|
Counterfeits and Counterfeiters: The Ancient World
By Kevin Barry
In the Beginning....
I won't go into the history of coinage, that topic alone would require multiple newsletters. Perhaps some day when I'm really ambitious. So here is the Readers digest version. Over 25 centuries ago, some bright soul discovered that trade and the exchange of goods, services and especially the payment of taxes could be made easier by using standardized tokens with a fixed value. These tokens were made of precious metals such as gold, silver and bronze that had a known and accepted value. Gradually this formed the basis for coinage in the ancient world and by extension our modern economy with coins, currency, money orders, travelers checks, credit cards and so on. Whether it is by little pieces of metal, paper or plastic we still exchange tokens of value for our goods, services and (especially) taxes.
However, soon after that bright soul introduced his tokens to the population, some equally bright (but nefarious) person discovered a way to cut out the middle man (i.e. the government, king, emperor, etc.) by making his own tokens and make a profit at the same time. Thus was born the counterfeiter.
The 5 counterfeits pictured above span over 1,000 years of history from ancient Greece on the left to the Byzantine era. It is reasonably safe to say that the 'art' of counterfeiting is a very old one, considering that it is still with us today, almost 2,500 years later.
The Naming of Names....
Ancient counterfeits have been known by many names over the ages. Perhaps the earliest known names are Hypochalkos (Greek) and Subaeratus (Latin) both of which mean 'bronze beneath' indicating a base core with precious metal plating. They are catchy names but ones that you will rarely find outside of reference works and historical literature.
A more common term which I believe originated in the 19th century France is Fourre meaning 'Lined'. Lined refers to the silver covering used on several types of counterfeits. It is interesting to note that there is some disagreement about the spelling of Fourre. Different references use different spelling with 1 or 2 'r's and 'e's (fourre, fourre, fourree, fouree).
A third term that is frequently found in modern references and scholarly articles is Plated Coin. A good term, but one that is restrictive like fourre. It specifically refers to the silver wrapped type of ancient counterfeit. Neither the terms Fourre or Plated seem to cover all types of counterfeits. (Perhaps I am splitting hairs here. Both plated coin and fourre are acceptable terms meaning ancient counterfeit.)
And finally we have the accurate, but clumsy term of Ancient (or Contemporary) Counterfeit.
In my own collection I tend to use plated coin more often than the others with fourre being a close second. For this article I will mostly use the generic term, counterfeit. With an occasional plated coin or fourre thrown in for variety.
Methods of Manufacture....
There are 4 known methods used by the counterfeiters to create their products. The first 3 methods require the production of a blank planchette which we now call a core. The core was most often made out of copper or bronze but examples of counterfeits have been found with iron, tin and even lead as a core. It would have been cast in molds to give it the approximate size and shape of the real coin. The example, left, is a bronze core for a Trajan counterfeit. Note that over the years all traces of the silver plating has completely worn away.
For this article I have created 4 categories to distinguish between the 4 methods. They are:
Type 1: Plated Coins.
Plated coins can be either silver or gold and have been found from all eras, from the earliest Greek through the end of the Byzantine empire. They required a production facility that in many ways mimicked the official mints. Raw materials of bronze (for the core), silver and gold (for the plating) would have been required along with molds for the cores and dies to stamp the coins.
After a core was created, it would have been heated and a thin layer of silver foil wrapped around it. Obviously the heating step would have been skipped for the lead core type. The wrapped core would then be struck to create the final product. If the wrapped core were struck with sufficient force, all traces of the silver wrap edges would have disappeared. The thickness of the silver varied with earlier eras tending towards a much thicker foil. The thicker foil would have worn better and remain undetected longer. It would have also helped against bankers marks and test cuts (see Counterfeiting Countermeasures below).
The example, left is a plated Republic denarius (Carisia 1b) that shows the tools of the moneyers trade, hammer, anvil and tongs. I find it interesting that the counterfeiters chose to use this design in their own counterfeits.
The example shown right is a lead core denarius of Vespasian. Note the exposed core to the center, left of Vespasian's portrait, the overall softness of the devices and poor state of preservation. Lead core coins are not common and it is unusual to find one that is even this good.
Type 2: Eutectic Alloy Coating.
A Eutectic Alloy is a mixture of of copper and silver in 3:1 proportions. It had a distinct
advantage with a melting point that was lower than either bronze or silver. To use this technique, the counterfeiter would have cast a bronze core and sprinkled the alloy over it. Then it would have been
heated to 778 degrees Fahrenheit. This high temperature (but still lower than the melting point of copper or silver) would have caused the alloy to melt and cover the core with a thin, even coating. At this point the coin would have been struck.
Use of the eutectic alloy method had several advantages. On melting the alloy would have bound very tightly to the core and unlike plated coins would have left no edge traces. Also the alloy coating would have required a much smaller amount of silver and increased the counterfeiters 'profit margin'.
(See the Economics of Counterfeiting, below)
Eutectic alloy coins can be found more frequently from the 2nd century on.
Type 3: Silver Enriched Copper.
A method that is mentioned in only a few references. It involves creating a silver rich alloy of copper that is then cast into the basic planchette. Once created the planchette is chemically treated with a solution (presumably acid based, the references skip over the technical details) that leaches the surface copper away leaving a crystalline silver crust on the surface. This 'crusty' planchette is then struck with hammer and die to produce the coin. In theory, the strike will compress the silver crust into a smooth, hard, but thin layer and bind it tightly to the remaining copper.
I have tentatively identified the counterfeit Nero, at right, as being produced by this method. What the image does not show well is an area of copper to the left of his face extending down his neck. Under close examination you can see that there is little differentiation between the copper and silver, unlike coins made with with a layering technique.
Type 4: Casting.
And finally we have what may be the most common method of all for making counterfeits. Using a mold of existing coins, made of clay and casting your own. Of course, there is little point in casting your own coins if you are going to be using high-grade silver or gold. The precious metals are debased with common elements such as tin or copper before you cast. The higher the percent of common metals, the greater the profit. Presumably there is a break even point in the debasement where a silver or gold coin no longer looks as it should. The hard silvery sheen of a denarius is gone, replaced by a dull gray.
The drawbacks are the mold lines that are typical of cast coins, an overall softness of the inscriptions and designs and finally the presence of surface bubbles. The mold lines could have been filed off, but the other problems could not really be solved. Even today the average cast coin shares the same limitations. On the advantage side, not having to create your own dies would have been a major plus.
The coin, left, is yet another example of the Republic Carisia 1b type. Note the overall softness of the design and the very uneven surface. Typical of cast coins. The image at right shows an ancient coin mold that was found at a dig in Germany. Although I haven't attributed it, the impressed coin appears to have been a Constantine era bronze. The mold is made out of a light weight clay and it is one of a series of molds found at the same site.
Whodunit ?....
A source of debate among collectors and scholars alike. No one really knows for sure and there are a lot of theories. Some of the more popular ones are:
Forgers
Plain and simple, people in small and larger groups, created the counterfeits for profit. The profit motive has always been a very powerful force and there is no reason to believe that it played a lesser part centuries ago.
Corrupt mint officials
One theory holds that many of the better counterfeits were made by either corrupt mint officials lining their own pockets or mint workers making their own coins after hours (the so-called 'Midnight Minter' theory). Although attempts have been made at die linking between official issues and counterfeits, it is so far inconclusive. However, it is likely that at least some of the more convincing counterfeits were made in this fashion. I tend to think that it may account for some but not all of them.
Official Sanction?
Another theory involving mint officials calls for official sanction to create counterfeits as a means of stretching the supply of precious metals. Similar to the debasement theory below.
An alternate to debasement?
Harold Mattingly mentions an interesting theory in his 'Roman Coins' reference. He stated that the issuance of plated coins may have been used by some Roman emperors as an alternative to debasing the precious metal content of their coins. As with the Midnight Minter and Official Sanction theories (above) there is no convincing proof via die links that the plated coins were products of official mints. There may be a further argument against official involvement in that most fourre finds are area finds and not hoards which indicates that the coins were discarded by their owners as soon as their true nature was discovered. In other words, they were worthless to the general population. This would not be the case if the counterfeits had a true value, however low that may have been
As far as I know, most numismatic scholars do not agree with the theory.
Conclusion .. Which Theory to Believe?
This may seem like straddling the fence, but here goes. My conclusion is all of the above. Many people tend to look at history (especially after thousands of years) as having a single 'cause and effect' for events. The counterfeiting of coins occurred over many centuries and with many different cultures, so it is likely that all of the above theories held true at one time or another. Or even simultaneously. Just as we have historical evidence for unofficial forgery in the form of artifact used by forgers and the occasional counterfeit hoard, we also know of at least one case where there was official sanction for the production of plated coins (Athens). It is likely that other instances occurred that we do not know about. Given that I wouldn't completely discount any of the theories. Including Mattingly's.
Economics of Counterfeiting....
Just for fun and as a little educational exercise, I decided to see if I could get an idea of the approximate rate of return an average counterfeiter could expect for minting plated coins. Given that I decided to use the following premises:
- As a base line, I decided to use Trajan coinage since I have a reasonable number
of his real and counterfeit coins on hand.
- The counterfeiters would have required a raw stock of base metal and silver. For this
exercise I am assuming that bronze was used as the core material. This stock could
have come from any source, but I have further assumed that they used circulating coinage
for stock. This allows me to make apple to apple comparisons rather than sestertius to
door-hinge.
Please keep in mind that the following weights are taken from samples that I have on hand
and that a much larger statistical population would be required for a definitive experiment.
Also the numbers have been rounded to make them easier to work with.
One Trajan sestertius, melted down gives us 23 grams of raw bronze stock and a single Trajan
denarius provides 3 grams of silver. Given the premise of using existing coins, I consider it likely that the counterfeiters used worn coins as stock rather than fresh new ones.
I weighed the Trajan plated coin cores that I have as well as the partially and fully plated ones in order to get a rough basis for the amount of bronze and silver needed to make one counterfeit. The numbers are:
Average weight of a Trajan plated coin with 90 - 100 % of the plating: 2.75 grams
Average weight of an unplated core: 2.3 grams
(Both the weight of the plated coins and the average core weight are somewhat heavier than I had expected.)
Which gives us approximately .45 grams of silver used for each coins plating.
(Some references mention that up to 25% of the plated coins weight was in silver. If that is the case then each plated coin would have required .68 grams of silver. However I will stick with the .45 gram number for this exercise since the number came from coins in my my own collection.)
So, we see that for every sestertius we melt down we can create 10 raw cores and for every denarius we can plate 6.6 of those cores. If we multiple it out, for every 33 sestertii, 50 denarii we can create 330 denarii. That would be roughly a 6 to 1 return. Not bad, not bad at all. I can think of a number of legitimate businesses, such as ancient coin dealers, who would love a 600% return on their investment.
Counterfeiting Countermeasures....
The serrati question.
Simply stated, serrati were coins with serrated edges. To create them the planchette was cut or notched with a chisel before striking. At one time it was widely believed that the serrated edges were a form of countermeasure against counterfeits. It was thought that the counterfeiters would have had trouble getting the silver to fill the notches and therefore would avoid coins of this type.
However, the current theory holds that the serration's were no more than a decoration.
Serrated coins went out of style towards the end of the Republic and as far as I know they were never brought back.
Our serrated example is typical for the Republic period. What is not readily apparent from the image is that it is a plated counterfeit. This coin and coins like it are pretty convincing proof that the serrati did not deter counterfeiters.
Test Cuts
Test cuts were marks done with a knife or chisel in an attempt to piece the surface silver layer of plated coins and expose the interior core. The cuts could have been done by almost anybody who wanted to make sure their coins were real. There is ample evidence that this method was effective since most plated coins did not have a thick enough layer of silver to stand up to a really deep cut. If a coin
were cut it typically would have been cut only once and then circulated normally. Apparently the single cut was enough to convince most people that the coin was good.
However, the counterfeiters rose to the challenge, there have been examples of counterfeit coins found that were created with test cuts already in place. This did not seem to be a wide spread practice.
Our test cut example is not a counterfeit, rather it is a common denarius of Antoninus Pius with 2 parallel cuts. One deeper than the other.
Bankers Marks
The concept behind bankers marks was similar to that of test cuts. A punch or other sharp object was used to piece and mark the subject coin as well as expose the core if it were a counterfeit. Banker marks can range from simple gouges to elaborate designs. Most often they were simple letters or geometric designs. Bankers marks are frequently found on Roman era coins and slightly less so for other periods.
It is interesting to note that some marks are carefully placed so that they do note interfere with important devices or portraits. When I encounter one of these, I have wondered if there was a penalty for those who defaced ruler portraits.
The Ptolemaic tetradrachm pictured left has a several bankers marks, all of them being simple geometric designs such as an ellipse. Note the extreme care that was given in the placement of the bankers marks
and how they do not mar Ptolemy's portrait. This care is especially interesting giving the lack of free field space on the obverse. On the other hand, the reverse (not pictured) has a bankers mark directly on the center of the eagles breast.
Our example on the left shows a typical Republic era denarius with a simple 'C' shaped mark that I have circled in red. However, I will let you in on a little secret, it is an ancient cast counterfeit. The original coin that the cast was taken from already had a bankers mark which was faithfully (as faithfully as any cast coin that is) carried over to the duplicate. A number of cast examples have been found that had built-in marks.
Crime and Punishment....
When considering the punishment for counterfeiting, I am reminded of a warning that was boldly printed on early American Colonial currency. That warning was simply, 'Tis Death To Counterfeit'. Indeed in most eras and cultures counterfeiting was considered a capital crime or even treason. As such the most common form of punishment was death. Some cultures moderated that somewhat with 'lesser' punishments for first time offenses or for small scale operators. But even then the punishment usually required the loss of a body part or two.
It may be noted that during the time of Rome, death was the punishment for common forgers with confiscation of land and perpetual banishment for those of higher standing. Given the era, I'm not sure which was worse.
For death though, there was a startling variety of forms. From simple execution to stoning to being boiled alive. And I'm sure Christians were not the only ones to face their fate in the Roman arenas.
However, that being said I will move on to more pleasant topics.
A Gallery of Counterfeits....
To see more ancient counterfeits,
click here
or take the Gallery link at the top of the page.
Collecting Ancient Counterfeits....
Pliny the Elder (who died in 79 AD watching Vesuvius erupt) wrote that collecting counterfeit coins was a popular hobby among some segments of the Roman population. And for good specimens they were willing to pay several times the face value of the coin. So, as you can see collecting counterfeits has a very long history. Today many ancients collectors have at least one example of an ancient counterfeit in their collections. And some collectors specialize in ancient counterfeits. Part of the draw is the general fascination that people have with counterfeits, while another part is surely the possibility to acquire ancient counterfeit copies of genuinely rare coins at a fraction of the real coins value.
Type Classification Key
| Type 1 - Plated |
Type 2 - Eutectic |
Type 3 - Enriched AE |
Type 4 - Cast |
 |
Greek (Type 1)
Thrace, Cherronesos Tetrobol, c. 500 - 480 BC
|
 |
Greek (Type 1)
Macedon, Philip II, c. 323 BC.
|
 |
Greek (Type 1)
Mysia, Parion Hemiobol, c. 350 - 300 BC
|
 |
Roman Republic (Type 1)
Mule, c. 110 BC
Obv: Caesia 1, Rev: Furia 18
|
 |
Roman Republic (Type 1)
Antonia 1, c. 83 - 82 BC
|
 |
Roman Republic (Type 1)
Poblicia 9, c. 80 BC
|
 |
Roman Imperatorial (Type 1)
Mark Antony Legionary (Legio XII) denarius, c. 33 BC
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 1)
Augustus denarius, 27 BC - 14 AD
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 1)
Vespasian denarius, 69 - 79 AD
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 2)
Domitian denarius, 81 - 96 AD
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 2)
Trajan denarius, 98 - 117 AD
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 1 possibly Type 2)
Caracalla (??) denarius, 198 - 217 AD
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 1 possibly Type 2)
Philip I barbaric antoninianus, 244 - 249 AD
|
 |
Roman Imperial (Type 2)
Philip II antoninianus, 247 - 249 AD
|
|
