Royal Mint dies

[Gollum 2]

Does anyone know if there are or ever were any RM dies reported missing, I kind of like to think some scallywags nicked a few

[TomGoodheart 373]

Not recently afaik. There were the restrikes of Cromwell (Simon puncheons) and Bolton/Soho coins from 'missing' dies. And of course there are the modern £1 and 50p dies made by .. ahem, hobbyists. Did you have something specific in mind?

[Peckris 579]

I'm wondering how the 1816-1820 counterfeits were made. Many of them are such perfect copies (except the metal!!) that you have to think they came from dies. (Unless they produced casting moulds from UNC specimens?)

[Gollum 2]

Hi Tom, no nothing prticular, but it would seem rather naive to think that NO dies are or ever have been appropriated over the centuries by someone, as Peckris said, those copies are awfully good to have been made from none original dies.

With laser scanning technology etc I wonder how long before someone can make new dies of old coins and strike with the right metals to such a standard as to fool even the best. Does not bear thinking about...... bbiab got to strike some "missing" coineage before tea time .

Edited December 18, 2011 by momo33

[Coinery 926]

I'm wondering how the 1816-1820 counterfeits were made. Many of them are such perfect copies (except the metal!!) that you have to think they came from dies. (Unless they produced casting moulds from UNC specimens?)

I often wonder why it is, for the sake of £20 worth of silver bullion, that the counterfeiters don't just do the job properly and be done with it?

[Nick 325]

I'm wondering how the 1816-1820 counterfeits were made. Many of them are such perfect copies (except the metal!!) that you have to think they came from dies. (Unless they produced casting moulds from UNC specimens?)

I often wonder why it is, for the sake of £20 worth of silver bullion, that the counterfeiters don't just do the job properly and be done with it?

It depends when the counterfeit was made. A lot of the George III counterfeits were made then to spend as money, so the coin had to be made as cheaply as possible and look good enough to fool. Fakes made yesterday are made to fool collectors so although it would make sense to use silver, that would hit their profit margin - so they use something cheaper.

[Peckris 579]

I'm wondering how the 1816-1820 counterfeits were made. Many of them are such perfect copies (except the metal!!) that you have to think they came from dies. (Unless they produced casting moulds from UNC specimens?)

I often wonder why it is, for the sake of £20 worth of silver bullion, that the counterfeiters don't just do the job properly and be done with it?

What Nick says. There is a clear distinction between a 'fake' and a 'forgery'.

A forgery is something that is produced contemporaneously to swindle people in the course of ordinary trade, so it's usually something of intrinsic value (e.g. silver shillings) produced in copper and given a silver wash; or, the modern £1 coin forgeries that are produced solely to create £1 to spend - its production cost is peanuts.

A fake is something inherent to art and antiques etc. It's something produced that has little intrinsic value, but is created specifically for collectors who buy it solely for its rarity or collectible value. Generally the authorities are harder on forgeries than they are on fakes, seemingly there is an unspoken attitude of "well if someone is fool enough to pay those sums for a painting without due diligence...". So, the producers of those George III shillings - if caught - would have probably been hanged, and the modern forgers of £1 coins would do time. Fakers of ancient coins would certainly commit a crime and if caught would pay the appropriate penalty, but the authorities aren't going to devote the same resources to tracking them down as they would, say, to £1 coin or £50 note forgers.