There was
a post in the
Byzantine section about
fake or
imitative coins that confused me a
bit. I know I have talked about this in the past, but it got me thinking again. I decided to make a new post rather than respond there.
Here is how I have come to define coins. I would be interested if this is a useful way to categorize them. When I see coin descriptions, I put it in one of my categories.
1. Officially minted coins
2.
Contemporary forgeries or imitations: coins made in the same time period of the official coins (when they were circulating) and made to deceive. Upon thinking about it now, I will drop using the word "imitation" because it is confusing. It is an ancient
fake, so more desirable than a modern
fake.
3.
Barbaric imitations: coins made by the various tribes copying established coins from
Roman and various Greek and other states. These were not made to deceive, I believe, they were often just too obvious. These are coins from the various areas that produced coinage and are separate and
collectible in their own right. I think many of these also fall into Category 1.
4. Modern
fake: anything made well after the time the originals were produced, and made to deceive.
My tastes run to trying to only collect Category 1 and 3, but I have one in Category 2 and one in Category 4. Categories two and four are "
fakes."
For me, the word "imitation" refers to actual
ancient coins that copy another coin and are made in a different place than the coin being copied.
Thanks,
Virgil