGS mentioned with their new Gold Shield program they are staying 2 steps ahead of the counterfeiters."
Previously, I could post that no TPGS can stay a step ahead with a holder. The coin is the important part of the equation. Now, the holders are being faked also. We are going to need to rely mostly on the TPGS's to catch these with the help of the millions of eyes checking their products.
@astrorat said: "Would we then have a numismatic "Ship of Theseus" paradox (sort of)?
Sorry, I'm a junior high dropout with no access to the internet. "Ship of What? Do we? Please help.
@Insider2
From Wikipedia ...
"The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the late first century."
My corollary would be along the lines ... if you have a counterfeit so well done it can "replace" an original, is it still a counterfeit? Not exactly Theseus's paradox ... but close enough for this discussion.
Since you don't have access the Internet ... I'll mail this post to you.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
There may well be some out there. They are perceived as genuine. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, they are genuine.
You want an excellent example: 1913 Liberty Nickels. There is NO record of them being struck. Whether struck using Mint equipment or not, they are effectively "counterfeit". No one seems to care.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
The subject of this thread reminds me oh so much of the statement "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a noise if no one is there to hear it".
Not quite the same IMO. If the tree was both valuable and cherished (907 $20 HR), I think the owner of the property and everyone who continued to picnic near the tree would care once they saw it was down (Counterfeit HR)..
Counterfeits truly frighten me, which is why I have only only bought coins not worth counterfeiting. At least coins less than $1k (some would call dreck) are less likely to be fake. Just my humble theory.
I think if nearly perfect counterfeit currency can be produced, why not much lower tech coins?
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
Many artist and other hobbies have such a high proportion of fakes present that people can no longer agree on the real examples. That is why provenance is so $$$ valuable in other hobbies where it is only a nice to have in ours.
Same way OGH add real value to copper due to color Stability and doctoring, TPG holders of multiple eras might be worth much more in the future as they add verifiable chains of custody and protections along with additional checks.
Some coins are more susceptible to counterfeiting than others. At first, collectors will shift their interest to coins that remain relatively safe. Later, when nothing is safe, collectors will knowingly collect fakes, but they’ll pay appropriately low prices. Collectors will compete with each other on the quality of workmanship like they now compete on grading. Ultimately, the best counterfeiters will be greatly admired, their work will bring a big premium, and they’ll sign their pieces to enhance their value.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@vplite said:
Counterfeits truly frighten me, which is why I have only only bought coins not worth counterfeiting. At least coins less than $1k (some would call dreck) are less likely to be fake. Just my humble theory.
I think if nearly perfect counterfeit currency can be produced, why not much lower tech coins?
I don't know about that. I've seen dozens (hundreds?) of fake 1916-D dimes in AG/G. Under $1000 and highly counterfeited. There's also the "Rochester fakes" for common date barber dimes - silver-plated copper - that are very common in the Northeast, and those are $3 coins. You just care less if you lose $10 on a fake than $10,000.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@Crypto said:
Many artist and other hobbies have such a high proportion of fakes present that people can no longer agree on the real examples. That is why provenance is so $$$ valuable in other hobbies where it is only a nice to have in ours.
Same way OGH add real value to copper due to color Stability and doctoring, TPG holders of multiple eras might be worth much more in the future as they add verifiable chains of custody and protections along with additional checks.
well, except that they've now counterfeited the holders.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
This depends on the country, era, and coin type. Usually, any C/F's are eventually caught, even if encapsulated. Therefore, for most countries, coin types, etc. your guess is way out of line.
If I had to make a guess (not counting ancients), except for a few countries where old contemporary fakes have possibly become mainstream and considered as genuine because in the 20th Century due diligence was not taken when they were authenticated, you are very safe with slabbed coins from the four major TPGS. Besides, as a poster already wrote, as long as all the experts say a fake is genuine - it is!
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
This depends on the country, era, and coin type. Usually, any C/F's are eventually caught, even if encapsulated. Therefore, for most countries, coin types, etc. your guess is way out of line.
If I had to make a guess (not counting ancients), except for a few countries where old contemporary fakes have possibly become mainstream and considered as genuine because in the 20th Century due diligence was not taken when they were authenticated, you are very safe with slabbed coins from the four major TPGS. Besides, as a poster already wrote, as long as all the experts say a fake is genuine - it is!
Your conclusion here violates the precepts of your original question. They cant find the fakes because they are so good as to be indistinguishable.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
This depends on the country, era, and coin type. Usually, any C/F's are eventually caught, even if encapsulated. Therefore, for most countries, coin types, etc. your guess is way out of line.
If I had to make a guess (not counting ancients), except for a few countries where old contemporary fakes have possibly become mainstream and considered as genuine because in the 20th Century due diligence was not taken when they were authenticated, you are very safe with slabbed coins from the four major TPGS. Besides, as a poster already wrote, as long as all the experts say a fake is genuine - it is!
Your conclusion here violates the precepts of your original question. They cant find the fakes because they are so good as to be indistinguishable.
Perhaps you missed this sentence in MY original post: "This question appeared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
eared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
I know that. But if you ask the question: what happens when counterfeits can't be detected? Your response to another poster can't be: "They don't end up in slabs because the counterfeits are detected."
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
eared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
I know that. But if you ask the question: what happens when counterfeits can't be detected? Your response to another poster can't be: "They don't end up in slabs because the counterfeits are detected."
Oh, yes I can BECAUSE so far as we know and until you come up with and post an example like the Micro "O" Morgan's (and the other dollars that have been detected that have passed as genuine) there are not any (undetected)* C/F's in major TPGS slabs EXCEPT for that second tier service that slabs counterfeits for educational purposes.
Some folks like to keep counterfeits that defied detection AT FIRST and were slabbed as genuine for the heck of it or to prove this sort of thing has happened in the past.
@lkeigwin said:
If the question really is "What happens when counterfeits are so good that they cannot be detected?" then the answer is simple. If they cannot be detected then they are the same as genuine.
Most of the posts here debate the premise. Or, said another way, they are addressing the question "Can counterfeits be so good they cannot be detected?".
Lance.
I agree with Lance, and why start another thread that has already been addressed in these forums?
"Well, there the "Ex-Perts" go again. First a word of caution that you should all take to heart: There is so much BS posted by misinformed posters ("experts" in their own mind ONLY) on the internet that it actually makes me look like a know-it-all! LOL. "
I had to take a time out just to see what the "EX-Pert" came up with next, I wasn't disappointed in the least.
@MrEureka said:
Some coins are more susceptible to counterfeiting than others. At first, collectors will shift their interest to coins that remain relatively safe. Later, when nothing is safe, collectors will knowingly collect fakes, but they’ll pay appropriately low prices. Collectors will compete with each other on the quality of workmanship like they now compete on grading. Ultimately, the best counterfeiters will be greatly admired, their work will bring a big premium, and they’ll sign their pieces to enhance their value.
Collecting authentic coins will become a niche market for the ultimate experts. Most other collectors will, thinking that there is no possible way to know that a coin is real, consider the "ultimate experts" delusional fools for spending big money on "real" coins.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@JBK said:
One of the biggest challenges is that historical production methods which became obsolete among "professionals" years ago are still being employed in certain parts of the world. It would be very difficult to make an undetectable vintage fake on modern equipment (in almost any field, not just coins), but when you are using exactly the same processes and tools as they used way back when, then it becomes easier.
I am hoping that forensic examination (die characteristics, etc.) will be the undoing of even the best counterfeits, but in order for that to work a known fake needs to be uncovered first. The micro O Morgans are a perfect example.
Actually, not quite. One of my authentication instructors (Fazzari while working at PCI) was the first professional authenticator to "discover/detect" the first 1896-O "Micro O" he ever saw (1993?). He said that the coin was virtually BU and in just 2-3 seconds under the scope at low power he was 100% sure the coin was a newly made fake. It's surface was similar - granular and "fatty" to the 1896-P detected years earlier and published in the Numismatist magazine.
Unfortunately, his opinion was overruled by well-known professional Morgan dollar "EX-PERTS." It took several years before other authenticators realized these coins were on the market and other dates existed. Fazzari told us if that 1896-o had been in the typical F-VF condition seen, he would have probably never detected it even using his high power scope. Proof of his statement is that these coins had been around for decades.
There has only been one mint-state 1896-O micro-o that has had pictures published:
This is the highest mint-state grade counterfeit micro-o Morgan dollar (of any year). I was happy to discover it (and buy it) on eBay a couple years ago for a two-figures price It does not appear "fatty" to me. In fact, none of the vintage "privately-made" VAM-listed Morgan dollar counterfeits appear fatty. What they do typically have, however, is fields that curve where they meet devices (for example, look at the area to the left of the Eagle's neck where the field meets the wing). The luster on this example is strong, but a little "rippled". The breast feathers are somewhat fuzzy, but that is also the case for many genuine mint-state O-mint Morgan Dollars.
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
eared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
I know that. But if you ask the question: what happens when counterfeits can't be detected? Your response to another poster can't be: "They don't end up in slabs because the counterfeits are detected."
Oh, yes I can BECAUSE so far as we know and until you come up with and post an example like the Micro "O" Morgan's (and the other dollars that have been detected that have passed as genuine) there are not any (undetected)* C/F's in major TPGS slabs EXCEPT for that second tier service that slabs counterfeits for educational purposes.
Some folks like to keep counterfeits that defied detection AT FIRST and were slabbed as genuine for the heck of it or to prove this sort of thing has happened in the past.
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
eared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
I know that. But if you ask the question: what happens when counterfeits can't be detected? Your response to another poster can't be: "They don't end up in slabs because the counterfeits are detected."
Oh, yes I can BECAUSE so far as we know and until you come up with and post an example like the Micro "O" Morgan's (and the other dollars that have been detected that have passed as genuine) there are not any (undetected)* C/F's in major TPGS slabs EXCEPT for that second tier service that slabs counterfeits for educational purposes.
Some folks like to keep counterfeits that defied detection AT FIRST and were slabbed as genuine for the heck of it or to prove this sort of thing has happened in the past.
@WoodenJefferson said:
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
eared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
I know that. But if you ask the question: what happens when counterfeits can't be detected? Your response to another poster can't be: "They don't end up in slabs because the counterfeits are detected."
Oh, yes I can BECAUSE so far as we know and until you come up with and post an example like the Micro "O" Morgan's (and the other dollars that have been detected that have passed as genuine) there are not any (undetected)* C/F's in major TPGS slabs EXCEPT for that second tier service that slabs counterfeits for educational purposes.
Some folks like to keep counterfeits that defied detection AT FIRST and were slabbed as genuine for the heck of it or to prove this sort of thing has happened in the past.
PUH-LEASE!!! Art forgeries worth tens of millions of dollars have been accepted and verified as real by well known museums. Coins, in the grand scheme of things, are chump change. If the counterfeits get good enough, people will happily pay reasonable chunks of change for something that they, and the "experts", think is valid.
One would assume that counterfeiters capable of making such material would realize that increasing the supply of a given date/type by 100 X would be counterproductive. I would guess that such capable counterfeiters would produce items that they can make a significant profit on, but of which there is a fairly large supply of already. Remember, a reasonably valuable counterfeit coin does not need to be an MS coin. It can be "aged" (e.g. worn) to something that looks legit.
@dcarr said: "There has only been one mint-state 1896-O micro-o that has had pictures published:
This is the highest mint-state grade counterfeit micro-o Morgan dollar (of any year). I was happy to discover it (and buy it) on eBay a couple years ago for a two-figures price It does not appear "fatty" to me. In fact, none of the vintage "privately-made" VAM-listed Morgan dollar counterfeits appear fatty. What they do typically have, however, is fields that curve where they meet devices (for example, look at the area to the left of the Eagle's neck where the field meets the wing). The luster on this example is strong, but a little "rippled". The breast feathers are somewhat fuzzy, but that is also the case for many genuine mint-state O-mint Morgan Dollars.
That is one of the finest I've ever seen. You have provide me a perfect example with the magnified image. Now, as to what the coin looks like IMO:
Under a stereomicroscope using fluorescent light, the counterfeit is "fatty." Look at the mint mark for example. It is a rounded blob with no sharpness. Additionally, the fields are granular with no "real" flow. There are tiny irregularities in the surface with the same surface texture as the surrounding area.
As the original authenticator told us, it took less than four seconds - almost immediately - for him to condemn that first "micro O" fake (in similar condition as yours) he ever saw. At the time, Fazzari worked at PCI. He actually wrote a note to the Silver Dollar expert (coin was sent for a "Signature Series" label) that the coin was a COUNTERFEIT and a crude one at that! Nevertheless, the expert overruled the authenticator and the coin was slabbed as genuine. IMO, when these coins are seen in a circulated condition they defy detection by anyone as can be seen by their long track record as being authentic.
I have a theory as to what happened. At the turn of the Century, some dollars with a micro "O" were condemned as counterfeit. Unfortunately, we do not know their condition. I suspect they were as nice as yours and that is why they were detected. They showed up in several major cities. I'll bet after that they were only passed in the boonies and once they became worn and dirty they easily passed as genuine. If I recall, it was thought the fakes were made in Mexico or passed over the border there. SOMEWHERE the folks that made the original C/F's preserved the dies and either passed them down or they were rediscovered. In the late Twentieth Century, these counterfeits were then struck again in "new" condition and entered the market. IMO, that's why they were detected again!
@Insider2 said: @dcarr said: "There has only been one mint-state 1896-O micro-o that has had pictures published:
This is the highest mint-state grade counterfeit micro-o Morgan dollar (of any year). I was happy to discover it (and buy it) on eBay a couple years ago for a two-figures price It does not appear "fatty" to me. In fact, none of the vintage "privately-made" VAM-listed Morgan dollar counterfeits appear fatty. What they do typically have, however, is fields that curve where they meet devices (for example, look at the area to the left of the Eagle's neck where the field meets the wing). The luster on this example is strong, but a little "rippled". The breast feathers are somewhat fuzzy, but that is also the case for many genuine mint-state O-mint Morgan Dollars.
That is one of the finest I've ever seen. You have provide me a perfect example with the magnified image. Now, as to what the coin looks like IMO:
Under a stereomicroscope using fluorescent light, the counterfeit is "fatty." Look at the mint mark for example. It is a rounded blob with no sharpness. Additionally, the fields are granular with no "real" flow. There are tiny irregularities in the surface with the same surface texture as the surrounding area.
As the original authenticator told us, it took less than four seconds - almost immediately - for him to condemn that first "micro O" fake (in similar condition as yours) he ever saw. At the time, Fazzari worked at PCI. He actually wrote a note to the Silver Dollar expert (coin was sent for a "Signature Series" label) that the coin was a COUNTERFEIT and a crude one at that! Nevertheless, the expert overruled the authenticator and the coin was slabbed as genuine. IMO, when these coins are seen in a circulated condition they defy detection by anyone as can be seen by their long track record as being authentic.
I have a theory as to what happened. At the turn of the Century, some dollars with a micro "O" were condemned as counterfeit. Unfortunately, we do not know their condition. I suspect they were as nice as yours and that is why they were detected. They showed up in several major cities. I'll bet after that they were only passed in the boonies and once they became worn and dirty they easily passed as genuine. If I recall, it was thought the fakes were made in Mexico or passed over the border there. SOMEWHERE the folks that made the original C/F's preserved the dies and either passed them down or they were rediscovered. In the late Twentieth Century, these counterfeits were then struck again in "new" condition and entered the market. IMO, that's why they were detected again!
I love this person ...... "I have a theory as to what happened."
Gets better..... "That is one of the finest I've ever seen. You have provide me a perfect example with the magnified image. Now, as to what the coin looks like IMO:"
Now go back to the "Omega" thread..... "SOMEWHERE the folks that made the original C/F's preserved the dies and either passed them down or they were rediscovered." This person never named a name other than Fazzari. I just Googled Fazzari and it was pretty darn easy to find.
This person has "waited" for more information before she/he comes up with more "facts". The fact is that this person has the same information that we all have...the internet?
I think this person wants some attention, and they got it to a certain degree.
I'm done with you Insider2, I will now pay more attention to the folks that really have numismatic knowledge.
@SkyMan said:
PUH-LEASE!!! Art forgeries worth tens of millions of dollars have been accepted and verified as real by well known museums. Coins, in the grand scheme of things, are chump change. If the counterfeits get good enough, people will happily pay reasonable chunks of change for something that they, and the "experts", think is valid.
One would assume that counterfeiters capable of making such material would realize that increasing the supply of a given date/type by 100 X would be counterproductive. I would guess that such capable counterfeiters would produce items that they can make a significant profit on, but of which there is a fairly large supply of already. Remember, a reasonably valuable counterfeit coin does not need to be an MS coin. It can be "aged" (e.g. worn) to something that looks legit.
That of course is true, but didn't you hear about the art forgeries that got so good that authenticaters refused to back them with certification?
@Insider2 said:
This question appeared in another discussion. The poster asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
@sellitstore said: "@totellthetruth raises and important question and one that numismatists like to ignore. I have pondered it many times, too. What happens when the counterfeits become so good as to be undetectable? By definition, the experts wouldn't know if they were looking at authentic vs counterfeit items.
Well, when counterfeits become so good that they cannot be detected then, populations begin to rise and prices begin to drop. Just like anything else.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I said I was done with you, and I am, but let's start with your profile, it's not exactly stellar.
NOW, you seem to post more than anyone, and I mean ANYONE!
What does that tell me......attention?
You do talk a good game, and what I mean is that you are a good word smith old man, I will give that to you.
YES the "old man" reference was a little jab at you and wasn't ment to be.................yes it was ment to be mean!
I said I was done with you, and I am, but let's start with your profile, it's not exactly stellar.
NOW, you seem to post more than anyone, and I mean ANYONE!
What does that tell me......attention?
You do talk a good game, and what I mean is that you are a good word smith old man, I will give that to you.
YES the "old man" reference was a little jab at you and wasn't ment to be.................yes it was ment to be mean!
Your Pal,
Sonny
Sonny,
I don't think you have a mean bone in your body! That is why I tagged you on the "Omega" thread. And you know what, much of what you have posted is true. I love CU, I love attention, and I love talking coins with folks.
What I don't love is when I screw up and post some bad info.
@Insider2 said: @dcarr said: "There has only been one mint-state 1896-O micro-o that has had pictures published:
This is the highest mint-state grade counterfeit micro-o Morgan dollar (of any year). I was happy to discover it (and buy it) on eBay a couple years ago for a two-figures price It does not appear "fatty" to me. In fact, none of the vintage "privately-made" VAM-listed Morgan dollar counterfeits appear fatty. What they do typically have, however, is fields that curve where they meet devices (for example, look at the area to the left of the Eagle's neck where the field meets the wing). The luster on this example is strong, but a little "rippled". The breast feathers are somewhat fuzzy, but that is also the case for many genuine mint-state O-mint Morgan Dollars.
That is one of the finest I've ever seen. You have provide me a perfect example with the magnified image. Now, as to what the coin looks like IMO:
Under a stereomicroscope using fluorescent light, the counterfeit is "fatty." Look at the mint mark for example. It is a rounded blob with no sharpness. Additionally, the fields are granular with no "real" flow. There are tiny irregularities in the surface with the same surface texture as the surrounding area.
As the original authenticator told us, it took less than four seconds - almost immediately - for him to condemn that first "micro O" fake (in similar condition as yours) he ever saw. At the time, Fazzari worked at PCI. He actually wrote a note to the Silver Dollar expert (coin was sent for a "Signature Series" label) that the coin was a COUNTERFEIT and a crude one at that! Nevertheless, the expert overruled the authenticator and the coin was slabbed as genuine. IMO, when these coins are seen in a circulated condition they defy detection by anyone as can be seen by their long track record as being authentic.
I have a theory as to what happened. At the turn of the Century, some dollars with a micro "O" were condemned as counterfeit. Unfortunately, we do not know their condition. I suspect they were as nice as yours and that is why they were detected. They showed up in several major cities. I'll bet after that they were only passed in the boonies and once they became worn and dirty they easily passed as genuine. If I recall, it was thought the fakes were made in Mexico or passed over the border there. SOMEWHERE the folks that made the original C/F's preserved the dies and either passed them down or they were rediscovered. In the late Twentieth Century, these counterfeits were then struck again in "new" condition and entered the market. IMO, that's why they were detected again!
"Fatty" is a term that I would apply to transfer counterfeits where the transfer process ends up making the letters and other small details come out a little bit wider on the counterfeit than on the original. This could, for example, cause something like the hole in the "e" of "We" to close up. The micro-o family counterfeits have somewhat rounded devices and curved fields, but I disagree that they are "fatty" like some other counterfeits. The luster is a bit grainy, but not all that far off.
I STRONGLY DISSAGREE that the micro-o family of counterfeits were re-struck in the late Twentieth Century. There are only two UNC micro-o counterfeits known: the 1896-o shown above and a 1902-o. The history of that 1902-o has been traced back to Idaho, circa 1945 at the latest. There has never been a dramatic population increase in these coins.
From VAMworld.com:
Both of these UNC micro-o counterfeits share the same reverse die, and the same state of that die.
It is, however, possible that the Treasury Department was aware of the counterfeit silver dollar problem, and that was the real reason for the Pittman Act of 1918:
Congress passed the Pitman Act on 23 April 1918.
This act mandated the melting of 270 million silver dollars.
Three years later the US Mint produced 87 million silver dollars dated 1921, then 84 million more in 1922, 56 million in 1923, 36 million during 1924-1926, and 12 million from 1927-1935.
Why would the US Government melt 270 million silver dollars, only to replace them with 275 million new coins within a few years ?
Somebody in the government knew the enormity of the counterfeit silver dollar situation, and this was their method of “cleansing” the circulating coinage base.
I'm going to read your link later. Here is something you may not know. I have had three UNCIRCULATED Micro "O" counterfeit Morgans in my hand and under my microscope at the same time. I do not remember the dates. Therefore, I should guess there are some other Unc's around besides yours. As I wrote, yours MAY be the finest.
Next, we'll just need to disagree with what the adjective "fatty" indicates. Until the last decade, virtually ALL COUNTERFEITS were considered to be "fatty." AFAIK, the term was first "coined" and then used outside of the Certification Service by a professional authenticator at an ANA Summer Seminar in the early 70's. Back then, the die struck gold counterfeits were so crude that many professional authenticators (who should have known better) were describing them as being cast. Since then, the struck counterfeits have improved so much that many modern state-of-the-art fakes are as sharply detailed as the genuine coins.
For example: I have read that one longtime TPGS authenticator now needs to spend a few minutes examining many vintage Seated coin types with his microscope for authenticity rather than just a second or two as he has formerly done for decades.
What our disagreement boils down to is this: What looks normal to the naked eye or 7X hand lens is nevertheless "fatty" and crude under a stereoscope.
This is an interesting thread that I had not read. I wonder now 2 years down the road if we are any closer to counterfeits being "undetectable" and therefore accepted as good?
@burfle23 said:
This is an interesting thread that I had not read. I wonder now 2 years down the road if we are any closer to counterfeits being "undetectable" and therefore accepted as good?
It’s a cat and mouse game. I would say that for worn coins it gets harder but it’s very hard to replicate features only seen on genuine coins like particular die scratches and such. It’s all on whether one is looking for those features, really.
As to the original question...
I think there are several results of counterfeits getting better:
1. People will be less likely to buy raw coins unless they know the provenance or if they are unlikely to be faked.
2. It reduces people’s confidence as a whole on coins and can provide some downdraft on pricing and investing
3. Slab services will find new opportunities
4. Older slabs may be seen as more desirable
5. Higher value coins will be scrutinized a great deal more
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
The subject of this thread reminds me oh so much of the statement "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a noise if no one is there to hear it".
@burfle23 said:
This is an interesting thread that I had not read. I wonder now 2 years down the road if we are any closer to counterfeits being "undetectable" and therefore accepted as good?
It’s a cat and mouse game. I would say that for worn coins it gets harder but it’s very hard to replicate features only seen on genuine coins like particular die scratches and such. It’s all on whether one is looking for those features, really.
I have found that the latest struck counterfeits (many in genuine TPG holders) are so accurate compared to the genuine source coin they match not only any die state marks but every circulation mark from the original as well.
It’s a really good question. I think it would drive the prices up for coins that have a know Provence and can be tracked back through major collections or auction records.
When I was in Vietnam, I bought an 1875 CC Trade $. It looked legit, but I thought it was a fake, and bought it anyway. It would have graded in the high VF or low XF range. It fooled everyone. Until someone asked whether he could drop it on a concrete floor and listen to the metal's 'ping.' That gave it away as a fake. If the counterfeiter used to proper metallic content when making this coin, the coin would be in a first world TPG slab. And no one would be the wiser, because it's not an expensive coin and would have flown under the radar.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@burfle23 said:
This is an interesting thread that I had not read. I wonder now 2 years down the road if we are any closer to counterfeits being "undetectable" and therefore accepted as good?
It’s a cat and mouse game. I would say that for worn coins it gets harder but it’s very hard to replicate features only seen on genuine coins like particular die scratches and such. It’s all on whether one is looking for those features, really.
I have found that the latest struck counterfeits (many in genuine TPG holders) are so accurate compared to the genuine source coin they match not only any die state marks but every circulation mark from the original as well.
I figure using high resolution lasers would eventually be used to completely scan the surface for even those things. I didn’t think it would be worth doing except in extremely high value coins. At some point it may not be possible to distinguish real from fake except with ironclad provenance.
@burfle23 said:
This is an interesting thread that I had not read. I wonder now 2 years down the road if we are any closer to counterfeits being "undetectable" and therefore accepted as good?
Any counterfeit that is truly undetectable is actually, therefore, real.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@oldUScoins said:
It’s a really good question. I think it would drive the prices up for coins that have a know Provence and can be tracked back through major collections or auction records.
Maybe. Although it is more likely that the price of the 99.9% of coins that have no provenance would simply crater due to a sudden supply glut.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@lkeigwin said:
If the question really is "What happens when counterfeits are so good that they cannot be detected?" then the answer is simple. If they cannot be detected then they are the same as genuine.
Most of the posts here debate the premise. Or, said another way, they are addressing the question "Can counterfeits be so good they cannot be detected?".
Lance.
Took the words outta my mouth. If it can't be detected then who said its a counterfeit?
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@lkeigwin said:
If the question really is "What happens when counterfeits are so good that they cannot be detected?" then the answer is simple. If they cannot be detected then they are the same as genuine.
Most of the posts here debate the premise. Or, said another way, they are addressing the question "Can counterfeits be so good they cannot be detected?".
Lance.
Took the words outta my mouth. If it can't be detected then who said its a counterfeit?
I have had this same discussion with members of my group...
The following are three 1806 "C-1" half cents. all in TPG holders (images are cropped) as genuine straight graded XF-45's. They all have several common marks including the gash on the "A" of HALF which is not seen on any other known C-1.
Are they now their own genuine die state or variety?
Comments
The fact that an authentic micro o [1899-o] exists, likely made it easier to accept the others.
@Insider2
From Wikipedia ...
"The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the late first century."
My corollary would be along the lines ... if you have a counterfeit so well done it can "replace" an original, is it still a counterfeit? Not exactly Theseus's paradox ... but close enough for this discussion.
Since you don't have access the Internet ... I'll mail this post to you.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The subject of this thread reminds me oh so much of the statement "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a noise if no one is there to hear it".
There may well be some out there. They are perceived as genuine. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, they are genuine.
You want an excellent example: 1913 Liberty Nickels. There is NO record of them being struck. Whether struck using Mint equipment or not, they are effectively "counterfeit". No one seems to care.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
There is, of course, an interesting corollary question:
What happens when a genuine coin is so sloppily made that it is perceived as counterfeit?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I guess we won't ever know!
Not quite the same IMO. If the tree was both valuable and cherished (907 $20 HR), I think the owner of the property and everyone who continued to picnic near the tree would care once they saw it was down (Counterfeit HR)..
Counterfeits truly frighten me, which is why I have only only bought coins not worth counterfeiting. At least coins less than $1k (some would call dreck) are less likely to be fake. Just my humble theory.
I think if nearly perfect counterfeit currency can be produced, why not much lower tech coins?
Many artist and other hobbies have such a high proportion of fakes present that people can no longer agree on the real examples. That is why provenance is so $$$ valuable in other hobbies where it is only a nice to have in ours.
Same way OGH add real value to copper due to color Stability and doctoring, TPG holders of multiple eras might be worth much more in the future as they add verifiable chains of custody and protections along with additional checks.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Some coins are more susceptible to counterfeiting than others. At first, collectors will shift their interest to coins that remain relatively safe. Later, when nothing is safe, collectors will knowingly collect fakes, but they’ll pay appropriately low prices. Collectors will compete with each other on the quality of workmanship like they now compete on grading. Ultimately, the best counterfeiters will be greatly admired, their work will bring a big premium, and they’ll sign their pieces to enhance their value.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I don't know about that. I've seen dozens (hundreds?) of fake 1916-D dimes in AG/G. Under $1000 and highly counterfeited. There's also the "Rochester fakes" for common date barber dimes - silver-plated copper - that are very common in the Northeast, and those are $3 coins. You just care less if you lose $10 on a fake than $10,000.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
well, except that they've now counterfeited the holders.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
They get collected as the real deal, even encapsulated as genuine, end of story.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Question is how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands have already been encapsulated as "genuine"?
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
This depends on the country, era, and coin type. Usually, any C/F's are eventually caught, even if encapsulated. Therefore, for most countries, coin types, etc. your guess is way out of line.
If I had to make a guess (not counting ancients), except for a few countries where old contemporary fakes have possibly become mainstream and considered as genuine because in the 20th Century due diligence was not taken when they were authenticated, you are very safe with slabbed coins from the four major TPGS. Besides, as a poster already wrote, as long as all the experts say a fake is genuine - it is!
Your conclusion here violates the precepts of your original question. They cant find the fakes because they are so good as to be indistinguishable.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Perhaps you missed this sentence in MY original post: "This question appeared in another discussion. The poster [NOT ME] asked a great question, however, rather than "sidetrack" that thread, what do you think?
Pops will go up. Prices will go down. Coins with photographic provenance will be in demand.
I know that. But if you ask the question: what happens when counterfeits can't be detected? Your response to another poster can't be: "They don't end up in slabs because the counterfeits are detected."
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Oh, yes I can BECAUSE so far as we know and until you come up with and post an example like the Micro "O" Morgan's (and the other dollars that have been detected that have passed as genuine) there are not any (undetected)* C/F's in major TPGS slabs EXCEPT for that second tier service that slabs counterfeits for educational purposes.
I agree with Lance, and why start another thread that has already been addressed in these forums?
"Well, there the "Ex-Perts" go again. First a word of caution that you should all take to heart: There is so much BS posted by misinformed posters ("experts" in their own mind ONLY) on the internet that it actually makes me look like a know-it-all! LOL.
"
I had to take a time out just to see what the "EX-Pert" came up with next, I wasn't disappointed in the least.
Collecting authentic coins will become a niche market for the ultimate experts. Most other collectors will, thinking that there is no possible way to know that a coin is real, consider the "ultimate experts" delusional fools for spending big money on "real" coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
There has only been one mint-state 1896-O micro-o that has had pictures published:
It does not appear "fatty" to me. In fact, none of the vintage "privately-made" VAM-listed Morgan dollar counterfeits appear fatty. What they do typically have, however, is fields that curve where they meet devices (for example, look at the area to the left of the Eagle's neck where the field meets the wing). The luster on this example is strong, but a little "rippled". The breast feathers are somewhat fuzzy, but that is also the case for many genuine mint-state O-mint Morgan Dollars.
This is the highest mint-state grade counterfeit micro-o Morgan dollar (of any year). I was happy to discover it (and buy it) on eBay a couple years ago for a two-figures price
I think you already saw this one...https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/899612/new-prevalent-1878-cc-trade-dollar-counterfeit-tpg-certified/p1
To bad the OP did not see the thread that you referred to...Oh wait a minute, he did see the thread!
He must of forgot for some strange reason, like old age?
PUH-LEASE!!! Art forgeries worth tens of millions of dollars have been accepted and verified as real by well known museums. Coins, in the grand scheme of things, are chump change. If the counterfeits get good enough, people will happily pay reasonable chunks of change for something that they, and the "experts", think is valid.
One would assume that counterfeiters capable of making such material would realize that increasing the supply of a given date/type by 100 X would be counterproductive. I would guess that such capable counterfeiters would produce items that they can make a significant profit on, but of which there is a fairly large supply of already. Remember, a reasonably valuable counterfeit coin does not need to be an MS coin. It can be "aged" (e.g. worn) to something that looks legit.
U.S. Type Set
@dcarr said: "There has only been one mint-state 1896-O micro-o that has had pictures published:
This is the highest mint-state grade counterfeit micro-o Morgan dollar (of any year). I was happy to discover it (and buy it) on eBay a couple years ago for a two-figures price
It does not appear "fatty" to me. In fact, none of the vintage "privately-made" VAM-listed Morgan dollar counterfeits appear fatty. What they do typically have, however, is fields that curve where they meet devices (for example, look at the area to the left of the Eagle's neck where the field meets the wing). The luster on this example is strong, but a little "rippled". The breast feathers are somewhat fuzzy, but that is also the case for many genuine mint-state O-mint Morgan Dollars.
That is one of the finest I've ever seen. You have provide me a perfect example with the magnified image. Now, as to what the coin looks like IMO:
Under a stereomicroscope using fluorescent light, the counterfeit is "fatty." Look at the mint mark for example. It is a rounded blob with no sharpness. Additionally, the fields are granular with no "real" flow. There are tiny irregularities in the surface with the same surface texture as the surrounding area.
As the original authenticator told us, it took less than four seconds - almost immediately - for him to condemn that first "micro O" fake (in similar condition as yours) he ever saw. At the time, Fazzari worked at PCI. He actually wrote a note to the Silver Dollar expert (coin was sent for a "Signature Series" label) that the coin was a COUNTERFEIT and a crude one at that! Nevertheless, the expert overruled the authenticator and the coin was slabbed as genuine. IMO, when these coins are seen in a circulated condition they defy detection by anyone as can be seen by their long track record as being authentic.
I have a theory as to what happened. At the turn of the Century, some dollars with a micro "O" were condemned as counterfeit. Unfortunately, we do not know their condition. I suspect they were as nice as yours and that is why they were detected. They showed up in several major cities. I'll bet after that they were only passed in the boonies and once they became worn and dirty they easily passed as genuine. If I recall, it was thought the fakes were made in Mexico or passed over the border there. SOMEWHERE the folks that made the original C/F's preserved the dies and either passed them down or they were rediscovered. In the late Twentieth Century, these counterfeits were then struck again in "new" condition and entered the market. IMO, that's why they were detected again!
I love this person ...... "I have a theory as to what happened."
Gets better..... "That is one of the finest I've ever seen. You have provide me a perfect example with the magnified image. Now, as to what the coin looks like IMO:"
Now go back to the "Omega" thread..... "SOMEWHERE the folks that made the original C/F's preserved the dies and either passed them down or they were rediscovered." This person never named a name other than Fazzari. I just Googled Fazzari and it was pretty darn easy to find.
This person has "waited" for more information before she/he comes up with more "facts". The fact is that this person has the same information that we all have...the internet?
I think this person wants some attention, and they got it to a certain degree.
I'm done with you Insider2, I will now pay more attention to the folks that really have numismatic knowledge.
Your "Pal",
"Sonny"
That of course is true, but didn't you hear about the art forgeries that got so good that authenticaters refused to back them with certification?
Shucks.
Excellent work @Raybo YOU FOUND ME OUT AS A COMPLETE FRAUD!
But I had a really good laugh and got all the attention I wanted while I fooled you! 
Just what did you find? Where did I slip up?
Well, when counterfeits become so good that they cannot be detected then, populations begin to rise and prices begin to drop. Just like anything else.
The name is LEE!
"Just what did you find? Where did I slip up?"
I said I was done with you, and I am, but let's start with your profile, it's not exactly stellar.
NOW, you seem to post more than anyone, and I mean ANYONE!
What does that tell me......attention?
You do talk a good game, and what I mean is that you are a good word smith old man, I will give that to you.
YES the "old man" reference was a little jab at you and wasn't ment to be.................yes it was ment to be mean!
Your Pal,
Sonny
@Raybo said:
Sonny,
I don't think you have a mean bone in your body! That is why I tagged you on the "Omega" thread. And you know what, much of what you have posted is true. I love CU, I love attention, and I love talking coins with folks.
What I don't love is when I screw up and post some bad info.
With regard to counterfeits ...... they get sold on ebay! LOL
"Fatty" is a term that I would apply to transfer counterfeits where the transfer process ends up making the letters and other small details come out a little bit wider on the counterfeit than on the original. This could, for example, cause something like the hole in the "e" of "We" to close up. The micro-o family counterfeits have somewhat rounded devices and curved fields, but I disagree that they are "fatty" like some other counterfeits. The luster is a bit grainy, but not all that far off.
I STRONGLY DISSAGREE that the micro-o family of counterfeits were re-struck in the late Twentieth Century. There are only two UNC micro-o counterfeits known: the 1896-o shown above and a 1902-o. The history of that 1902-o has been traced back to Idaho, circa 1945 at the latest. There has never been a dramatic population increase in these coins.
From VAMworld.com:
Both of these UNC micro-o counterfeits share the same reverse die, and the same state of that die.
It is, however, possible that the Treasury Department was aware of the counterfeit silver dollar problem, and that was the real reason for the Pittman Act of 1918:
More info about the Morgan Dollar micro-o counterfeits is available here:
moonlightmint.com/VAM_privately_made/00.htm
I'm going to read your link later. Here is something you may not know. I have had three UNCIRCULATED Micro "O" counterfeit Morgans in my hand and under my microscope at the same time. I do not remember the dates. Therefore, I should guess there are some other Unc's around besides yours. As I wrote, yours MAY be the finest.
Next, we'll just need to disagree with what the adjective "fatty" indicates. Until the last decade, virtually ALL COUNTERFEITS were considered to be "fatty." AFAIK, the term was first "coined" and then used outside of the Certification Service by a professional authenticator at an ANA Summer Seminar in the early 70's. Back then, the die struck gold counterfeits were so crude that many professional authenticators (who should have known better) were describing them as being cast. Since then, the struck counterfeits have improved so much that many modern state-of-the-art fakes are as sharply detailed as the genuine coins.
For example: I have read that one longtime TPGS authenticator now needs to spend a few minutes examining many vintage Seated coin types with his microscope for authenticity rather than just a second or two as he has formerly done for decades.
What our disagreement boils down to is this: What looks normal to the naked eye or 7X hand lens is nevertheless "fatty" and crude under a stereoscope.
Great thread!
My YouTube Channel
This is an interesting thread that I had not read. I wonder now 2 years down the road if we are any closer to counterfeits being "undetectable" and therefore accepted as good?
It’s a cat and mouse game. I would say that for worn coins it gets harder but it’s very hard to replicate features only seen on genuine coins like particular die scratches and such. It’s all on whether one is looking for those features, really.
As to the original question...
I think there are several results of counterfeits getting better:
1. People will be less likely to buy raw coins unless they know the provenance or if they are unlikely to be faked.
2. It reduces people’s confidence as a whole on coins and can provide some downdraft on pricing and investing
3. Slab services will find new opportunities
4. Older slabs may be seen as more desirable
5. Higher value coins will be scrutinized a great deal more
Number 4
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Or:
If I am alone in a forest and I say something...
Does my wife still say I am wrong?
BHNC #203
I have found that the latest struck counterfeits (many in genuine TPG holders) are so accurate compared to the genuine source coin they match not only any die state marks but every circulation mark from the original as well.
It’s a really good question. I think it would drive the prices up for coins that have a know Provence and can be tracked back through major collections or auction records.
When I was in Vietnam, I bought an 1875 CC Trade $. It looked legit, but I thought it was a fake, and bought it anyway. It would have graded in the high VF or low XF range. It fooled everyone. Until someone asked whether he could drop it on a concrete floor and listen to the metal's 'ping.' That gave it away as a fake. If the counterfeiter used to proper metallic content when making this coin, the coin would be in a first world TPG slab. And no one would be the wiser, because it's not an expensive coin and would have flown under the radar.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I figure using high resolution lasers would eventually be used to completely scan the surface for even those things. I didn’t think it would be worth doing except in extremely high value coins. At some point it may not be possible to distinguish real from fake except with ironclad provenance.
Any counterfeit that is truly undetectable is actually, therefore, real.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Maybe. Although it is more likely that the price of the 99.9% of coins that have no provenance would simply crater due to a sudden supply glut.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Took the words outta my mouth. If it can't be detected then who said its a counterfeit?
I have had this same discussion with members of my group...
The following are three 1806 "C-1" half cents. all in TPG holders (images are cropped) as genuine straight graded XF-45's. They all have several common marks including the gash on the "A" of HALF which is not seen on any other known C-1.
Are they now their own genuine die state or variety?