Replicas vs. forgeries

There's been some pretty heated, and confused, discussion here lately
over the difference between coin replicas and counterfeits. The
simplistic answer is that a replica is marked as such with "COPY" or a
similar countermark. But this would be incorrect.

The U.S. Hobby Protection Act mandates that all coin replicas made
today be countermarked in large enough letters on the obverse or
reverse, but people in other countries are under no obligation to obey
U.S. laws. And replica makers in this country, most notably Peter
Rosa, have flouted this law as well (it has never been enforced with
regard to ancient coins, according to Wayne Sayles and others),
feeling that countermarking defaces the piece and detracts from its
aesthetic value. On the other hand, by not countermarking a replica,
you make it easier for the bad guys to try to pass it off as an
authentic coin, though "real" counterfeits passed off as genuine coins
are a far greater problem that replicas passed off as genuine coins.

The real difference between replicas and counterfeits is the intent of
the maker to deceive or not. The replicas of the Bulgarian Slavey
Petrov, for instance, are clearly recognized as replicas, even those
of his that aren't countermarked, by virtually everybody who has
collected coins for any period of time. Among other things, the fields
are too flat, and the styling is too flamboyant. His pieces are
created with a hydraulic press, not struck with a hammer. They're
works of art, made to pay homage to coins struck by the ancients, not
attempts to pass themselves off as ancient coins.

I have a page that illustrates the differences between several
different kinds of "pseudonumia," using the face of Medusa:

http://rg.ancients.info/medusa/replicas.html

The two replicas are clearly replicas, most notably having
unrealistically flat fields. Both replicas are marked, though the
Slavey is marked on the edge and is thus in violation of U.S. law
(again, never enforced with regard to ancient coin replicas). The
forgery is clearly different from the replicas, was clearly created to
deceive, and is quite deceptive and dangerous. The token is a fun,
interesting piece of exonumia.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

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

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:54:46 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

There's been some pretty heated, and confused, discussion here lately
over the difference between coin replicas and counterfeits. The
simplistic answer is that a replica is marked as such with "COPY" or a
similar countermark. But this would be incorrect.

The U.S. Hobby Protection Act mandates that all coin replicas made
today be countermarked in large enough letters on the obverse or
reverse, but people in other countries are under no obligation to obey
U.S. laws. And replica makers in this country, most notably Peter
Rosa, have flouted this law as well (it has never been enforced with
regard to ancient coins, according to Wayne Sayles and others)

But you fail to mention that the passage of the Hobby protection Act did
indeed accomplish a great reduction in the number of Lebanese "copies"
which were until then legally imported into the US. It also pretty much
put an end to Rosa's business of selling unmarked replicas since no
Numismatic publications granted him advertising after the passage of the
law. So while no one may have been prosecuted under the Act it has
definitly had a very real impact in reducing the amount of unmarked
replicas available to fool collectors.
,
feeling that countermarking defaces the piece and detracts from its
aesthetic value. On the other hand, by not countermarking a replica,
you make it easier for the bad guys to try to pass it off as an
authentic coin, though "real" counterfeits passed off as genuine coins
are a far greater problem that replicas passed off as genuine coins.

Are they, what numbers do you use to support this claim? How many people
are fooled by "real" counterfeits versus unmarked replicas? How about in
$ value? How about before the passage of the Hobby Protection Act when
hundreds of thousands of unmarked replicas were being imported annually?

The real difference between replicas and counterfeits is the intent of
the maker to deceive or not. The replicas of the Bulgarian Slavey
Petrov, for instance, are clearly recognized as replicas, even those
of his that aren't countermarked, by virtually everybody who has
collected coins for any period of time. Among other things, the fields
are too flat, and the styling is too flamboyant. His pieces are
created with a hydraulic press, not struck with a hammer. They're
works of art, made to pay homage to coins struck by the ancients, not
attempts to pass themselves off as ancient coins.

Can you please show us an example of the Bulgarian school forgery you
recently bought. I am very curious on how much better that coin's style
was compared to a Slavey.


I have a page that illustrates the differences between several
different kinds of "pseudonumia," using the face of Medusa:

http://rg.ancients.info/medusa/replicas.html

The two replicas are clearly replicas, most notably having
unrealistically flat fields. Both replicas are marked, though the
Slavey is marked on the edge and is thus in violation of U.S. law
(again, never enforced with regard to ancient coin replicas). The
forgery is clearly different from the replicas, was clearly created to
deceive, and is quite deceptive and dangerous. The token is a fun,
interesting piece of exonumia.

Why does a law need to be "enforced" to be useful? Isn't the legal
backing it gave publishers to stop all advertising for unmarked replicas
impact enough?

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:55:33 -0600, Jorg Lueke
wrote:

But you fail to mention that the passage of the Hobby protection Act did
indeed accomplish a great reduction in the number of Lebanese "copies"
which were until then legally imported into the US. It also pretty much
put an end to Rosa's business of selling unmarked replicas since no
Numismatic publications granted him advertising after the passage of the
law. So while no one may have been prosecuted under the Act it has
definitly had a very real impact in reducing the amount of unmarked
replicas available to fool collectors.

This is true.

Are they, what numbers do you use to support this claim?

As far as I know, nobody has done a scientific study of this, and I
very much doubt somebody will. I based my statement on my personal
observations on eBay and bourse floors. I mentioned before that I see
relatively few Slavey or Rosa replicas trying to be passed off as
authentic coins and see many "true" counterfeits trying to be passed
off as authentic coins.

There is one crook who does try to pan off replicas of ancient coins
as authentic -- this is one of his methods anyway -- and this is the
Toronto forger, which is the biggest ongoing scam in all of
numismatics. But most the fake ancient coins he has been selling on
eBay for over two years now under more than 30 different I.D.s are
cheesy cast copies of authentic coins, not Slavey or Rosa or
Antiquanova or Gallery Mint Museum or Charlton Mint or Metropolitan
Museum of Art or Getty Musuem or Museum Reproductions or other
replicas. But otherwise this happens very sporadically. One other
semi-interesting note is that this Toronto forger is so brazen that he
has filed off the "COPY" countermark on the obverse or reverse of some
of these replicas. All of his auctions are private. And bidiots still
buy...

Why does a law need to be "enforced" to be useful? Isn't the legal
backing it gave publishers to stop all advertising for unmarked replicas
impact enough?

Again, what you said is true. The Hobby Protection Act stopped the
advertising of unmarked replicas in coin publications. This had a
dramatic effect in Rosa's day and severely hurt his business. As
revenge, he changed his methods. Instead of marking his replicas
discretely on the edge, which the new law made illegal, he started
making totally unmarked replicas. I'm in no way condoning his actions.
But it is interesting numismatic history. More about this in Sayles'
book and elsewhere.

But much is different today. Now collectors have many more buying
options than in Rosa's day when mail-order buying (from coin magazine
ads) was so dominant. Today it's very easy to buy Slavey and Rosa
replicas on eBay and from dealers such as Frank Robinson and others,
who sell them openly.

Bottom line is that you have competing interests here. People who make
replicas and people who collect them prefer that they're made without
a large intrusive "COPY" stamped on their obverse or reverse that they
feel destroys the piece's aesthetics. Yet the U.S. law mandates this
at least for replicas made or imported into this country (once made or
imported, their sale isn't illegal). Also, the purpose of the law is
to prevent these replicas from being sold at some point down the line
either inadvertently or deliberately as authentic coins. But as I've
said, I believe the selling of actual counterfeits -- copies that
unlike replicas are made to deceive -- is a problem that's orders of
magnitude more severe than replicas slipping into the marketplace as
authentic coins.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Coin Collecting: Consumer Protection 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:

Yet the U.S. law mandates this at least for replicas made or
imported into this country (once made or
imported, their sale isn't illegal).

I see you still don't seem to understand the word "contraband".

Illegal items cannot magically become "legal" simply because they manage to
escape notice by Customs officials.



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

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:00:55 -0500, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:



Bottom line is that you have competing interests here. People who make
replicas and people who collect them prefer that they're made without
a large intrusive "COPY" stamped on their obverse or reverse that they
feel destroys the piece's aesthetics. Yet the U.S. law mandates this
at least for replicas made or imported into this country (once made or
imported, their sale isn't illegal). Also, the purpose of the law is
to prevent these replicas from being sold at some point down the line
either inadvertently or deliberately as authentic coins. But as I've
said, I believe the selling of actual counterfeits -- copies that
unlike replicas are made to deceive -- is a problem that's orders of
magnitude more severe than replicas slipping into the marketplace as
authentic coins.

That last sentence is what I really wonder about. If I had the time and
money I'd love to just blindly buy certain coin types from different
dealers and different venues and then see if there's some statistical
pattern which emerges. Sasanian coins are a bit too small of an area but
many of the others are quite expensive when comparing even 100 coins.
What I would truly like to know is the ratio of authentic to
-non-authentic coins being offered in a variety of series and then break
that down by a few sub categories.

In article ,
ulsion (Phil DeMayo) wrote:

I see you still don't seem to understand the word "contraband".

Above: flamebait method of stating something. Likely progress: flamewqar
in which no useful information is presented to the group

Below: non-inflammatory way to say the same thing. Likely progress:
decent discussion of contraband and other issues related to the original
posting.

"I don't think that's what "contaband" is."

--
*** Collecting euros (for no apparent reason) ***
*** Assembling a U.S. type set (to decide what to specialize in) ***

Scot Kamins wrote:

In article ,
ulsion (Phil DeMayo) wrote:

I see you still don't seem to understand the word "contraband".

Above: flamebait method of stating something. Likely progress: flamewqar
in which no useful information is presented to the group

Below: non-inflammatory way to say the same thing. Likely progress:
decent discussion of contraband and other issues related to the original
posting.

"I don't think that's what "contaband" is."

By way of illumination, Phil has been trying to get Reid to address the
legal concept of contraband in illegally imported and manufactured
items for at least a year and a half. There's a good reason Reid won't
answer it.

Alan
'Phil's Right'

In article ,
Alan & Erin Williams wrote:

By way of illumination, Phil has been trying to get Reid to address the
legal concept of contraband in illegally imported and manufactured
items for at least a year and a half. There's a good reason Reid won't
answer it.

Well, that's all fine, Alan, but what purpose does it all serve? How
does the continued animosity and bickering help anyone?

I personally find it incredibly frustrating: I'm reading a nice thread
where I'm learning something, there's a bit of give-and-take as people
ask for explanations and present contrary views, and then suddenly- BLAM
- the thread quickly dissolves in a sea of acidic bile.

I see it happen again and again and GAWD but I hate it.

--
*** Collecting euros (for no apparent reason) ***
*** Assembling a U.S. type set (to decide what to specialize in) ***

Scot Kamins wrote:

In article ,
ulsion (Phil DeMayo) wrote:

I see you still don't seem to understand the word "contraband".

Above: flamebait method of stating something. Likely progress: flamewqar
in which no useful information is presented to the group

Below: non-inflammatory way to say the same thing. Likely progress:
decent discussion of contraband and other issues related to the original
posting.

"I don't think that's what "contaband" is."

That is not what I said at all.

It should also be pointed out that the Goldsborough has made the same claim
over and over again...even "periodically" posting it.




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

Scot Kamins wrote:

In article ,
Alan & Erin Williams wrote:

By way of illumination, Phil has been trying to get Reid to address the
legal concept of contraband in illegally imported and manufactured
items for at least a year and a half. There's a good reason Reid won't
answer it.

Well, that's all fine, Alan, but what purpose does it all serve? How
does the continued animosity and bickering help anyone?

I personally find it incredibly frustrating: I'm reading a nice thread
where I'm learning something, there's a bit of give-and-take as people
ask for explanations and present contrary views, and then suddenly- BLAM
- the thread quickly dissolves in a sea of acidic bile.

I see it happen again and again and GAWD but I hate it.

I'm sorry you find it frustrating, and I'm sure that you do. Here's the
dilemma in a nutshell:

Reid continues to post the misinformation that *possession* of a coin
that violates the counterfeiting laws or the Hobby Protection Act is not
a crime, that no one has ever had one confiscated.

Phil has repeatedly cited statutes that define those items as contraband.

I pointed out and *quoted* Hancock and Spanbauer, a book listed in
Reid's Periodic Posting about Fakes, which gives a specific example of a
coin confiscated as contraband.

Reid has never responded to any of that, nor will he stop posting what
has clearly been shown to be false. It's not about information for
Reid, Scot. It's about ego and the man's categorical inability to admit
an error.

For my part, I don't want anyone to stumble into the ng, read
Goldsborough statements on that topic, and believe they are factual.
They are false.

Alan
'and that's that'