4 ms·
TL;DR: it’s a counterfeit (an old one). The article itself is short and interesting, so worth reading, but the title is a bit misleading
by soneca 3y ago
TL;DR: it’s a counterfeit (an old one).
The article itself is short and interesting, so worth reading, but the title is a bit misleading
- bee_rider 3y agoIt is a funny article, IMO it is pretty well written in terms of tone and pacing, they build up nicely through the process that is used to study the coins. I really expected a better punchline than, basically, it was a counterfeit, nobody really cared due to the economic situation at the time, and that’s about all we know.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoYeah, the alloy confirms what the date suggests - that its unofficial, and also that it's not modern (well, duh - default assumption would be that it was contemporary with the coins it was trying to pass as). The suggestion that this counterfeit was produced abroad since "nickel silver wasn't widely used for [official] coins in Peru" seems to be an entirely illogical conclusion! We already know it's a counterfeit, so practices of the official mint are irrelevant. Default assumption, absent any other evidence, would be that it was produced domestically as most counterfeits are. Slow news day at the NY Times I suppose, although better way to fill the pages than speculating about Taylor Swift's sexuality.
- Kranar 3y agoYes but it's also really cool that it's not a modern day counterfeit but rather a counterfeit from that time period.
- _visgean 3y ago> but the title is a bit misleading the title is "The Mystery of the Coin That Shouldn't Exist" given that it is counterfeit I would say its fair to say it is a "coin that should not exist"