Fakes- what's the reporting etiquette when you spot them here (or elsewhere)?

[Deinomenid]

9 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

I would not want our forum to fall into the same excesses.

Agreed, though the German site has a long-running "falschungen" forum, albeit ably led by someone who seems to truly knows what they are doing in the guise of Amentia and with several stalwart aides-de-camp. That site has managed to be mostly civil and  helpful, though a source of  woe for me in accurately and indisputably showing 2 of my ancient coins are fake, one from a 100 years back!

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

I would be careful with this idea. Very careful. I remember a discussion group (CFDL— Coin Forgery Discussion List)  that existed a few years ago, with the good motivation of detecting counterfeits of ancient coins. Over time, some members of this group went completely off the rails; they condemned an extremely high number of pieces, and on the other hand qualified certain forgeries as being authentic... I would not want our forum to fall into the same excesses...☹️

Remember the guy who was here for a while who refused to post in anything but Russian, and kept putting up coin photos with different spots covered with tiny circles supposedly proving forgery, without really explaining why they did so?

[CPK]

6 hours ago, David Atherton said:

IMHO, when a questionable coin is posted here by a member sending a PM is the polite thing to do. 

And I only do that when certainty is 100% with evidence. 

I agree this is definitely the best way to handle such a situation.

3 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

I wouldn’t be happy if someone told me I had a fake but I’d be a lot less happy if they didn’t. I can make amends and get a real coin instead. Definitely a pm, though, as who likes being humiliated.

Agreed here as well.

[kirispupis]

53 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Remember the guy who was here for a while who refused to post in anything but Russian, and kept putting up coin photos with different spots covered with tiny circles supposedly proving forgery, without really explaining why they did so?

Да, я его помню. Вот это была глупость.

[ambr0zie]

I am not sure if that guy was trolling or he really believed he was smart. 

So I personally decided to solve  the mystery and I posted a few coins asking for his opinion. 3 were replicas, sold as replicas in a recent auction, 3 were random coins from my collection, I had no worries about them. As expected, he replied in a very poetic way, stating that he knows the answers (of course) but he will not discuss this. 

This reminded me about another situation - "fakes for study purposes". I saw an auction that had a large category of those. My problem was that they all were dangerous. Artificial wear. artificial patina (partially stripped), artificial damage. Those was not meant just "for study". And nobody could stop the buyer to sell them in the future as genuine. I admit that detecting forgeries is not my strongest point and a specialist would have no doubts about them, but still that was WRONG. 

I notified Biddr staff and they were very quick in their action - the whole lot of coins were removed. That was very good and as a buyer I felt respected and protected.

I also decided to ignore that particular house for any future auctions. 

[Rand]

7 hours ago, Hrefn said:

If I post a known fake, I would be grateful to be informed.  

I personally would NOT buy the Zeno's coin (I am not an expert though). I have an Anastasius solidus (from a very well known dealer), which seems have been produced similarly. Every time I look at my coins and see it, I do not like it. I have decided I would grade it by NGC and see what happens.

[SimonW]

7 hours ago, Hrefn said:

One of the coins was a distinctive coin of Zeno.  4.42  grams.  

I have had my eye on this coin for a while.  It is easily recognized by style, and by the distinctive scratch on the reverse. A quick ACS search of the image shows this very coin was sold by Sincona in 2017 for $965,  and later that year was in a CNG auction.  I am not sure if it sold then, and if so, at what price.  However, it was then sold by Roma for $5112, and later by St. James at $1914, before coming to the auction at which I was the high bidder.

 

These are all different coins if you look at them closely, but they all share the exact same condition, wear, and some flan flaws on the reverse. They are very likely transfer die forgeries. CNG withdrew theirs in 2017.

[Hrefn]

My sincere thanks to @Rand and @SimonW for their comments.  

Does anyone have experience with the IAPN and its IBSCC, the International Bureau for the Suppression of Counterfeit Coins?   It appears their information is only available to members, and membership is regulated.  They also offer an authentication service.  Has anyone ever used it?

It seems a great pity that there is information on counterfeits but the general public cannot access it, as far as I know.  

[Deinomenid]

2 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Does anyone have experience with the IAPN

They are  - as far as I know - effectively a guild  of the major auction  houses. A cynic might suggest they  between sell a  lot of the  fakes and tooled treasures we are discussing. (As well as lots of genuine things too, but tha'ts not what we are discussing here.) From their own website the  only "news" in  over a year is a slightly weaselly-worded statement saying  Richard Beale's issues are nothing to do with them as  they represent firms (eg Roma) not  individuals. And that's  it.

Because they are a guild/co-op  I never thought to send  coins to them (2 a year "free" with a large subscription) as  it felt somewhat akin to foxes  ruling the chicken coop.

 

 

[Xeno]

9 hours ago, ambr0zie said:

I am not sure if that guy was trolling or he really believed he was smart. 

So I personally decided to solve  the mystery and I posted a few coins asking for his opinion. 3 were replicas, sold as replicas in a recent auction, 3 were random coins from my collection, I had no worries about them. As expected, he replied in a very poetic way, stating that he knows the answers (of course) but he will not discuss this. 

This reminded me about another situation - "fakes for study purposes". I saw an auction that had a large category of those. My problem was that they all were dangerous. Artificial wear. artificial patina (partially stripped), artificial damage. Those was not meant just "for study". And nobody could stop the buyer to sell them in the future as genuine. I admit that detecting forgeries is not my strongest point and a specialist would have no doubts about them, but still that was WRONG. 

I notified Biddr staff and they were very quick in their action - the whole lot of coins were removed. That was very good and as a buyer I felt respected and protected.

I also decided to ignore that particular house for any future auctions. 

Have to agree with you, I am not ok with these dealers selling “replicas” of any kind. As you say, sure it’s labeled in this auction, but probably not the next one, so easy for those coins to become dangerous forgeries all it takes is the loss of provenance.  Not to mention a lot of these “copies” are being sold for hundreds of dollars on vcoins, and not just the BMC electrotypes. It worries me it makes me think they are trying to mislead people into thinking the coins are genuine or they are going to use the replicas to aid in forgery. (Isn’t that why BMC electrotype prices went so high?) 

 

Just my 2 cents but I don’t like any kind of replica other than contemporary fourrees. 

[DonnaML]

44 minutes ago, Xeno said:

Have to agree with you, I am not ok with these dealers selling “replicas” of any kind. As you say, sure it’s labeled in this auction, but probably not the next one, so easy for those coins to become dangerous forgeries all it takes is the loss of provenance.  Not to mention a lot of these “copies” are being sold for hundreds of dollars on vcoins, and not just the BMC electrotypes. It worries me it makes me think they are trying to mislead people into thinking the coins are genuine or they are going to use the replicas to aid in forgery. (Isn’t that why BMC electrotype prices went so high?) 

 

Just my 2 cents but I don’t like any kind of replica other than contemporary fourrees. 

I think they're OK if they're clearly marked with a "C" for Copy. As they're supposed to be legally in order to be imported into the USA, I believe. 

[ambr0zie]

They were not. I can't find the pics anymore but they were clearly meant to deceive. The fact that the auction house listed them in a separate category - Fake coins for study or something similar, helped with nothing. 

[Deinomenid]

Couple of "collectors' copy" gold coins  just  popped up on numisbid for auction, from a house that does monitor this site.

Marked as collectors on the description, but  strange  how they have imperfections that might make them attractive  purchases  for someone who would sell them on as real. There are a few reasons they are identifiable as fakes, buy they are so rare (especially the first) that they'd fool many. I add about  15  unmarked collector coins  to my "warning" list a week, just in my little area of  interest.

  

 

[DonnaML]

19 minutes ago, Deinomenid said:

Couple of "collectors' copy" gold coins  just  popped up on numisbid for auction, from a house that does monitor this site.

Marked as collectors on the description, but  strange  how they have imperfections that might make them attractive  purchases  for someone who would sell them on as real. There are a few reasons they are identifiable as fakes, buy they are so rare (especially the first) that they'd fool many. I add about  15  unmarked collector coins  to my "warning" list a week, just in my little area of  interest.

  

 

I think it's a disgrace that "reputable" auction houses offer unmarked copies like this.

[panzerman]

I 100 percent agree with Donna/ auction houses should not deal with replicas/ since these may fool novice collectors. I remember on cointalk someone posting his new addition a MS Balbinus aureus/ which he bought for bargain 4K/ when it should be 400K. The guy bought it for 1360UK Pounds from e-bay dealer!

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

It is a little silly in my opinion to prohibit the sale of electrotypes and copies based on the notion that unscrupulous sellers will later pass them off as fakes. These have a long tradition of educational purposes and a rich history of collection. Electrotypes often make unique examples attainable for the collector and the whole point of these high quality replicas is that resemble the real thing. If a new collector can’t distinguish between authentic examples and forgeries or replicas, perhaps they should pick up a book or two on the subject before shilling out thousands of dollars on coins.

[DLTcoins]

17 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I think they're OK if they're clearly marked with a "C" for Copy. As they're supposed to be legally in order to be imported into the USA, I believe. 

Under the Hobby Protection Act, the word "COPY" in incused capital letters of specified size and font (no serifs!) Is required. The rules apply not only to manufacturers and importers but "any person engaged in the sale in commerce of imitation numismatic items".

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-304

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by DLTcoins

[Hrefn]

If all copies were clearly and indelibly labeled COPY, this whole discussion would be unnecessary.   They could be used for study, educational purposes, poker chips, for whatever purpose one wished.  Unlabeled copies, acquired or manufactured by the unscrupulous, are a huge problem precisely because it can be difficult to determine whether they are genuine or not.  I agree with @TheTrachyEnjoyer that reading “a book or two on the subject before shilling out thousands of dollars on coins” is prudent.  One should do all one can to protect one’s self.  

Sadly, self-study can only save you from some of the fakes.  Professional auction houses staffed with expert and erudite numismatists still list problematic coins all the time.  See my note on the Zeno solidus above.  I am not so cynical as to think this is always deliberate, although on occasion that may be true.  I suspect it is more common that the fakes were good enough to pass, deceiving even professional numismatists, and were listed unknowingly.  Reading a few books is not enough to insulate us from this.  

In my long history of collecting, I purchased 4 coins that I subsequently identified as false.  One of them was so good that to this day I am not entirely sure it was a fake.  I have seen pictures of other coins from the same die pair offered in the trade, and I am still not sure.  But I returned it for a refund, which was readily supplied.  

It would be great if there were a master list of counterfeits which one could reference, so that we could avoid known fakes.  Then we would only have to contend with new fakes.

[Simon]

In a more legal view, "The Expert versus the object." Judging fakes and false attributions in the visual arts. Edited by Ronald Spencer is a very book that brings up the pros and cons of this subject. Granted the book is based off artwork, not coins but the same principles apply.  

I first read it years ago, it really serves as a reminder being careful in what you say, avoiding defamation. 

It's not a dry legal book but most of the essay's are very interesting but again they pertain mostly to paintings, but it is no different than any other collectables. 

It is available on ABE books. search under authors name.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Simon

[Steppenfool]

Quote

And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another.

 

This quote from Socrates in Plato's Gorgias sums it up for me. I think it is acceptable to point out fakes in any way one desires and the owner/coveter/seller of the coin can only benefit from it. Of course, there are more palatable and gentle ways to cure someone of the evil of holding incorrect beliefs. Therefore, I understand why some people believe it should be done by Private Message only. However, if I owned a fake, I would not be fussed about the cure's method of delivery and would be happy for someone to share their knowledge publicly for both my own, and every observer's benefit.

Hypothetically, what happens if the owner of a fake, upon receipt of a Private Message, decides that they don't want this knowledge to be available to everyone else? Is the knowledgeable sender of said Private Message to throw his hands up in surrender and acquiesce to the demands of the fake coin's owner, to the detriment of everyone viewing the thread? I think not.

Therefore, it seems the Private Message is a formality done out of kindness to allow the incorrect party an opportunity to do the noble thing of their own volition, without an adversary, and maintain control over their situation and the way it is communicated.

I don't understand why anyone would get precious about it regardless. Making mistakes is a natural part of being human and no-one has completed a day, never mind a life, without error.

[Deinomenid]

5 hours ago, Steppenfool said:

This quote from Socrates in Plato's Gorgias sums it up for me.

There used to be an excellent fakes website with a similar quote as  its byline.

“To say of what is, that it is, or of what is not, that it is not…” – Aristotle

https://numismaticfakes.wordpress.com./

It's not been  updated for many years, but it's where  I first learned to cringe and whimper out loud like Pavlov's dog at the very sight of the word Lipari.