|
06 January 2020
|
Old Counterfeits: The Smithsonian Collection |
By accident, I recently discovered that the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has a collection of over 5000 Chinese currency items. Contained within this is a large and important yet unidentified group of period counterfeits, all of which seem to have been deliberately collected and donated by a Mr. and Mrs. James C. Leigh, among genuine items. It seems highly unlikely that these were collected in error; there are far too many, some clearly cancelled with overprints or cutting. The Smithsonian appears unaware of the status of these notes, except for a couple of examples. It is a varied and fascinating grouping with some very rare, possibly unique survivors.
Below is a selection of some of the more interesting examples from this collection
The Central Bank of China Counterfeits:
|
The Central Bank of China 1$ of 1928 (SCWPM 195c) (forgery), produced after 1935. A very crude and obvious counterfeit with blotchy, poor quality printing, though shows clear signs of use. The serial numbers are significantly wrong using a similar but incorrect font with too large numerals. The prefix and suffix letters were clearly pre-printed, with the numerals added later. |
|
Counterfeit (above) portrait detail
|
Counterfeit (below) portrait detail
|
Genuine note portrait example
|
Counterfeit (above) serial
Genuine note serial example
|
|
The Central Bank of China 1$ of 1928 (SCWPM 195c) (forgery), produced after 1935. A more convincing forgery than the above example, and which has clearly circulated far longer. The serial numbers are better though slightly clumsy. The main giveaway is the quality of the printing, especially when compared with a genuine American Banknote Co. issue. The printing is flat and blotchy when examined carefully, with much of the finer detail obscured. The above portrait samples show the scale of the difference well between the two forgery examples and that from a genuine issue. |
|
|
The Central Bank of China 5$ of 1928 (SCWPM 196b) (forgery), produced after 1930. A scarce forgery of an uncommon note. The underprinting on the face may have altered colour with age as it is very far from that of a genuine note. The font of the serial numbers is completely wrong, and is of the type still used on modern fakes of old banknotes. As with the above examples, the numbers within the serial were clearly added later. The portrait is especially bad; the eye area in particular. |
|
|
The Central Bank of China 5$ of 1930 (SCWPM 200d) (forgery), produced after 1935. A poorly lithographed counterfeit with very flat and blotchy printing. This didn't circulate long before detection; the bleed through to the front of one of the seals probably didn't help. Such errors happen on genuine currency but it inevitably draws attention and further scrutiny of such a note. The font of the serial number is incorrect. |
|
|
The Central Bank of China 1 yuan of 1936 (SCWPM 210) (forgery). Though it wouldn't hold up to careful comparison alongside a genuine example, this is a more successful forgery, and clearly circulated for some time, possibly never being detected during this period. The less complicated nature of the design including the lack of any guilloche underprinting made this easier to produce and pass off. The serials numbers are accurate enough albeit a little too heavy. As usual the printing is too flat however this comes across less obviously than with other examples. |
|
|
The Central Bank of China 1000 yuan of 1945 (SCWPM 291) (apparent forgery). The (in)authenticity of this example is more difficult to clarify. It would seem to be a fake when compared with other examples in which the printing is sharper. The serial number is clumsier too. The relatively poor quality of the authentic issued note makes detection far harder - at least in regards to period counterfeits. The cut out from the centre to cancel the note most likely indicates that it was detected as a forgery. |
|
|
The Central Bank of China 5000 yuan of 1947 (SCWPM 309) (forgery). Right: a very clear counterfeit in this instance, especially when compared to a genuine example (shown immediately below). The printing is both too heavy/blurry, and patchy. The portrait, as is often the case, is one of the main failings of this forgery: clumsier and less detailed/defined. Below: (left) a close up of the upper right corner of the back of the forgery. (right): a genuine example of the note. |
|
|
|
