is a dangerous thing, in my hands.
Recently had a discussion here about a micro O 1896 Morgan. And the possibility of it being a fake. PCGS declares counterfeit micro O's. Anyways the premise is simularities of faults between years on the reverse. Wouldn't this be possible if the same hub was used to make the dies? Or is there no way a hub would last that long?

But that's the problem - a hub produced by the mint wouldn't have the diagnostics these coins have. Read the entire story, you'll see what I mean.

Almost forgot - the micro O 1896-O, 1900-O, and 1902-O are ALL fake - not just some of them.

The lower section is the part I don't like. Using words like "should", "appear". The percentage silver is a defined statement. But unless they sent all of them out for testing a definative statement on that is still is not possible.

I read the entire story and I find it fascinating. On Saturday the 8th, I am speaking at the MSNS Convention Educational Forum on "Fakes, Phonies, and Counterfeits: Threat or Menace?" This is a replay of my talk at the 2004 Pittsburgh ANA Convention, with some updates, etc. I will cite this article about the micro-O as an example of why fakes are destructive to the hobby.

No doubt, someone will claim that these micro-O dollars are collectible in their own right. My thesis is that phony items start out bad and they remain that way and no amount of sophistry can gild them into acceptability.

These coins are yet another example of how fakes skew our understanding of numismatics and history. Perhaps the worst case are the so-called "western assay bars" that ended up in the Red Book and the Smithsonian. But they are not alone. Contemporary counterfeit Bust Dollars were inventoried as genuine items by the ANS. Now, these micro-Os are condemned completely.

Fair enough. But NGC has refused to slab them for years - PCGS finally got wise. So when two companies, with staff of the caliber those companies have, both agree that a coin is counterfeit - I'm inclined to believe 'em.

OK let's examine this posit of yours.

Q. Do people collect these `in their own right'?
A. Very observably....YES.

No `sophistry' involved there. Just a cold hard statement of fact

Q. Is this acceptable?
A. Well I guess you have to apply an element of sophistry to that one. After all you have to ask yourself `acceptable to whom?'. Now if you were meaning `is this acceptable to Mike Marotta?' then apparently it is not. If you were asking `is this acceptable to those who collect them?' then the answer is very observably...... YES.

Should they be collectable?...well, that question would open up debate on the matter rather than force feeding viewpoint and opinion.

Q. Can `phony' items change in terms of `acceptability'?
A. Well, given that the famous Dutch forgery of the Commonwealth Crown is considered by the collecting fraternity to have a higher value than the genuine article, it would appear that the real world provides anyone who cares to look with a very definite....... YES.

Again, no sophistry involved. No added inapplicable data. Just cold hard fact.

Hmm, this debate sounds vaguely familiar

Considering that I've seen counterfeits for sale in many auction company's catalogs, on vcoins, and elsewhere I'd say that the collectability is an established fact of the market.

So the question becomes, should the state intervene in the market for the betterment of society in surpressing counterfeits for sale when they are offered WITHOUT deceit for what they are.

That is a question for the debates forum

Too true! I'm just trying to help Mike separate the facts from `think'. What's left may (or may not) be worth debating.



Ayone who cares to look will quite readily see that to be the case.



If the `collecting hobby' readily views the collecting of counterfeits / fakes / etc as being acceptable, then hasn't the same `collecting hobby' already voted with the relevant chequebook / hard cash on the matter? Why I wonder should someone who argues strongly for capitalism seek to have the nanny state enlarged to encompass items that are obviously viewed as collectables, even at the highest echelons of the `hobby'?



Then again........ maybe not. He who claims to stand on the highest moral ground wins?....and if so, according to whose cultural mores?

To be fair to Mike, I don't recall him invoking government control in this matter. But, I think the controls that exist currently are about as rigorous as anyone is going to follow.

The `controls' involved vary significantly from country to country in keeping with the nature of the `problem' (or lack of) perceived.

At the Michigan State Numismatic Society show running this weekend April 7-9, several dealers are selling fakes, most of them unknowingly -- and apparently uncaring. In a bargain bin of "silver world crowns" I found several coins that according to SCWC are nickel and cupro-nickel and not silver at all. "Let the buyer beware," it is said.

Then, there are the ones that look like popular coins -- 1907-S Philippines dollars, 20 grams, 800 fine, bullion value, 10 million struck. If the dozen or so that I saw, I judge one to be genuine and the rest Chinese. "But counterfeits are collectible," it is said.

How much would you pay for a countefeit $100 bill? "That's a very good counterfeit," the dealer said.

It is true that the purchase and sale of counterfeits is a violation of U.S. federal law. That should be enough to give anyone in America some reason to stop and think.

Mere politics aside, I see a deeper and broader ethical issue.

In criminal justice, we say that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to condemn an innocent man. That does not excuse the crimes of the guilty. In a capitalist system, the excesses of caveat emptor and laissez faire are tolerated rather than to open the door to state intervention. That does not excuse the crooks. American capitalism separated from European capitalism when the retailers of New York City adopted the slogan "The customer is always right." That replaced the European warning of "caveat emptor." Over the last two days, I spent about $50 on custom sunglasses that I am still not happy with. They are going back to the store. There's nothing wrong with them. I just changed my mind. The customer is always right. That is how capitalism works best.

Similarly, you can make a lot of money (or not) by pandering to the lowest impulses of the masses -- or you can make just as much money (or not) by offering the best products and services. The choice is yours. It depends on what kind of person you want to be.

The American philosopher Ayn Rand created a capitalist ethic based on Aristotlean ideas of high mindedness. I want to see that prevail in numismatics. I do not want to see the hobby cheapened into a shill game.

So, I advocate against the collecting of fakes, frauds, phonies, and counterfeits.

Then why hasn't the Stack family or Victor England been arrested? I think the fedds are after current money not obsolete things Anyway, lets ignore the legal technicalities and ponder the ethics.





I just don't see how selling a Paduan, a 19th century bust half, or any other identifiable fake as a fake is unethical. There is no harm done in the transaction. The only thing that exists is the potential to do future harm.

I also prefer a capitalistic system where people choose the high road rather than the low, but in this case I think the road is right in the middle. Neither the Golden Rule nor the "Do no Harm" pirinciple are impacted by the accurate sale of counterfeits so my ethical sense is not being offended.

P.S. How do you feel about properly marked replicas like those done by GM?

A silver crown is a silver crown. A copper nickel crown is a copper nickel crown. It doesn't make them `fakes' when a dealer knowingly or carelessly calls them something else. It makes the seller a fake. A shyster.



Again, if the dealer is knowingly selling fakes or unwittingly selling fakes as being the real McCoy he or she is a shyster. All that glitters is not gold.



Actually, having read `Money of Their Own' and the exploits of Emanual Ninger and the likes I must say that if one of his `works' came my way I might be tempted to pay more than the notes claimed face value for it. That is very unlikely to happen though. Why? because they ARE so collectable that i'd never be able to afford one if it did come my way. That is a fact.



I know dealers much like the ones on your side of the pond that you mentioned (above). They too offer the `the customer is always right' philosophy. They know only too well that return statistics are very much in their favour. Out of a hundred crap items they sell, a maximum of 5% of purchasers will complain, usually much less. That doesn't mean that they have a 95% customer satisfaction rating although they are usually quick to claim this. It just means that they actually do get away with selling crap AND making claims that they have hundreds of satisfied customers. I had a very interesting conversation with one once. When I challenged him directly over a cleaned coin that he tried to sell me as being `just well worn' he agreed that the stuff he was selling was well over graded and over priced. He also said that customers could return the coins for any reason within seven days if they didn't like them. He rarely got any returns and as such he wasn't going to change his business practices. He also talked in terms of his customers being `punters'. That is, he depersonalised them. Making them out to be a different species from him. Fair game. He was also exceedingly rich through giving people exactly what he wanted them to have, including the overly lauded `the customer is always right'. So, was he doing any wrong? Capitalism at its best? Caveat Emptor not necessary?



Seems to me you would be better advocating against the shyster dealers you have come across.

Sitting on a drawing pin can cause a real pain in the butt. The smart cure is to extract the pin from the butt. The dumb cure is to start a campaign to make ownership of drawing pins `unacceptable'. Yes..... a person with REAL smarts wouldn't have experienced pain in the first place.

As for myself, not having any moral or ethical dilemas concerning collecting counterfeits I don't see anything wrong with it. If it is not wrong for me, I cannot see it as being wrong for anyone else. Why should I therefore assume that your morals and ethical standards are not robust enough to be allowed to collect counterfeits?

My guess is that most of the "crooks" who produced much of today's "collectable" counterfeits are probably already 6 feet under. It does not excuse their crime, but they are no longer profitably benefitting.



My wife just picked up custom made sunglasses today. She has 30 days to return them if she is not satisfied for any reason. I know Finland is on the fringes, but we are still in Europe.

The real point is, whether we like it or not, counterfeits ironically are collectable.

In the Russian Numismatic side, Swedish counterfeited 5 kopeks, Russian counterfeited ducats, Russian counterfeited Turkish Kuruses. Perhaps the main reason why these are so "expensive" is mainly because these were struck in real mints, either in foreign or St. Petersburg mint, etc. (plenty of great stories behind them)

While paying FULL price for a counterfeit is totally wrong for modern counterfeited coins, I personally would not mind to pay slightly over the base metal price for a filler. Otherwise, I am not going to bother.