If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Illegality in numismatics
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You Tube Numismatics (perhaps) | Mike Marotta | Coins | 3 | February 27th 07 03:33 PM |
fs: some books on US numismatics | Richard Stockley | Coins | 0 | September 10th 06 11:41 PM |
Why We Need Numismatics in the Classroom | Mike Marotta | Coins | 8 | October 16th 05 05:01 AM |
Coingate: Petro saw no "sense of illegality" at start of scandal | stonej | Coins | 0 | June 5th 05 12:13 PM |
"Big bucks" possible for you in numismatics? | Larry Louks | Coins | 5 | May 7th 05 08:55 PM |