By "restrike" does he mean fake??

http://www.ebay.com/itm/302000375350?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm thinking so.

Hopefully reporting it will help, for once.

 

Coin is a crude counterfeit not a restrike. I would buy it if it were under $20.

EDIT: OK, a crude MODERN COUNTERFEIT

 

" THIS IS A MODERN COPY OF THE ORIGINAL 1802 LARGE CENT. NOT SURE WHEN THIS WAS STRUCK BUT THIS IS A NICE ALTERNATIVE, SEEING AS HOW AN ORIGINAL 1802 OF THIS CONDITION WOULD RUN YOU IN THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS."
- I guess that makes sense. Good album filler or something. But not for that price.

 

Either way it's illegal in the US without "COPY" stamped on it.

 

He has a few

 

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention this.....

 

Just to clarify... illegal to sell, not to own... correct?

(No, I'm not interested in it!)

 

removed

 

Yes, because intent to defraud is explicitly part of the relevant law.

 

And calling those he had "restrikes" was fraud. Restrikes can carry quite a bit of value, these appeared to be struck counterfeits, and slightly better than the hand carved date ones we've seen China pumping out for decades. But some design elements were still quite off.

 

Yeah, this one was like, "Hi, guys! I'm stating that I'm committing a crime in my auction copy!"

 

He probably thought he found a loophole by calling it a restrike. Ugh.

 

A modern copy. Boy, are we getting creative.

 

If made before 1973 legal to sell. If made after 1973, illegal to sell, ownership is legal.