Should counterfeit coins be destroyed?

[Prethen]

[Posted "across the street", also.]

 

I'm guessing that most counterfeits that were created are actually still around. I'm willing to bet most people who end up with them don't destroy them, especially if what they thought was genuine was discovered to be fake. That just means there are a bunch of fake coins out there awaiting for the next owner at some point in the future. If the coin isn't properly holdered and/or noted as fake, the next new owner may very well think it's real.

 

Cameron claimed that the amount of counterfeits hitting the services and seen raw (on the bourse floor and what-not) are decreasing in frequency. I cannot counter or back-up this claim since I usually don't go after coins that counterfeiters want to copy.

 

All sorts of U.S. coins are counterfeited. If it has value to the counterfeiter to do, they'd do it. Three-cent silver coins, especially 1861-1862 were counterfeited (what the heck?). All sorts of gold coins, trade dollars, seated dollars, all key dates, you name it! It's like a damn minefield out there if you going after any coins of value.

 

I posed an extreme solution to Cameron (ICG) yesterday and he bristled at the idea. He felt that the counterfeit problem seems to be leveling off and/or getting better. What do you guys think and what other ideas would you have?

 

Perhaps there's a reason to keep some counterfeits around but I was thinking of a long term solution to get them permanently out of the pipeline. I suggested that perhaps when a coin is submitted to a service and determined that it's a fake, one of two things could happen.

 

#1 - The coin is destroyed at the service. I know this would likely tick off just about anyone who submitted the coin, but if all the services did it, there would be no getting around it and no chance that the coin would be available again in public hands.

 

#2 - The coin is encapsulated in a special holder. This special holder would label the coin as a counterfeit. Plus, and more importantly, the holder would be tamperproof to the point that if someone without the proper equipment (that only the services should be allowed to have) tried to open the holder, the coin would be severely damaged. I don't know how such a holder would work or even if it's possible with our current technology so it's a little "pie-in-the-sky" stuff.

 

#3 - The service etches (or somehow marks the coin) with something tagging it as counterfeit. The placement of the marking could be fairly inconspicuous. If it's too hard to find (such as micro tagging with a laser) then the coin might still trade hands until someone has the ability to read the coin or get it confirmed by someone who can.

 

I know that I'll probably ruffle a few feathers here and maybe get some flames, but I think counterfeits can really hurt the hobby. There are stories of people getting badly burned just once by buying something they thought was genuine and exiting the hobby permanently. Buying a single counterfeit accidentally can quickly put your collection on the serious losing side of value.

 

Okay, let me don my suit of armor....hit me!

[RGT]

While these may be worthy ideas, I suppose it's a good thing Stacks didn't do anything to a certain "counterfit" nickel a few years back.

[James_OldeTowne]

((( I'm guessing that most counterfeits that were created are actually still around. )))

This is simply not true. Most counterfeit coins have been destroyed by far, as can be proven by the number that have disappeared from the marketplace (unless you actually believe someone is hoarding them...).

 

A classic example would be gold counterfeits, which usually end up getting melted for bullion. Another good example is counterfeit bust halves, most of which have been destroyed.

 

I happen to collect counterfeits, though my collection is very small. In many cases, a spurious coin is worth more than it's genuine counterpart, again such as in the case of bust half-dollars.

 

Note that I'm differentiating between "counterfeit" versus "altered" coins. I do believe, for example, any and all 1944-D cents altered to 1914-D should be destroyed. Many people mistakenly use the term "counterfeit", when they really mean to say "alteration".

 

Even all alterations should not be destroyed. There's a well-known story of the guy who had an 1804 Bust dollar that had been altered from an 1802. He hired a jeweler to alter it BACK to an 1802! I'm glad that particular alteration was not destroyed.

 

James

[gmarguli]

#1 - The coin is destroyed at the service. I know this would likely tick off just about anyone who submitted the coin, but if all the services did it, there would be no getting around it and no chance that the coin would be available again in public hands.

 

Care to explain why you feel the grading service should have the authority to destroy the personal property of others based just on their opinion?

 

Over the years I've submitted a wide variety of coins to the grading services. I'd guess that I've submitted somewhere between 9,000-10,000 coins over the years. These coins have ranged from modern stuff that was minted that year to a pattern coin with a mintage of 2 with the second example being impounded in the Smithsonian. Out of all those submissions I've had two coins bodybagged for being counterfeit.

 

Coin 1 (happened about 15 years ago): A US gold eagle I purchased raw that I felt was unc. ANACS said AU58. I cracked it and PCGS said Questionable Authenticity. It went back to ANACS where they said MS62.

 

Which service is correct? Under your suggestion, once that coin hits PCGS they destroy it. However, another set of experts thought the coin was OK twice.

 

Coin 2 (happened a few months ago): An Indian silver coin from the 18th century. NGC said Questionable Authenticity. I don't have a clue if it was. The dealer didn't seem to think so and I bet he handles more of these than NGC does. It wasn't an expensive coin, so I can't imagine many people submit them.

 

Is NGC or the dealer correct? Under your suggestion, once that coin hits NGC they destroy it.

 

And how about the liability. I could submit a bunch of counterfeit coins to a service I don't like, they destroy them, I sue them and get them in court and my lawyer asks them if they ever slabbed a fake coin (they have) or ever bodybagged a real one as fake (they have) and their "expert opinion" becomes worth qite a bit less and they're going to have to write me a big check.

[Hoot]

As has been pointed out, I don't think there's an easy solution. I've seen some amazing counterfeit and altered coins that are fairly impressive works of art. Some 1815 dates cents are pretty impressive and they actually bring a premium among early American copper collectors. Some of the $2.5 Indians are also simply amazing. I have one that is just slightly the wrong color and has a microscopic tooling mark that is diagnostic.

 

As for the grading services, it might be reasonable for them to encapsulate the coin and label it without a grade. However, they should not destroy the coin, etch it, or put it in a booby-trapped holder. Damaging the piece is damaging someone's personal property and as RGT said, in the case of mistaken identity, this could all be very costly.

 

There will always be fakes of one form or another, many of which get passed around as the real deal for years, such as the recent micro-O Morgans that were announced. I don't think they should be blanketly destroyed, but labeling them in a holder may help among honest folks.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

Actually, I think there's a simple solution that would satisfy just about everyone: grading services should label the holder either ALTERED or COUNTERFEIT, and mention the type of alteration or counterfeiting. This would satisfy:

 

#1 making it obvious to any potential buyer that the coin is not genuine

 

#2 education of the public as to how to recognize altered/counterfeit coins

 

#3 still make the coins available on the market as legitimate collectables for people who like to collect them

 

James

[Prethen]

But, it doesn't solve the problem of taking the coin off the market permanently so someone else doesn't get screwed. All you need to do is crack the plastic.

[midwest]

Prethen I have one word for you... NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The fact is anybody can be screwed by anycoin.

 

How about if the grading services start destroying any coins that are bagged

 

If any grading service implemented any of your ideas they would be out of business in one year or less.

[Hoot]

But, it doesn't solve the problem of taking the coin off the market permanently so someone else doesn't get screwed. All you need to do is crack the plastic.

 

This is the fundamental problem, but I simply do not believe that there's a solution. A person has to arm themselves with education and do their best from there.

 

Still, it makes no sense that counterfeit and altered coins are not encapsulated and labeled as such. It won't stop the crack-out phenomenon, but a few coins will then simply be tucked away in the slab.

 

Hoot

[Mozin]

Actually, I think there's a simple solution that would satisfy just about everyone: grading services should label the holder either ALTERED or COUNTERFEIT, and mention the type of alteration or counterfeiting. This would satisfy:

 

#1 making it obvious to any potential buyer that the coin is not genuine

 

#2 education of the public as to how to recognize altered/counterfeit coins

 

#3 still make the coins available on the market as legitimate collectables for people who like to collect them

 

James

[Oldtrader3]

During the 1960's, I remember seeing counterfeit Indian quarter eagles and half eagles in almost every jewelry shop window in San Jose, Costa Rica. I believe that most of them were 14 carat gold. Some were quite convincing fakes.

[Die Varieties]

"Should counterfeit coins be destroyed?"

 

I have a couple of fakes in my personal collection and will never be sold. Therefore -- they are "off the market." As mentioned in an earlier post -- education is and always will be the key.

 

At one time -- the 1969-S 1c Major DDO was declared counterfeit because of the governments propaganda in associating it with the 1969-P 1c DDO that was a counterfeit. This misinformation (whether intentional or not) caused a few of the genuine '69-S 1c DDO's eventually being destroyed by the Secret Service when an error dealer turned them over to them.

 

So, in response to should counterfeit coins be destroyed my answer is no. I believe a lot is to be learned from them.

[Prethen]

Never sold?

 

When you die, do you know exactly what will happen to them....really? Your intentions might be for the best, but the next in line to get them might feel differently. Even if in your case, these coins will "never" end up being attempted sold as real, there are many cases where it's very likely to happen once the estate goes up for sale. Hence, the reason why I would advocate destroying or "trapping" them so that no one would ever buy them as real ever again.

 

"Should counterfeit coins be destroyed?"

 

I have a couple of fakes in my personal collection and will never be sold. Therefore -- they are "off the market." As mentioned in an earlier post -- education is and always will be the key.

 

At one time -- the 1969-S 1c Major DDO was declared counterfeit because of the governments propaganda in associating it with the 1969-P 1c DDO that was a counterfeit. This misinformation (whether intentional or not) caused a few of the genuine '69-S 1c DDO's eventually being destroyed by the Secret Service when an error dealer turned them over to them.

 

So, in response to should counterfeit coins be destroyed my answer is no. I believe a lot is to be learned from them.

[Die Varieties]

"Never sold?

 

When you die, do you know exactly what will happen to them....really? Your intentions might be for the best, but the next in line to get them might feel differently. Even if in your case, these coins will "never" end up being attempted sold as real, there are many cases where it's very likely to happen once the estate goes up for sale. Hence, the reason why I would advocate destroying or "trapping" them so that no one would ever buy them as real ever again."

 

It appears you want to play split the hairs. Your idea of destroying or "trapping" them for which I believe your saying encapsulation with annotation as counterfeit does not and will not work. Look at all the coins that are cracked out -- and -- continue to be cracked out. The same cracking out could be just as easily accomplished with the so called "trapped" coins policy you advocate being utilized.

 

As far as destroying them will never work. I don't know how other collectors feel, but the coin(s) I submit to whomever TPGS are my coin(s). Not the grading service. If a grading service decides not to encapsulate my coin due to their graders believing it may not be genuine -- that is their right, however, their opinion in and of itself DOES NOT necessarily make the coin not genuine. It's an opinion and we all know about opinions. As mentioned earlier in another post -- Stacks declared the 1913 5c as not genuine. We all now know that it was the real deal.

 

There would be some serious legal ramifications if a destroying coin(s) policy was implemented. A concensus will not happen on that type of platform.

[IGWT]

I note James's comment differentiating between "altered" and "counterfeit" coins. With that distinction in mind, I don't think that we should destroy counterfeit coins.

 

Consider the following excerpt:

 

"When the value of the material of which the small currency is made is far below the nominal value of the coin, it is an encouragement to counterfeiting, as it increases the profits of coining to such an extent that a secret competition is created against the United States Mint. . . .

 

. . . . [We] were not suprised to on reading a short time ago the following item in the daily papers: Five-Cent Nickels by the Bushel -- The trial of Philip lowenski and John S. and Thomas Loughery, the five-cent counterfeiters, was begun in Brooklyn. They were detected in the making of spurious coin in two fashionable houses in Lexinton Avenue, Brooklyn. They had the most costly machinery and dies, and the money they produced puzzled the experts. . . . The United States Marshal estimates that about $100 a day was made, and that nearly $50,000 was in circulation. August Taubert, the die-sinker who was in the employ of the gang, has turned State's evidence, and it is expected that his testimony will convict the gang."

 

Vol. 8, Issue 8 Manufacturer and Builder, Mistakes in Our Small Metallic Currency at 171 (Western & Co., New York, N.Y. 1876). The writer of this editorial piece criticized the decision to break the connection between the intrinsic value of coinage and its face value. The counterfeit shield nickels struck in Brooklyn tell an important part of the story about shield nickels in particular and our coinage in general. They are, in two words, numismatic history.

 

You can occasionally spot contemporary (meaning made on the date represented on the coin) counterfeits on eBay -- and, frankly, they're often worth more than a genuine coin in the same condition. One of those estimated 1 million 5c counterfeits placed into circulation in 1876 by the "Brooklyn Mint" belongs in my collection. Don't destroy it.

[IGWT]

ttt for a good topic by BCG

[shanonmore]

I personally found a 1943 copper "colored" penny in my husbands grandfather's collection we inherited. It was specially packed (which is amazing considering how he cared for some of them), and has the exact eight and shows no signs of the steel however; it's magnetic. I will be having it evaluated though because I have seen where there were mistakes during that time with crossovers with other countries metals, meaning it may not be copper but something else. Now, if I thought it would be destroyed, I could never send it in because even if it is counterfeit, it obviously meant something to hubby's grandpa and I wouldn't want to lose it.

 

Besides, how much fun will it be to put it into a special case and leave it for my kids to find when I pass on?