Author Topic: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake  (Read 8374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 176
Re: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2014, 06:11:13 PM »
I came across that book when, on another forum, a flame war broke out between swamperbob and a member of North African persuasion over two Spanish colonial coins and aforementioned member decided to vent the lower parts of his torso here. He's gone, but the episode had me thinking.

The topic of forgeries is sensitive to owners. Some people will get aggressive, some depressed, a few consider it a lesson learned, but no one rejoices when an object of pride turns out to be a deception. Yet, simple logic dictates that you can only prove that a coin is a forgery. You cannot prove that it is genuine. That leaves an uncomfortably large grey area, where people disagree. How would you deal with that as an author? Proven forgeries are easy, but what do you do with pieces where people disagree? Books on forgeries have a black and white approach: what's in the book is false. Many have a warning that there are other forgeries out there, but they are rarely overflowing with self-doubt.

You may argue that XRF diminishes the grey area. In general, I would agree with that and I am all for non-destructive metal analysis, but XRF can be deceptive also. South American mint masters were not exactly above playing with the silver content. Memory tells me that one got so bad he was even caught and garrotted. Isaac Newton, a meticulous scientist, established the silver content on a goodly number of large Spanish colonial silver coins and found quite a bit of variance, but obviously, he didn't research all of them. At what point would a silver deficient coin become a forgery? Are the coins of the garrotted mint master forgeries?

Imitations are not all the same. As you know, contemporary counterfeits are collectible, modern counterfeits are not. Not all imitations are fraudulent. Jewellers use them, they may be used for religious or traditional reasons and there are also imitations made for lack of the genuine thing (Burmese copies of British Indian rupees come to mind). They are not the genuine article, but should not be denounced either.

I could go on for a while, but I am sure the message is clear: there is a scale of forgeries, going from fraudulent to innocent and from dead certain to dead uncertain. How do you deal with that in a book? What is your philosophy?

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline colonialjohn

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2014, 08:40:11 PM »
Obviously you have been around the block.

We both understand there is a big difference between Modern Forgeries (i.e.,Type 3 CC8Rs in our new Amazon Book) and Contemporary Circulating Counterfeits (i.e.,Type 1 CC8Rs) which circulated during the period of the regals. XRF has shown the authors as illustrated in this new CC8R Amazon Book what a modern Chinese fake for example would like as my next book ALSO will illustrate a few examples made in German Silver (Cu/Zn/Ni), Iron/Nickel and debased silver with other unusual 20thC modern elements. In the book we plate the Type 1 examples which circulated with the regals (collectible types), Type 2 slightly debased Ag issues (Ag: 80-90%) for the China market, Type 3 Modern Forgeries - most can be seen from appearance alone and then all others like the 1805 Lima Eight Reale buttons (Type 4).

So in the CC8R book this was one way to handle it. I am not self-promoting but if people would read it I think it would help them understand the differences. Its not just for Spanish American Collectors. No way to really say it without appearing I am trying to push the book. But its a book that will help any collector understand counterfeits - BETTER. Whatever ... your decision.
 
I must have missed this discussion but if you can send me a link I would be interested in what all the FUSS was about ( :o :o :o).

Microstructure with other forms of analysis like simple surface analysis (XRF) is another way which I have done experiments already but the technology is still growing and there is not yet any data bases of information with the more sophisticated microstructure (SEM/EDS) analyses. Consider every manufacturing operation being UNIQUE. Consider every manufacturing operation being like a fingerprint in which the Microstructure of the alloy and the specific arrangements of the different metals in the alloy was created by a unique operation. Its true varying day to day operations and ore mixing complicate this picture - but with patience/time/large data bases and multiple analytical techniques thrown in many answers will eventuallyget answered. This I believe ... but for now ... talk is cheap.

All I can do is work with what tools I have in front of me.

In terms of modern forgeries from China and actual contemporary counterfeits of the period I have no issues in seeing and anlyzing the differences. One thing which is always a tough nut to crack is INTENTIONAL debasement of coins say in a war periods, emergency money periods or the like ... sometimes this is not so clear and an investigator can cry out debasement but in the end it was INTENTIONAL. Rare - but it has happened as any U.K. student knows. Not so much in the Americas - at all actually.

Over the years I had numerous collectors mail me items for analysis. In my collection now of over 250 specimens foreign CCs I will select a certain portion to illustrate their make-up based on XRF analysis and my experience with certain issues. I do know in Spink Circulars and British Numismatic Journals there is treatments/discussions of  counterfeits. This I can use if not ancient and of the periods of 1500-1800. I find post 1800 types common and not very interesting in terms of alloy types, etc.. The period of 1500-1800 is simply PERSONAL.

But will consider some post-1800 types as from Poulton (spelling?) of Denmark - recently.

John Lorenzo
Numismatist
United States

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 176
Re: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2014, 10:32:59 PM »
I must have missed this discussion but if you can send me a link I would be interested in what all the FUSS was about ( :o :o :o).

Click the words flame war in my above post and your browser will take you there.

All I can do is work with what tools I have in front of me.

That's the bottom line for all of us.

In terms of modern forgeries from China and actual contemporary counterfeits of the period I have no issues in seeing and anlyzing the differences.

You may want to send a PM to our member bgriff99. I think there's great fun potential between you two.

Over the years I had numerous collectors mail me items for analysis. In my collection now of over 250 specimens foreign CCs I will select a certain portion to illustrate their make-up based on XRF analysis and my experience with certain issues

The question fake or genuine comes up quite regularly on this site. It would be great to have your views. There is a board devoted to fakes, but also, the site has multiple search functions. Search for the usual key words and stuff will come up. Yell if you need help.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline colonialjohn

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2014, 11:21:14 PM »
I guess trust is the tough part. In terms of some people wanting to send me their coins for XRF analysis. Its sometimes difficult to make of course an accurate determination unless I have seen the type before and photos can be variable.

Anyway I am tuned in to this channel. I will throw my 2Cents in based on my experience.

People can follow me on E-Bay - as an example I have U.K. sixpence with full XRF analysis - again sounds like advertising but its a good learning tool maybe for some folks just doing the conventional ring test.

EBAY ID = johnmenc

JPL

Offline colonialjohn

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2014, 11:36:18 PM »
Read the link. Yes. I am a CCF member. Having worked with Gurney for five years on the book doing the Material Analysis section he starts from thinking a coin is counterfeit to genuine. Most people go from genuine to counterfeit.

That's all I can say ... <BG>.

So far no party has question any of our findings in the book. Remember its a lot to swallow: Sheffield's (silver plated counterfeits made in Birmingham of high quality), Type 2's with reduced Ag for the China Market in the late 19thC and the other forgeries.

Take this and there are hundreds in TPG holders today. I own about half dozen Bust & Cap & Rays in both PCGS & NGC holders. We have seen one recently in the CCF forum where Heritage pulled within a PCGS holder. Broke it out? and called it a counterfeit and placed it back in the auction. But it had a PCGS holder  :o :o :o tag.

Finally pulled all together ... still at Sixbid the last time I looked under UK for GIII types on a 8 Reales (countermark types). See the CCF link.

Numismatics can be a crazy scenario ... at times  ??? ??? ???

JPL

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 176
Re: Contemporary Forgery Gallery - please post pairs real & fake
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2014, 12:05:29 AM »
I understand. No agreement on this forum either.

Not surprised to read your opinion on TPGs. Add fraudulent holders (also made in China) and you are back on your own, with only experience and research to count on. It may be better that way. At least you trust yourself. I remember one instance of a member of this forum posting a coin and some people calling it into question. The auctioneer said he could send it back. He kept the coin.

Glad to have you on board, John. Enjoy yourself here. It is not difficult ;)

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.