Illegality in numismatics

To most level-headed people who follow numismatics, the biggest
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.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:07:15 -0800 (PST), Reid Goldsborough
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 -- (Clarification Required)
Cogito ersatz sum -- I think I'm a cheap imitation.

On Nov 8, 11:07 am, Reid Goldsborough
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."

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
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.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 23:23:51 -0500, "RF" wrote:

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 -- (Clarification Required)
Cogito eggo sum -- I'm thinking toaster waffles for breakfast.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 23:23:51 -0500, "RF" wrote:

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
.. .
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.

No it isn't.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 23:23:51 -0500, "RF" wrote:

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
. ..
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.

No it isn't.

That's a disagreement.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 07:33:58 -0500, "RF" wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 23:23:51 -0500, "RF" wrote:

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
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.

No it isn't.

That's a disagreement.

That's just contradiction. I paid for a full argument.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

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.

On Nov 9, 9:22*am, "Jeff R." wrote:
tony cooper wrote:

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.

RCC isn't argument. RCC is abuse!!! Argument is next door.

oly