Does interest in contemporary counterfeits hamper action against modern counterfeits?

Zoins

@RogerB recently posted a thread about what collectors can do about counterfeits. An interesting result is that many people discussed the need to protect collecting of contemporary counterfeits. Of course, there are many interesting contemporary counterfeits and people do like collecting them, but that is not the question here.

The question is whether this interest hampers actions against modern counterfeits? Yes or no?

Here's @RogerB's series of threads:

• Tough Question: Should authentication companies add a "destruct clause" for counterfeits?
• If authentication companies do not destroy counterfeits,...
• What can or should collectors do about counterfeit coins and medals?

JBK

Yes, legitimizing contemporary counterfeits creates a gray line with legitimate modern counterfeits

I said it does but I am not complaining since I think they all can be collectable and studied.

Zoins

@JBK said:
I said it does but I am not complaining since I think they all can be collectable and studied.

Interesting, I wonder if modern counterfeits will become a popular collectible one day, like contemporary counterfeits.

I'm sure some are collecting them already but I haven't seen anyone talking about those collections yet.

ricko

No, legitimizing contemporary counterfeits has no effect on modern counterfeits

No...not at all.... Also, most contemporary counterfeits have cataloged PUP's, so really, they become a valid collectible segment in their own right. Cheers, RickO

291fifth

Yes, legitimizing contemporary counterfeits creates a gray line with legitimate modern counterfeits

Counterfeits are a plague in any hobby. In stamp collecting they are referred to as "album weeds".

cardinal

I am conflicted on this issue. Fakes that are newly-made to deceive others should be stopped. But should older copies and contemporary fakes be destroyed on sight? Perhaps a rare coin shows up at a grading company, totally legitimate, but the grader that sees it is unfamiliar with its characteristics, and so it gets destroyed by mistake. Or, instead, let's say an in-house thief just deems it "counterfeit" and "destroys" it by putting it in his pocket and replacing it with scrap metal. How could the submitter be sure the correct decision was made?

A dozen years ago, I had a totally unexpected experience in this regard. I flew in to an NGC trade-and-grade event in Las Vegas, and when I landed, I got a call from a dealer asking if I could fly to Las Vegas to meet a client of theirs. What a coincidence that I was already there!! The dealer wanted me to accompany the client to submit a coin to NGC, and asked that I make the arrangements with the President of NGC. So I called him up, and said that I was meeting a collector who wanted to have a very rare coin graded. The question came back, "What was the coin?" I responded, saying "It's an 1804 Silver Dollar!" Laughter ensued on the other side of the call... Then I was told, obviously, it was a fake, as NGC gets calls about 1804 dollars all the time due to the make copies out there, and all of the real 1804 dollars have been graded already!

The issue was, though, it WAS a real 1804 dollar, and it was pedigreed to the Garrett Collection. Again, I was told that just had to be a story, as a coin like that would have been in the possession of the notable collector, not just someone calling in to a coin company. The collector actually was a notable collector, but one who had never submitted any coins for grading...ever. I finally got the President to agree to meet with us, and when he met the collector -- a retired multi-millionaire wall street executive -- and saw the coin and the original Garrett Collection flip, THEN he believed the story. The coin got graded and NGC got considerable publicity.

So...mistakes can still me made with legitimate coins.

Also, a dozen years or more ago, I purchased a fabulously infamous fake 1796 half dollar, pedigreed to Leo Young, which had sold for $80K back in 1980:

The piece showed up in an auction by Sheridan Downey. I was the winning bidder, and Sheridan shipped it to me just as it appears above. He also included the note that, it was impressed upon him that HE should stamp the piece with "COPY" before sending it out to prevent it from deceiving anyone. How do you think I would have felt, purchasing the piece based on the auction photos, and then receiving it defaced? Instead of stamping it, Sheridan agreed with the others that he could only sell it to someone Sheridan could vouch for that it would never be used for deception, and to also strongly recommend to that buyer to have the piece stamped as a copy.

Let me call such very early copies as "heritage pieces," that should be enjoyed as collectibles. I might even suggest that grading companies could encapsulate them -- titled as "tokens" or some other term -- as they are historic and educational. With other antiquities, some are illegal to trade as their source are endangered species. However, items identifiable as being over 100 years old are legal to trade. Perhaps something similar could be adopted for these "heritage piece" copies. (Think about it, New Haven Fugio restrikes, Bashlow restrikes and others -- all fakes in their day -- get graded and sold all the time now!)

JBK

Yes, legitimizing contemporary counterfeits creates a gray line with legitimate modern counterfeits

I would never start a counterfeiting operation, and if the guy next door to me had one underway I would want it shut down. But I would want some samples for my collection first....

Cougar1978

Be sure and look at auction carefully. Guy in coin club won CSA TPG note and did not realize it contemporary counterfeit. It says that on holder but he did not look carefully enough.