Counterfeit coin for sale, $16,950

Reid Goldsborough spoke thusly...

http://www.premierpreciousmetals.com/specials

"If this Electro were the "real" MS-65 example of the 1794 Dollar, it
would no doubt be worth in excess of $1.5 million dollars. "

LOL! If my 1916 Merc had a D mint mark, it would no doubt be worth in
excess of bullion value... :-)

--
Stu Miller
Visit the Virtual Coin Museum (over 100 displays):
http://www.thestujoecollection.com/museum.htm

ok i'll bite. why is a reproduction coin worth anywhere near this price?
can't another just be made for a lot less money?

crownliner

"Stujoe" wrote in message
t...
Reid Goldsborough spoke thusly...

http://www.premierpreciousmetals.com/specials

"If this Electro were the "real" MS-65 example of the 1794 Dollar, it
would no doubt be worth in excess of $1.5 million dollars. "

LOL! If my 1916 Merc had a D mint mark, it would no doubt be worth in
excess of bullion value... :-)

--
Stu Miller
Visit the Virtual Coin Museum (over 100 displays):
http://www.thestujoecollection.com/museum.htm

"Crownliner" wrote in message
news:K46eb.637221$o%2.295876@sccrnsc02...
ok i'll bite. why is a reproduction coin worth anywhere near this price?
can't another just be made for a lot less money?

crownliner

I'll start, and let others fill in the blanks.

An electrotype requires access to the original (or a "perfect" facsimile) in
order to make the copy.

This one is *probably* one made for legitimate purposes (such as museum
display), rather than a counterfeit intended to deceive. As such, it may
have an intrinsic value related to its history.

Also, it seems to be a particularly good electrotype, right down to the rim
lettering (which would have to have been done over the seam of the two
halves.)

Its value is *in itself* rather than just as a copy of the original.

That make any sense?

Crownliner wrote:
ok i'll bite. why is a reproduction coin worth anywhere near this price?
can't another just be made for a lot less money?

crownliner

"Stujoe" wrote in message
t...

Reid Goldsborough spoke thusly...


http://www.premierpreciousmetals.com/specials

"If this Electro were the "real" MS-65 example of the 1794 Dollar, it
would no doubt be worth in excess of $1.5 million dollars. "

LOL! If my 1916 Merc had a D mint mark, it would no doubt be worth in
excess of bullion value... :-)

--
Stu Miller
Visit the Virtual Coin Museum (over 100 displays):
http://www.thestujoecollection.com/museum.htm




Yes but then it would be a counterfeit, counterfeit instead of a real counterfeit.

--
George D
Phoenix, AZ

AAA, AARP, ANA, NRA, RCC ?+1, PIA, PIAAZ, GATF 85006-3032-18-4

The reward for a good deed is to have done it.

Please use this address to mail me. Or remove the arizona in the link.
Remember there is no Arizona.


ALL emails incoming and outgoing are run thru Norton and AVG anti virus.

George D wrote:

Crownliner wrote:
ok i'll bite. why is a reproduction coin worth anywhere near this price?
can't another just be made for a lot less money?

crownliner

"Stujoe" wrote in message
t...

Reid Goldsborough spoke thusly...


http://www.premierpreciousmetals.com/specials

"If this Electro were the "real" MS-65 example of the 1794 Dollar, it
would no doubt be worth in excess of $1.5 million dollars. "

LOL! If my 1916 Merc had a D mint mark, it would no doubt be worth in
excess of bullion value... :-)

--
Stu Miller
Visit the Virtual Coin Museum (over 100 displays):
http://www.thestujoecollection.com/museum.htm




Yes but then it would be a counterfeit, counterfeit instead of a real counterfeit.

Dealer makes no mention of *why* the second electrotype can never be
available. ;-)

I'm not interested even if the decimal point moves to $16.95. You can
buy a 'Van Gogh' at Walmart, too. But Vincent never touched it.
Electrotypes are to real coins as Classics Illustrateds are to First
Editions. ;-)

Alan
'Call me Ishmael.'

In , on 09/30/2003
at 03:06 AM, George D said:

Yes but then it would be a counterfeit, counterfeit instead of a real
counterfeit.

Ooops, I was interested until I read this. I'm only interested in genuine
counterfeits! I don't want any fake fakes.

Nick

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:57:13 +1000, "A.Gent"
wrote:

This one is *probably* one made for legitimate purposes (such as museum
display), rather than a counterfeit intended to deceive. As such, it may
have an intrinsic value related to its history.

It would be interesting to discover the origins of this piece. You may
be right, that it was created for legitimate purposes. This brings up
the issue of what distinguishes a counterfeit from a replica. I feel
it's intention, which speaks to your point. Was the piece intended to
deceive when it was made?

Others take a more legalistic approach, that all copies not marked as
such with "COPY" or similar language are counterfeits. This ignores
the widespread practice of the making of unmarked replicas, which
exists today despite the Hobby Protection Act of 1973 and which
existed in the past, with such pillars of society as the Smithsonian
Institution and the Metropolitan Museum of Art selling unmarked fakes.

People who collect replicas generally prefer them unmarked or at least
marked inconspicuously, in opposition to the requirements of the Hobby
Protection Act, so as not to interfere with the replica's aesthetics.
But there's a downside to this. Some of these unmarked replicas wind
up on the market today as authentic coins. Here's one example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...&category=4738

That's a Metropolitan Museum of Art replica of an ancient Greek
Athenian Owl tetradrachm, sold in large numbers by the Met in the
1950s and 1960s. It's silver-plated and unmarked. With this auction on
eBay, this piece seems to have sold as an authentic coin for ten times
more than it would have sold for if it had been sold for what it was.

In response to these kinds of abuses, some people say, Ban all
replicas. But people like replicas. Here's an example of a replica of
the same coin made by the controversial Bulgarian Slavey Petrov. These
replicas typically sell for $20 to $25. Here it sold on eBay for about
five times this amount:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3048077020

This replica also doesn't adhere to the Hobby Protection Act's
requirements, which stipulate that the "COPY" mark be conspicuously
present on the obverse or reverse, not the rim, of replicas made in
this country or imported into this country. The sale or purchase of
these pieces kinds of pieces, though, isn't prohibited.

Lots of gray areas here.

--

Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:07:52 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

It would be interesting to discover the origins of this piece.

The seller said he believes this piece was created by the orders of
Queen Victoria in the nineteenth century for some kind of state
function. He didn't know the details. He also said that the piece has
been sold.

There were a lot of high quality electrotypes made by Robert Ready
at the British Museum around the 1860s. They were made for
educational purposes and a generally marked R.R. or M.B. on
the edge to indicate their origin. They are certainly legitimate
objects for a coin collector to acquire, but the price in this
case does seem like a lot. Good electrotypes of otherwise
unobtainable coins do sell for good money though.

Peter.
---

Reid Goldsborough wrote:

This replica also doesn't adhere to the Hobby Protection Act's
requirements, which stipulate that the "COPY" mark be conspicuously
present on the obverse or reverse, not the rim, of replicas made in
this country or imported into this country. The sale or purchase of
these pieces kinds of pieces, though, isn't prohibited.

This oft repeated claim by Mr. Goldsborough is logic defying nonsense.

An item which is prohibited by law to be imported into the United States is
classified as contraband. The fact that such an item manages to make it's way
past US Customs does not change this. You can neither own nor sell contraband.

Lots of gray areas here

Clean your glasses.


++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

The mint made electotypes for some of the 1854 seated liberty pattern cents.
These do get certified as electrotypes by PCGS.

There is an electrotype of the Class 2 1804 dollar which former ANA
president Bob Campbell purchased about 5 years back for much, much more than
this 1794 is selling for. ( I don't know the exact price, but as I recall it
was over $50,000)

If this 1794 is as good as it looks, then the asking price is steep, but not
out of the question. It is wrong , I believe to, say this is a
"counterfeit", and to call the seller bad names for offering it.

Rick





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----