Devil worship

Catching up on some reading, I just finished the Dec. Numismatist.
Three pieces of interest to those who derive enjoyment out of studying
counterfeits:

1. The review of the new book A Nation of Counterfeiters by Stephen
Mihm mentions how about 20 percent of the country's early paper money,
issued until 1865, was likely fake. This figure is from the reviewer,
Richard Doty, a numismatic book author himself and expert on these
obsolete notes. The 20 percent figure is huge, at first glance, but I
suspect it's not uncharacteristic of the scope of the counterfeit
problem, including coins, going back to the inception of coinage. As
Doty says, it's part of our collective heritage. Sounds like an
interesting book.

2. In the Numismatic Ethics column the statement is made, "By joining
the ANA, members agree to not knowingly resell forgeries,
counterfeits, unmarked copies, altered coins or other spurious
numismatic merchandise that is not clearly labeled as such." Such
statements by the ANA make some people really, really mad. Good. g
The author of this column, Susan McMillan, is the ANA's Consumer
Awareness and Awards Coordinator. The fact is though that just as U.S.
law is unclear about the legalities of selling, buying, and collecting
counterfeits, some aspects of the ANA's code of ethics are as well. It
must be a conspiracy by the criminals who collect counterfeit coins.
Just don't transport any in your car or your car may be seized by the
Secret Service. I read it on the Internet so it must be true. g

3. Brian Silliman's column on Counterfeit Detection was just an ad for
his ANA seminar this March, without any content. But his three-day
seminar sounds interesting, focusing for one of the days on
counterfeit detection, including techniques for identifying fakes in
general as well as diagnostics for specific fakes. Those who feel all
you need to do to spot fakes is spend time with authentic coins will
probably want to avoid this seminar. Silliman used to work as an
authenticator for the ANA when it was doing authentication.

OK. Let the hypocrisy resume. Just keep in mind that 99 percent of it
will be hot air, empty words, meaning nothing. I know, everybody is
entitled to his opinion. But be wary, very wary, of those who present
themselves as experts, offering their definitive pronouncements based
on their zero years of legal training and experience. Even lawyers'
opinions are just opinions. The only opinions that really matter are
those that haven't yet been offered, by a judge or judges involved
with a relevant case. There have been no cases, ever, testing the
legality of buying, selling, or owning counterfeits of old collectable
coins in the U.S. Non-issue in the minds of the authorities. Current
paper money of course is a whole nuther matter.

As a side note, if anybody has any and is interested in trading
forgeries of ancient coins, which is one of my areas, send email. I
like them all -- authentic official ancient coins, authentic ancient
imitatives, ancient fakes, modern fakes of ancients, modern replicas,
and modern coins and medals and tokens and paper money and stamps
copying ancient coins. Studying the fakes helps me, and others, avoid
getting fooled by them, and is fun. Devil worship. g

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:40:24 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Catching up on some reading, I just finished the Dec. Numismatist.
Three pieces of interest to those who derive enjoyment out of studying
counterfeits:

1. snip

2. snip

3. Brian Silliman's column on Counterfeit Detection was just an ad for
his ANA seminar this March, without any content. But his three-day
seminar sounds interesting, focusing for one of the days on
counterfeit detection, including techniques for identifying fakes in
general as well as diagnostics for specific fakes. Those who feel all
you need to do to spot fakes is spend time with authentic coins will
probably want to avoid this seminar. Silliman used to work as an
authenticator for the ANA when it was doing authentication.

I seem to recall some idiot writing a letter to the Numismatist a few
months ago informing Brian Silliman (and his writing partner) that
they were incorrect when they stated in their column that counterfeit
coins were illegal to possess.

Oh wait a minute....that idioot was you.

OK. Let the hypocrisy resume.....

Apparently it already has.

On Jan 8, 12:40 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
Catching up on some reading, I just finished the Dec. Numismatist.
Three pieces of interest to those who derive enjoyment out of studying
counterfeits:

How do we know this message isn't a counterfeit? What did you do with
the real Reid Goldsborough? ;-) ;-)

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
...

Oh wait a minute....that idioot was you.


Heh

Phil DeMayo wrote in
:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:40:24 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Catching up on some reading, I just finished the Dec. Numismatist.
Three pieces of interest to those who derive enjoyment out of studying
counterfeits:

1. snip

2. snip

3. Brian Silliman's column on Counterfeit Detection was just an ad for
his ANA seminar this March, without any content. But his three-day
seminar sounds interesting, focusing for one of the days on
counterfeit detection, including techniques for identifying fakes in
general as well as diagnostics for specific fakes. Those who feel all
you need to do to spot fakes is spend time with authentic coins will
probably want to avoid this seminar. Silliman used to work as an
authenticator for the ANA when it was doing authentication.

I seem to recall some idiot writing a letter to the Numismatist a few
months ago informing Brian Silliman (and his writing partner) that
they were incorrect when they stated in their column that counterfeit
coins were illegal to possess.

Oh wait a minute....that idioot was you.

OK. Let the hypocrisy resume.....

Apparently it already has.


On one of the Discovery shows on coins, there was a fellow making novelty
Washington/Sacagawea mule copies. A representative from the mint said
they were legal to own and sell as long as there was no attempt to
represent them as anything other than copies.


FWIW,
Mark

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:09:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Cooper
wrote:

On one of the Discovery shows on coins, there was a fellow making novelty
Washington/Sacagawea mule copies. A representative from the mint said
they were legal to own and sell as long as there was no attempt to
represent them as anything other than copies.

Don't tell DeMayo that. He has read the law and has pronounced
definitively, over and over, that the opposite is true. Some others
have said the same, though not in the same automaton fashion. Others
have read the same law and come to the opposite conclusion. Still
others say the law isn't clear.

I say the law isn't clear, deliberately vague to give judges in the
future the opportunity to weigh in. None have done so, despite the
HUMONGOUS problem represented by BAD people collecting this material,
studying it, and believe it or not sometimes even publishing fakes to
help others avoid becoming victim.

It is interesting hearing another view on this, from a U.S. Mint
representative, saying that ownership and sale of these particular
copies as copies is legal.

I mentioned that the Dec. Numismatist included three pieces of
interest about counterfeits. There actually was a fourth. In the
Membership Report on p. 101 it was revealed that of the ANA members
who had their membership revoked, one was expelled for selling a
counterfeit coin and afterward failing to pay a court judgment. Don't
know any details, which might be interesting, about the particular
fake and so on. Very quick Google, Google News, and LexisNexis
searches just now didn't turn up anything. Anybody know anything more
about this?

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 04:25:52 -0800 (PST), Rusty
wrote:

How do we know this message isn't a counterfeit? What did you do with
the real Reid Goldsborough? ;-) ;-)

I'm afraid, for better or worse, I can't be copied, not completely
anyway. g

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:53:10 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:09:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Cooper
wrote:

On one of the Discovery shows on coins, there was a fellow making novelty
Washington/Sacagawea mule copies. A representative from the mint said
they were legal to own and sell as long as there was no attempt to
represent them as anything other than copies.

Don't tell DeMayo that. He has read the law and has pronounced
definitively, over and over, that the opposite is true. Some others
have said the same, though not in the same automaton fashion. Others
have read the same law and come to the opposite conclusion. Still
others say the law isn't clear.

He's talking about novelty pieces....like the two headed coins that
have been manufactured for ages....not a counterfeit.

I say the law isn't clear, deliberately vague to give judges in the
future the opportunity to weigh in.

That has got to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen
posted to this newsgroup.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:12:15 -0500, Phil DeMayo
wrote:

That has got to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen
posted to this newsgroup.

Really. Even more absurd than your warning people not to transport
counterfeits of collectable coins in their cars because the Secret
Service might seize their cars? How else would you explain that really
smart, really knowledgeable people (sorry, not including you here)
have come to diametrically opposite opinions about what the law says?
I'm including lawyers here as well. I think Vartian nailed it down by
saying there's nothing in the law that says possession is illegal. The
fact is that the way the law is written is vague and unclear. Those
who drafted this language likely did so deliberately -- my view,
though there's no certainty of course with this either. But then you
in your monkey way say this is one of the most absurd statements
you've read here. I don't think you actually mean this. I think you're
just doing more of your monkey thing, throwing your feces around.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:59:14 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:12:15 -0500, Phil DeMayo
wrote:

That has got to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen
posted to this newsgroup.

Really. Even more absurd than your warning people not to transport
counterfeits of collectable coins in their cars because the Secret
Service might seize their cars? How else would you explain that really
smart, really knowledgeable people (sorry, not including you here)
have come to diametrically opposite opinions about what the law says?
I'm including lawyers here as well. I think Vartian nailed it down by
saying there's nothing in the law that says possession is illegal. The
fact is that the way the law is written is vague and unclear. Those
who drafted this language likely did so deliberately -- my view,
though there's no certainty of course with this either. But then you
in your monkey way say this is one of the most absurd statements
you've read here. I don't think you actually mean this. I think you're
just doing more of your monkey thing, throwing your feces around.

US Code TITLE 49, SUBTITLE X, CHAPTER 803, Section 80302

80302. Prohibitions

(a) Definition.— In this section, “contraband” means—

(3) a forged, altered, or counterfeit—

(A) coin or an obligation or other security of the United States
Government (as defined in section 8 of title 18); or

(B) coin, obligation, or other security of the government of a foreign
country;

--------------------

Nothing vague about that.