Illegality in numismatics
Reid Goldsborough
ongoing criminal activity involving it is the making and selling of
counterfeits as authentic coins. There's been a lot of discussion
here, and in print, about Chinese counterfeits, which seems to be the
latest severe threat. But fraud against collectors has been taking
place for a long time, since people first started collecting coins in
the middle ages. And counterfeiting itself has taken place since the
first coins around 600 BC.
But maybe the most curious criminal activity involving numismatics,
something I've brought up here before, is the illegal striking and
selling of coins by U.S. Mint officials. This has also gone on for a
very long time, since U.S. coin collecting first started becoming
popular in the 1850s. Most curiously, the highest priced of all U.S.
coins are these "Mint forgeries." Included here, most famously, are
the 1933 Saints, the 1913 Liberty Head nickels, and the Class II and
Class III 1804 dollars. But there's also all the 1852 proof
denominations and the 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars. What's more, the
1964-D Peace dollars and the 1974 aluminum cents, according to
reliable sources, are either out there or must be out there in private
hands.
Any others I've missed?
Also curiously, the U.S. Mint and legal authorities in general will
seize more recent Mint forgeries, beginning with the 1933 Saints, but
not the earlier ones.
Michael Benveniste
<reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Also curiously, the U.S. Mint and legal authorities in general will
>seize more recent Mint forgeries, beginning with the 1933 Saints, but
>not the earlier ones.
Unlike the 1913 Liberty Nickels, the 1933 Saints are not mint-made
forgeries or fantasies -- they were struck legitimately but "escaped
into the wild" under suspicious circumstances. Ditto the 1974
aluminum cents and 1964 peace dollars, but I've never seen a reliable
report of the latter in private hands. (ICG certified an aluminum
cent.)
In fact, unless some error coins were deliberately made, the only more
recent "mint forgery" I can think of is Phillip "let's make a" Diehl's
22K gold Sacagawea "bullion" coins. The Cheerios and VIP Sacagawea
were struck legally, but the release process was, shall we say, a bit
unusual.
There are a bunch of mid 18th century patterns that were quasi-legal
at the time. 1856 Flying Eagle Cents fall into this category, as do
$4 Stellas and things like the 1868 large cent. Arguably all pre-1860
minor proof coins and all pre-1878 silver and gold proofs were illegal
as well.
1861-D dollars, some 1861-O half-dollars, and some 1861-O $20 gold
coins were certainly struck without the permission of the United
States Government. One could argue that they are foreign made
counterfeits.
At this late date, it's probably impossible to determine the legality
of things like the 1870-S half-dime and $3 gold coins or the 1894-S
dime.
I could ramble on, but to what end? The historical record of
corruption and cronyism at the U.S. Mint in the 19th century has been
documented many times.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Cogito ersatz sum -- I think I'm a cheap imitation.
Mike Marotta
wrote:
> But maybe the most curious criminal activity involving numismatics,
> something I've brought up here before, is the illegal striking and
> selling of coins by U.S. Mint officials.
I know what I believe and why. I know how I perceive and array the
facts.
But tell us, in your own words, why it is that Mint employees are not
simply providing material to fill the "black cabinets" of serious
collectors of counterfeits, fakes, frauds and phonies?
How do you differentiate the collector of numismatic forgeries who
claims to be "studying" counterfeits from the creators of these
popular "bogos"? How is the buyer on a different moral plane than the
seller?
Michael
"Enquiring minds want to know."
RF
news:r7lch497ekt9htvst...@4ax.com...
> Arguably all pre-1860
> minor proof coins and all pre-1878 silver and gold proofs were illegal
> as well.
I hate when someone says "arguably".
Of couse it's arguable, anything is arguable.
Michael Benveniste
>I hate when someone says "arguably".
>Of couse it's arguable, anything is arguable.
Especially since I got it backwards -- the dates were 1860 for silver
and gold and 1878 for minors.
The problem isn't that it was illegal for the Mint to create proof
coins, but there was no law explicitly permitting their distribution.
The Mint didn't record the sales in the Director's Annual report.
While the metal was accounted for as "medals," unlike medals proof
coins were legal tender. As for the seignorage from the transactions,
no one knows how much was kept by the mint for operations and how much
went out the door in the form of "bonuses."
See:
http://ansmagazine.com/summer02/treasures.html
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Cogito eggo sum -- I'm thinking toaster waffles for breakfast.
tony cooper
No it isn't.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
RF
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:83uch4t07oco6qml6...@4ax.com...
That's a disagreement.
tony cooper
That's just contradiction. I paid for a full argument.
Jeff R.
>>>>
>>>> I hate when someone says "arguably".
>>>> Of couse it's arguable, anything is arguable.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>
>> That's a disagreement.
>
> That's just contradiction. I paid for a full argument.
No you didn't.
oly
RCC isn't argument. RCC is abuse!!! Argument is next door.
oly
mazorj
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4f25b452-698b-411b...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Only arguably so.
Reid Goldsborough
lack of resources and priorities. The Secret Service understandably
devotes most of its resources to going after those who make or
knowingly pass counterfeits of current currency.
But if you had a friend of the collecting community on the inside, you
perhaps could divert a small but not insignificant percentage of
resource toward fakes of collectables. Granted, this doesn't have the
potential of impacting the money supply, only the collectables market,
a much smaller thing. But it also impacts our knowledge of the past,
our collective heritage.
Here are two projects for you, Michael, when you become a fed:
1) Go after the dozens of forgery crooks who have set up shop on eBay,
selling the same fakes over and over, sometimes for years under their
same name/I.D., often changing I.D.s when eBay catches on or when
their feedback drops below a certain point. This happens with both
coins and antiquities. It no doubt happens as well with many other
types of goods that can be counterfeited.
2) Go after the antiquities shop in Manhattan that has been selling
forgeries as authentic for many years. This is an open secret in the
industry. Everybody knows about this shop. I was there once, looking
at fake Alexander tetradrachms sold as authentic. This also has been
under the authorities' radar. There may be other shops like this, but
this is the most infamous. I won't name names for obvious reasons, but
if you don't know who I'm talking about, just ask any legitimate
antiquities dealer.
Let us know how things go.
tony cooper
No it isn't. It's just along the corridor in 12A.
Terry
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0eb90ab9-6f09-43b0...@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
I don't believe the 1933 Saints should be included in that list.
Reid Goldsborough
> Unlike the 1913 Liberty Nickels, the 1933 Saints are not mint-made
> forgeries or fantasies -- they were struck legitimately but "escaped
> into the wild" under suspicious circumstances. Ditto the 1974
Terry just mentioned this too. This kind of substance is interesting.
The other stuff is funny, though not in the way they intended.
So, is there a difference between 1913 Nickels, and similar coins, and
1933 Saints, and similar coins? My view is that there's no significant
difference. The former were minted illegally and released illegally
(sold secretly by Mint employees to private individuals for their own,
not the Mint's, profit). The latter were minted legally and released
illegally (sold secretly by Mint employees to private individuals for
their own, not the Mint's, profit). Both, I'd maintain, are therefore
"Mint forgeries," coins released to the public not just under
"suspicious" circumstances but illegal ones.
You could quibble that to be any kind of forgery a coin has to be
minted illegally. I'd maintain it's not the striking of a coin by the
Mint that's most important but how a coin leaves the Mint. What's key
here is that, just as with any other kind of graft, Mint employees
secretly lined their pockets.
I understand the attraction of the 1933s, the 1913s, the Class IIIs,
and so on. I'm not trying to be sanctimonious here, to look down on
this. I just find the phenomenon interesting.
Frank Provasek
> Unlike the 1913 Liberty Nickels, the 1933 Saints are not mint-made
> forgeries or fantasies -- they were struck legitimately but "escaped
> into the wild" under suspicious circumstances. Ditto the 1974
> aluminum cents and 1964 peace dollars, but I've never seen a reliable
> report of the latter in private hands. (ICG certified an aluminum
> cent.)
I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that a 1913 Liberty
nickel
is a forgery or fantasy. It's known that the Buffalo nickel was
delayed, and the
mint was told to "hold off" striking of 1913 Liberty nickels. It's
almost certain that
some 1913 Liberty nickel dies were prepared in the Fall of 1912, and
test strikes
are normally made (The original usage of "proof" was as in "proving
the dies")
Whether they were stolen at that point, purchased at face value with
permission, handed out
as souvenirs, maybe traded to the mint foreman for "a good 5¢ cigar"
is all speculation. But
it seems most likely that they were MADE as normal preparation for the
next year's production.
--
RARE COIN AUCTIONS NO RESERVES www.frankcoins.com
http://myworld.ebay.com/frankcoins Texas Auction License
11259, Board member of Texas Coin Dealers Association,
Member TNA, ANA, PCGS, NGC - Full Time Since 1991
Michael Benveniste
> I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that a 1913 Liberty
> nickel is a forgery or fantasy. It's known that the Buffalo nickel
> was delayed, and the mint was told to "hold off" striking of 1913
> Liberty nickels. It's almost certain that some 1913 Liberty nickel
> dies were prepared in the Fall of 1912, and test strikes
> But it seems most likely that they were MADE as normal preparation
> for the next year's production.
Possible, yes. Likely in my estimation? No.
It's fairly rare for trial strikes to be created from polished
dies or struck at proof pressures. After all, part of the reason
for trial strikes is to calibrate the machinery. One would also
expect to differences between trial strikes and "standard" proof
runs of other "V" nickels; do you know of any such?
After extensive research of old Mint records, Robert W. Julian
reached the conclusion that 1913 "V's" were struck after the
dies were ordered to be destroyed. Other theories state that
they were struck as late as 1918.
In April 2006, U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White stated what
seemed to be an official government position that 1913 Liberty
nickels are fantasies: He stated, "No documentation exists to
show it was made at the United States Mint."
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/coins/worden-coinage0706b.htm
Alas, apparently Mr. White didn't explain why they aren't then
seizable as counterfeits.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
You'll never see all the places, or read all the books, but
fortunately, they're not all recommended.
Frank Provasek
>
> Possible, yes. Likely in my estimation? No.
>
> It's fairly rare for trial strikes to be created from polished
> dies or struck at proof pressures. After all, part of the reason
> for trial strikes is to calibrate the machinery. One would also
> expect to differences between trial strikes and "standard" proof
> runs of other "V" nickels; do you know of any such?
>
Don't confuse "die trials" with "trial strikes" To make only 5 coins,
a
proof press would be preferred, as blanks can be fed in and struck one
at a time.
A production press makes 20 or so incomplete strikes as it starts up
and shuts down, and must have a supply of blanks automatically fed
into it to prevent ruining
the dies in a clash with no blank.
Only 2 of the 5 really seem to be true Proofs. Perhaps a couple were
struck with the dies "as made" then some after polishing the dies, to
see what each style looked like.
----
Frank Provasek Rare Coins
http://www.frankcoins.com Ebay FRANKCOINS
Member ANA, Texas Numismatic Assoc, Texas Coin Dealers Assoc,
PCGS, NGC, & ANACS authorized dealer, Texas Auctioneer Lic 11259
Michael Benveniste
<fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote:
>Don't confuse "die trials" with "trial strikes" To make only 5 coins,
>a proof press would be preferred, as blanks can be fed in and struck one
>at a time.
Taxay addressed that assertion in the 1960's. According to his
research, that sort of test strike was only done at the time for new
designs or master dies.
Moreover, records were found for such test strikes in other years; no
such records exist for the 1913's. An informal, unrecorded, adhoc
test strike would still count as a mint-made fantasy piece to my mind.
>Only 2 of the 5 really seem to be true Proofs. Perhaps a couple were
>struck with the dies "as made" then some after polishing the dies, to
>see what each style looked like.
The more likely explanation for the different appearances is due to
improperly prepared planchets, which in turn supports the theory of
covert minting.
Again, anything is possible, and people have been debating the issue
almost since the "discovery." The distinction I was trying to make is
that the 1933 $20, 1964 $1, and 1974 aluminum cents were all
documented authorized mintages but unauthorized distributions. No
authorization has ever been found for minting 1913 Liberty Nickels
even as test strikes.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)