What is your opinion of Gallery Mint copies?

291fifth · October 11, 2006 2:42AM

I expect demand for them to increase in the next few years now that they are apparently out of production.

Cladiator · October 11, 2006 2:46AM

The Gallery Mint was a definite asset to the numismatic community.

Baley · October 11, 2006 2:48AM

I think they're pretty damned cool for fifteen or twenty bucks!

This was struck on a screw press, handmade dies, pure copper planchet

I have a handful of other GM pieces, including the 1796 quarter and half, and would add a few others..

ColonialCoinUnion · October 11, 2006 2:48AM

I have never been a fan of reproductions of the sort they produced.

Steve27 · October 11, 2006 2:54AM

After seeing them on ebay listed as real but damaged (with the "copy" filed-off), I've always felt they were a blight on coin collecting.

PerryHall · October 11, 2006 3:05AM

Never cared for counterfeits of legal tender US coins, even if they did have "COPY" stamped on them.

messydesk · October 11, 2006 3:34AM

I have a bunch of them, and I think they're pretty cool. I toured their facility in Eureka Springs some years ago. They put in a lot of work reproducing not only coins, but also the period production methods.

As for being a blight on coin collecting, the people altering these and selling them as authentic are a far bigger blight than the repros themselves.

Cladiator · October 11, 2006 3:36AM

<< They put in a lot of work reproducing not only coins, but also the period production methods. >>

Exactly. That is where I think they made the biggest contributions to numismatics.

Coxe · October 11, 2006 4:21AM

<< 

<< They put in a lot of work reproducing not only coins, but also the period production methods. >>

Exactly. That is where I think they made the biggest contributions to numismatics. >>

Yes. When they started up I thought is was really cool to see pristine pieces made like they were originally. Never felt a strong compulsion to actually buy any from them but they were doing a Thor Heyerdahl for early US numismatics.

dorkkarl · October 11, 2006 4:29AM

<< Never cared for counterfeits of legal tender US coins, even if they did have "COPY" stamped on them. >>

a copy is not a counterfeit. please stop using the term incorrectly so that newbies don't get the wrong idea of what the term means.

K S

michael · October 11, 2006 4:31AM

copy is stamped lightly and many have been stung with worn down distressed original mint methods copies and have cost many much in lost dollars and buying these distressed fakes that fool many as they are ezact copies

and again the word copy is lightly impressed so easy to take off and wear down

this will only grow more

i do not like or apprecaite these copies at all

a human pathos and a bane to collectors of authentic worth contenmory made mint products

PerryHall · October 11, 2006 4:35AM

<< 

<< Never cared for counterfeits of legal tender US coins, even if they did have "COPY" stamped on them. >>

a copy is not a counterfeit. please stop using the term incorrectly so that newbies don't get the wrong idea of what the term means.

K S >>

What's the difference between a copy and a counterfeit? There have been several instances where the word "COPY" has been removed and the coin was artificially worn and aged and then sold to an unsuspecting collector. Naturally an advanced specialist wouldn't have been fooled.

Coxe · October 11, 2006 4:38AM

<< 

<< 

<< Never cared for counterfeits of legal tender US coins, even if they did have "COPY" stamped on them. >>

a copy is not a counterfeit. please stop using the term incorrectly so that newbies don't get the wrong idea of what the term means.

K S >>

What's the difference between a copy and a counterfeit? There have been several instances where the word "COPY" has been removed and the coin was artificially worn and aged and then sold to an unsuspecting collector. Naturally an advanced specialist wouldn't have been fooled. >>

Although it would have taken away form the parallel (to the original) production, but it might have been a service if they had put a steel core in their copies so a magnet test would have been possible. Still would fool folks on eBay, but not on a bourse.

PerryHall · October 11, 2006 4:38AM

I wonder how many were made for special customers where the word "COPY" was accidentally left off.

CaptHenway · October 11, 2006 4:40AM

<< After seeing them on ebay listed as real but damaged (with the "copy" filed-off), I've always felt they were a blight on coin collecting. >>

A vast boil upon the buttocks of numismatics, IMHO.
TD

Coxe · October 11, 2006 4:42AM

<< I wonder how many were made for special customers where the word "COPY" was accidentally left off. >>

I forget if their first production (the chain cent?) did leave it off. Seem to recall a challenge on the legality but forget the details completely as it was on the periphery of my interests.

ABC123 · October 11, 2006 5:11AM

Excellent Workmanship !

topstuf · October 11, 2006 5:34AM

Reproductions destroyed the antique toy market.

dorkkarl · October 11, 2006 5:57AM

<< What's the difference between a copy and a counterfeit? There have been several instances where the word "COPY" has been removed and the coin was artificially worn and aged and then sold to an unsuspecting collector. Naturally an advanced specialist wouldn't have been fooled. >>

a c/f is manufactured for the sole purpose to be passed off as a genuine coin. gallery mint has DEFINITELY NEVER intended to pass off their REPRODUCTIONS as genuine.

copies are manufactured under perfectly legal terms, c/fs are not.

K S

dorkkarl · October 11, 2006 5:58AM

btw, i like g-m products, besides which the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable.

K S

CaptHenway · October 11, 2006 6:02AM

<< 

<< What's the difference between a copy and a counterfeit? There have been several instances where the word "COPY" has been removed and the coin was artificially worn and aged and then sold to an unsuspecting collector. Naturally an advanced specialist wouldn't have been fooled. >>

a c/f is manufactured for the sole purpose to be passed off as a genuine coin. gallery mint has DEFINITELY NEVER intended to pass off their REPRODUCTIONS as genuine.

copies are manufactured under perfectly legal terms, c/fs are not.

K S >>

The Gallery Mint Museum copies were never technically legal. The Hobby Protection Act of 1973 specified that the word COPY had to be incused at least 2 mm or half of the thickness of the piece into the piece, and the GMM pieces were never indented that deeply.
TD

TavernTreasures · October 11, 2006 6:27AM

I'm glad they are gone. But now we are stuck with their all too real looking copies. They should have to clean up their mess.

Conder101 · October 11, 2006 11:54AM

<< The Gallery Mint Museum copies were never technically legal. The Hobby Protection Act of 1973 specified that the word COPY had to be incused at least 2 mm or half of the thickness of the piece into the piece, and the GMM pieces were never indented that deeply. >>

Incorrect. I just looked it up today for someone else. The part of the law covering how they reproductions must be stamped says for copies that can be incused the letters of the word COPY must be a minimum of 2 mm high, the entire word must be a minimum of six mm long. and they must be incused to a depth of .3 mm or half the thickness of the item, whichever is less. So the GMM reproductions DID meet the legal requirements. In fact they went beyond the legal requirement by also marking the edge of the coin as well, which was not required.

messydesk · October 11, 2006 12:25PM

<< btw, i like g-m products, besides which the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable.

K S >>

It wasn't just emulation, it was also re-discovery. One of the "discoveries" they made regarding early mint practices was that of a die sinking jig that would be used for punching lettering into dies. Hand-held punches didn't work well, so the late Joe Rust, their president and machinist, designed a jig to hold the punches square to the die. Later, evidence that the mint had a similar device was discovered in the form of a receipt dated 1793 for such a device.

Coinhog · October 11, 2006 1:02PM

Is there any place to purchase these pieces other than ebay?

MrEureka · October 11, 2006 3:12PM

the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable

I agree.

As for the investment potential offered by the copies, which appears to be the thrust of the original post, I tend to agree that the outlook is good. Not that it matters to me. I have no interest in collecting or investing in the stuff. I have my hands full with real coins, thank you.

Aegis3 · October 11, 2006 3:17PM

<< the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable

I agree.

As for the investment potential offered by the copies, which appears to be the thrust of the original post, I tend to agree that the outlook is good. Not that it matters to me. I have no interest in collecting or investing in the stuff. I have my hands full with real coins, thank you. >>

Got any elephant tokens overstruck on half dollars? :)

BlindedByEgo · October 11, 2006 3:27PM

Don't like 'em. Seen too many altered with the intent of being deceptive.

The "reaserch" could have been just as easily done with fantasy designs.

edix2001 · October 11, 2006 11:38PM

It's fair to seek opinions on Gallery Mint Museum coin reproductions, but the premise that they are now "out of production" is incorrect.
I have posted previously on this matter, including text from Mike Ellis, a member of the board of the non-profit Gallery Mint Museum Foundation who states that progress on building the museum continues to be underway and new products will continue to be produced.
There may be some issues with the original for-profit concern, now entirely owned by Ron Landis, but I have no information on that. In any case, the non-profit was the long term goal for Landis, which is now over a year old.

xbob · October 11, 2006 11:53PM

I think they look nice other than the COPY stamped into them. It always looks so crappy the way it's done. Why didn't they ever work COPY into the design somewhere, in a more pleasing way, rather than stamping it in unattractively across coin elements?

I don't own any Gallery Mint stuff but I think for moon money coins, or otherwise unobtainable coins, it's nice that they are available for those that want a replica item in their collection.

edix2001 · October 12, 2006 12:19AM

The Gallery Mint Museum has created quite a number of pieces that don't require a "COPY" stamp. Collecting those are one of my major interests at this point.
I have some webpages dedicated to their mobile mint show tokens:
Edwin's Coin Cabinet
And Verne Walrafen has an extensive website dedicated to all things GMM:
Gallery Mint Museum ScrapBook
Finally, let's not forget the actual GMM website:
Gallery Mint Museum Foundation

CaptHenway · October 12, 2006 12:21AM

<< 

<< The Gallery Mint Museum copies were never technically legal. The Hobby Protection Act of 1973 specified that the word COPY had to be incused at least 2 mm or half of the thickness of the piece into the piece, and the GMM pieces were never indented that deeply. >>

Incorrect. I just looked it up today for someone else. The part of the law covering how they reproductions must be stamped says for copies that can be incused the letters of the word COPY must be a minimum of 2 mm high, the entire word must be a minimum of six mm long. and they must be incused to a depth of .3 mm or half the thickness of the item, whichever is less. So the GMM reproductions DID meet the legal requirements. In fact they went beyond the legal requirement by also marking the edge of the coin as well, which was not required. >>

You are correct. I had misremembered height for depth.
TD

dorkkarl · October 12, 2006 12:31AM

<< I'm glad they are gone. But now we are stuck with their all too real looking copies. They should have to clean up their mess. >>

odd that you think a coin clearly stamped COPY is "real looking"

<< Don't like 'em. Seen too many altered with the intent of being deceptive. >>

naturally, that NEVER happens w/ "REAL" coins, huh?

<< << btw, i like g-m products, besides which the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable.

K S >>

It wasn't just emulation, it was also re-discovery. One of the "discoveries" they made regarding early mint practices was that of a die sinking jig that would be used for punching lettering into dies. Hand-held punches didn't work well, so the late Joe Rust, their president and machinist, designed a jig to hold the punches square to the die. Later, evidence that the mint had a similar device was discovered in the form of a receipt dated 1793 for such a device. >>

bingo

K S

Conder101 · October 12, 2006 1:52AM

<< I think they look nice other than the COPY stamped into them. It always looks so crappy the way it's done. Why didn't they ever work COPY into the design somewhere, in a more pleasing way, rather than stamping it in unattractively across coin elements? >>

Two reasons, one there are some legal requirements the word COPY must meet (see my earlier post), and two if the word copy is not across the design elements and is just in the field it would probably be even easier to remove for making "real" pieces.

shirohniichan · October 12, 2006 2:57AM

I think they're pretty cool as educational tools.

I don't have the wherewithal to afford circulated chain cents, let alone uncirculated examples. When a genuine one comes around, though, it is usually heavily worn. We sometimes forget that they were minted to be media of exchange and that they fulfilled that role by being passed from hand to hand in transactions. I like the idea of having an unc copy to have with the heavily circulated genuine coin to show a close picture of what the latter originally looked like.

JrGMan2004 · October 12, 2006 3:11AM

<< 

<< btw, i like g-m products, besides which the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable.

K S >>

It wasn't just emulation, it was also re-discovery. One of the "discoveries" they made regarding early mint practices was that of a die sinking jig that would be used for punching lettering into dies. Hand-held punches didn't work well, so the late Joe Rust, their president and machinist, designed a jig to hold the punches square to the die. Later, evidence that the mint had a similar device was discovered in the form of a receipt dated 1793 for such a device. >>

Steve (MrHalfDime) was relating to me a story from a Philladelphia ANA, I believe it was... the US Mint was getting rid of an old steam press, and I believe it was going to go to the ANA Museum, but somehow Gallery Mint was tasked with fixing it up and putting it back into working order. They may still even have that press for their museum, I don't remember exactly. But they had this press on display at the ANA show, and they fired her up and started making coins on it. Well all of a sudden, it went haywire, and it started to make all these different errors. Errors that are quite rare and valuable from original coins, and previously it had only been speculation on how exactly these had occured, but now these people were seeing them being made right before their eyes. Originally they were giving away the coins, but Brad Karoleff, being the smart business man he is, jumped up and gathered all the coins up and held an impromptu auction with all of the proceeds going to the Gallery Mint Meuseum. And apparently some of those coins brought a good amount of money for the mueseum.

Cladiator · October 12, 2006 3:25AM

<< 

<< 

<< btw, i like g-m products, besides which the research value that was created by their emulation of original mint practices has been inestimable.

K S >>

It wasn't just emulation, it was also re-discovery. One of the "discoveries" they made regarding early mint practices was that of a die sinking jig that would be used for punching lettering into dies. Hand-held punches didn't work well, so the late Joe Rust, their president and machinist, designed a jig to hold the punches square to the die. Later, evidence that the mint had a similar device was discovered in the form of a receipt dated 1793 for such a device. >>

Steve (MrHalfDime) was relating to me a story from a Philladelphia ANA, I believe it was... the US Mint was getting rid of an old steam press, and I believe it was going to go to the ANA Museum, but somehow Gallery Mint was tasked with fixing it up and putting it back into working order. They may still even have that press for their museum, I don't remember exactly. But they had this press on display at the ANA show, and they fired her up and started making coins on it. Well all of a sudden, it went haywire, and it started to make all these different errors. Errors that are quite rare and valuable from original coins, and previously it had only been speculation on how exactly these had occured, but now these people were seeing them being made right before their eyes. Originally they were giving away the coins, but Brad Karoleff, being the smart business man he is, jumped up and gathered all the coins up and held an impromptu auction with all of the proceeds going to the Gallery Mint Meuseum. And apparently some of those coins brought a good amount of money for the mueseum. >>

That's right, very cool story!

dcarr · October 12, 2006 4:55AM

<< I'm glad they are gone. But now we are stuck with their all too real looking copies. They should have to clean up their mess. >>

Are they really "gone" ??
I saw Ron Landis at the recent Denver ANA show. What happened and what are they up to now ?

I'm not particularly interested in anything that says "copy" on it. But I think many of their items, like the modern concept dollars, are interesting.

What is your opinion of Gallery Mint copies?

Comments

Leave a Comment