[klondike mary] The defense rests

[klondike mary]

Josh was a counterfeiter. He did well for a time, but was eventually arrested and tried. He was accused of passing false money and fraud. He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully. Explain.

[Earnest]

Josh was a counterfeiter --> did he falsify money? Coins? Cash? Relevant which money? In which state? Money commonly used in real world transactions? Did he have the same molds as the State mint? Were his money easily recognizable as false? Did he work in the State Mint? Did he work in finance? In a bank? In money-related institutions?

Josh = HAM? An animal used by humans? all "he"'s refer to Josh right?
Relevant how he was arrested? DId someone witness against him? Was he caught with cameras? Did he pay for something illegal?Relevant where he was arrested? In a place of business? In an airport? Border relevant? Did he in fact falsified money? Did he commit, in fact, the crimes for which he was accused: "passing false money and fraud"?
He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully --> does it mean that he was released? That he was he accused for something else instead?

Was he caught in the act (i.e. while doing something related with counterfeit/falsification)? While paying with falsified money?

To be sure: did he falsify already existing money (i.e. money regularly belonging to a State and of a regularly used denomination. For instance in Europe, 200 euros have been abolished)? If not a little WAG: he falsified 200 euros money, which have been banned the day after his arrest by European community. Therefore, legally he was falsifying not existing (or not employed) money denomination and hence was not arrestable.

[klondike mary]

Josh was a counterfeiter --> did he falsify money? Coins? This.Cash? Relevant which money? Yes. In which state? In the U.S. Money commonly used in real world transactions? Yes. Did he have the same molds as the State mint?No. Were his money easily recognizable as false? Only if one looked closely. Did he work in the State Mint? Did he work in finance? In a bank? In money-related institutions? No to all.

Josh = HAM? Yes. An animal used by humans? all "he"'s refer to Josh right? Yes.
Relevant how he was arrested? DId someone witness against him? Was he caught with cameras? Did he pay for something illegal?Relevant where he was arrested? In a place of business? In an airport? Border relevant? All n.r. Did he in fact falsified money? Yes. Did he commit, in fact, the crimes for which he was accused: "passing false money yessish and fraud"? Noish.
He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully --> does it mean that he was released? Yes. That he was he accused for something else instead?No.

Was he caught in the act (i.e. while doing something related with counterfeit/falsification)? N.r. While paying with falsified money? Yes, the money was fake.

To be sure: did he falsify already existing money (i.e. money regularly belonging to a State and of a regularly used denomination.Yessish For instance in Europe, 200 euros have been abolished)? If not a little WAG: he falsified 200 euros money, which have been banned the day after his arrest by European community. Therefore, legally he was falsifying not existing (or not employed) money denomination and hence was not arrestable.He was not using legal but 'obsolete' money.
Good start!

[GalFisk]

Did he counterfeit old money? Really old money? Collector's items? Did he sell his false coins as antiques? Did he exploit a loophole? WAG: he never claimed his coins were old and valuable, but instead asked experts if they were, and then sold them if they got fooled?

[klondike mary]

Did he counterfeit old money? Really old money? No, it was current money at the time. Collector's items? No.Did he sell his false coins as antiques? No. Did he exploit a loophole? Yes. WAG: he never claimed his coins were old and valuable, this is true but instead asked experts if they were, and then sold them if they got fooled? No,, not this.

[GalFisk]

Relevant when he was caught? Tried? Was the money he copied obsolete when he was caught? When he was tried?

[Earnest]

Josh was a counterfeiter --> to be sure: did he want to be a counterfeiter? Did he know that he was a counterfeiter? Did he live in US? Did he "produce" false money? Spend false money that he made? Spend false money that someone gave him (e.g. he was a counterfeiter in the sense that he accepted false money produced by others and spend them)? Did he have a bank account? Did he have relevantly false money in his back account?

Coins = made of gold? silver? iron? generic metal? were them quarters? pennies? cents? relevant?

Is the value of the coins he exploited bigger than the value of the real coins?
'obsolete' money --> can they be defined "currency"? were they commonly used in transactions at the time he was arrested? Were they ancient? Were the coins with rust? unrecognizable?

He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully --> unconditionally acquitted? i.e. the fact did not exist? He did not commit any crime? He did not commit the crimes for which he was accused?

[klondike mary]

Relevant when he was caught? Tried? Yes, the time period is relevant. Explore. Was the money he copied obsolete when he was caught? When he was tried? No, it was in current use at the time.

[klondike mary]

Josh was a counterfeiter --> to be sure: did he want to be a counterfeiter? Did he know that he was a counterfeiter? Did he live in US? Yes, yes, and yes. Did he "produce" false money? Spend false money that he made? Yope to both. Spend false money that someone gave him (e.g. he was a counterfeiter in the sense that he accepted false money produced by others and spend them)? No. Did he have a bank account? Did he have relevantly false money in his back account?Both n.r.

Coins = made of gold? silver? iron? generic metal? this. were them quarters? pennies? cents? relevant? Two denominations of coins are relevant. One is a nickel.

Is the value of the coins he exploited bigger than the value of the real coins? Yes, he passed the coins as worth more than they actually were.
'obsolete' money --> can they be defined "currency"? were they commonly used in transactions at the time he was arrested? At the time, they were in use.ere they ancient? No.Were the coins with rust? No.unrecognizable? Yope

He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully --> unconditionally acquitted? Yes.i.e. the fact did not exist? No, the facts of the case were still true - he had passed 'bad money.' He did not commit any crime? He did not commit the crimes for which he was accused? To both questions, yes, he did not.
Earnest

[Hobbsicle]

Are the two types of coins relevantly similar in size? In design? In color? In material? Is he swapping one kind of coin for another?

Is method of creating the counterfeits relevant?

Does he exchange his counterfeit coins for usual goods and services? Is his motive for counterfeiting relevant? If so, personal financial gain? Hobby interest? Political? Trying to make a point?

[klondike mary]

Are the two types of coins relevantly similar in size? In design?Yes or yessish to both In color? In material? No to both, but explore. Is he swapping one kind of coin for another? Yes.

Is method of creating the counterfeits relevant? Yes.

Does he exchange his counterfeit coins for usual goods and services? DOYD of 'usual' Is his motive for counterfeiting relevant? If so, personal financial gain? He did benefit financially, but did not get rich. Hobby interest? Political? Trying to make a point?
Hobbsicle

How are things up there on the frozen tundra, Hobsicle?

[Earnest]

Nickel and dime? Half dollars? Figures on the coins relevant? Diameter of the coins relevant? Weight of the coins?

Is method of creating the counterfeits relevant? Yes. --> did he create them by scraping other coins? Using other coins? By taking coins from a collection? From something having coins glued on it? Did he forge them? take them from somewhere?

He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully --> Did the law change? Did the denominations? Did the coin? Maybe the two coins were the same at the time of the crime and then were split into two denominations? Vice versa? Definition of each denomination relevant? Did he say that he was making money for his own use? To pay something? To use them in a relevant way? For collection? For a legal usage? Did he counterfeit dollars and use them abroad? Change them with other coins? Relevant that there are many types of dollars? e.g. maybe Australian dollars and certain denominations of US dollars were equivalent/very similar?

[klondike mary]

Nickel and dime? Half dollars? a nickel was one of the coins, the other was not one of those mentioned, nor was it a quarter. Figures on the coins relevant?no Diameter of the coins relevant? Weight of the coins? There might have been a slight difference in size and weight, but not one easily determined, so n.r.

Is method of creating the counterfeits relevant? Yes. --> did he create them by scraping other coins? Using other coins? By taking coins from a collection? From something having coins glued on it? No to all. Did he forge them? DOYD 'forge.' If you mean make them from the ingot, no.take them from somewhere? No,he did not steal the nickels.

He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully --> Did the law change?n.r. Did the denominations? Did the coin? Maybe the two coins were the same at the time of the crime and then were split into two denominations? Vice versa?The coinage may have changed, but did not relevantly do so between the time of passing of the money and the trial. Might be helpful to determine the time period. Definition of each denomination relevant? yope. Did he say no.that he was making money for his own use? To pay something? To use them in a relevant way? For collection? For a legal usage? he never made any of these claims, and they are all n.r.Did he counterfeit dollars and use them abroad? Change them with other coins? Relevant that there are many types of dollars? e.g. maybe Australian dollars and certain denominations of US dollars were equivalent/very similar? No to all.
Earnest

[Earnest]

a nickel was one of the coins, the other was not one of those mentioned, nor was it a quarter --> maybe a denomination that is no more present nowadays (e.g. eagle? time? union?bronze? others which I do not know? xD)? golden dollar? Commemorative coins relevant? Challenge coin?

Was there a limited amount of counterfeit coins? A potentially illimited amount? Had a treasure been discovered?

Time period: WWI? WWII? Prohibition? apartheid? Before WWI? Independence wars? Vietnam war? Others?

[klondike mary]

A nickel was one of the coins, the other was not one of those mentioned, nor was it a quarter --> maybe a denomination that is no more present nowadays (e.g. eagle?Yes! there were eagles, half-eagles, and double eagles. time? union?bronze? others which I do not know? xD)? golden dollar? Commemorative coins relevant? Challenge coin? All others no or n.r.

Was there a limited amount of counterfeit coins? A potentially illimited amount? Both n.r.Had a treasure been discovered?No.

Time period: WWI? WWII? Prohibition? apartheid? Before WWI? Yes. Keep exploring! Independence wars? Vietnam war? Others?
Earnest

[gregoryuconn]

Is the exact definition of the counterfeiting statute relevant? Maybe it says something about "legal tender" and then it stopped being legal tender so he technically didn't counterfeit any legal tender? Union vs. Confederate currency relevant? Colonial currency?

[klondike mary]

Is the exact definition of the counterfeiting statute relevant? Maybe it says something about "legal tender" and then it stopped being legal tender so he technically didn't counterfeit any legal tender? Union vs. Confederate currency relevant? Colonial currency? No to all.
BTW, there is an important clue in my answer to Earnest, above.
gregoryuconn

[Earnest]

Not really aware of how such coins are made but I guess that it is relevant the fact that if eagles is the baseline they are called 1*baseline (eagles), 1/2*baseline (half eagles) and 2*baseline (double eagles), right?
Yes! there were eagles, half-eagles, and double eagles. --> are we relevantly talking about eagles? Half eagles? Double eagles? All of the three?
To clarify: he used counterfeit eagles instead of original eagles, counterfeit half eagles instead of original half eagles and counterfeit eagles instead of original eagles? Or: he used counterfeit eagles together with original eagles, counterfeit half eagles together with original half eagles and counterfeit eagles together with original eagles? Or again: he used a denomination instead of another (e.g. eagle instead of half eagles and double eagles?)? Relevant that (I suppose) double eagles "worth more" than eagles and half eagles? Relevant that (I suppose...is it correct?) eagles are exactly the double of the half eagles and the half of the double eagles? Can we assume that 2 eagles = 1 double eagle? Can we assume that 2 half eagles = 1 eagle? That 1 eagle + 2 half eagles = 1 double eagle?

Before WWI? Yes. Keep exploring! --> right before? Centuries before? Between 1850 and WWI? Before? Is an event particularly relevant? A change in the government? A change in coinage? An economic crisis? A withdrawn of money?

Did they worth less than the original counterparts? The same? Have they been forged by a State? By a State that had been included in a bigger State? In a State that does no more exist nowadays? Can we assume that, at the time, all US territory had the same money denominations?

He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully. Explain. --> was he acquitted right after he was arrested and tried? Years later? Bribe relevant? Had he been caught nowadays with other denominations, would he have been acquitted? If not because of the denominations he would falsify nowadays? Were there proves against him? Could fake money: 1) be proved to be fake? Be exploited as a prove against him?
Did he claim to counterfeit money? Did he claim to counterfeit eagles? double eagles? Half eagles? To use the original version of one of the three? Was he accused to counterfeit eagles? Double eagles? Half eagles? Relevant the name "eagles"? E.g. he was formally accused to counterfeit eagles (as the animal). He simply proved that it was impossible to counterfeit animals.

[klondike mary]

Not really aware of how such coins are made but I guess that it is relevant the fact that if eagles is the baseline they are called 1*baseline (eagles), 1/2*baseline (half eagles) and 2*baseline (double eagles), right? Yes
Yes! there were eagles, half-eagles, and double eagles. --> are we relevantly talking about eagles? Half eagles?This. Double eagles? All of the three?
To clarify: he used counterfeit eagles instead of original eagles, counterfeit half eagles instead of original half eagles This. and counterfeit eagles instead of original eagles? Or: he used counterfeit eagles together with original eagles, counterfeit half eagles together with original half eagles and counterfeit eagles together with original eagles? Or again: he used a denomination instead of another (e.g. eagle instead of half eagles and double eagles?)? Relevant that (I suppose) double eagles "worth more" than eagles and half eagles? Relevant that (I suppose...is it correct?) eagles are exactly the double of the half eagles and the half of the double eagles? Can we assume that 2 eagles = 1 double eagle? Can we assume that 2 half eagles = 1 eagle? That 1 eagle + 2 half eagles = 1 double eagle? All true, of course, but n.r. to the puzzle.

Before WWI? Yes. Keep exploring! --> right before? Centuries before? Between 1850 and WWI? This period.Before? Is an event particularly relevant? A change in the government? A change in coinage? This is close.An economic crisis? A withdrawn of money? and so is this.

Did they worth less than the original counterparts? The coins that he passed were worth less. The same? Have they been forged by a State? By a State that had been included in a bigger State? In a State that does no more exist nowadays? They were passed by an individual, not any State actor. Can we assume that, at the time, all US territory had the same money denominations? Yes.

He was acquitted on both counts, rightfully. Explain. --> was he acquitted right after he was arrested and tried? AFAIK, at the trial.Years later? Bribe relevant? No. Had he been caught nowadays with other denominations, would he have been acquitted? Who knows? If not because of the denominations he would falsify nowadays? It would have to be other denominations; I would say n.r. Were there proves against him? Could fake money: 1) be proved to be fake? Be exploited as a prove against him? It was indeed proved tat the money was fake.
Did he claim to counterfeit money? Did he claim to counterfeit eagles? double eagles? Half eagles? To use the original version of one of the three?He made no claims at all. Was he accused to counterfeit eagles? Double eagles? Half eagles? This.Relevant the name "eagles"? E.g. he was formally accused to counterfeit eagles (as the animal). He simply proved that it was impossible to counterfeit animals. Ha! Clever, but no animals involved - just coins.
Earnest

[Hobbsicle]

So nickels are still relevant, yes? Did he create half-eagles from nickels? Or did he also create counterfeit nickels?

Civil war relevant?

In lieu of snow and ice, we get 34 degree weather with rain. Since much of my job involves driving to houses to take pictures, this has been unpleasant. Weather is starting to improve, though. Looking forward to sunny days in the 60's.

[Earnest]

Was he relevantly aware of the change in coniage? More relevantly aware of the withdrawal of money? Both? Change in coins and withdrawal = were half eagles withdrawn? Changed in some aspect? Were they still in circulation? Together with other similar coins? Relevant their face value? Was the value of half eagles changed as a consequence of the change in coniage? Did other coins take the value of half eagles? Were people aware of the withdrawal? Did he pass money just for certain types if transactions?

Were the money adopted by the counterfeiter fake as half eagles but "original" as a new currency type? (E.g. he tried to coin fake half eagles starting from a lower value currency. He ended up inventing a new currency type). Hence they could have been accepted by people?
Changing money relevant? Rests?

Did they represent in fact the fake value of worthless money? Or maybe he changed the image on half eagles so that it resembled the new version of it?
Did he produce the fake version of withdrawn money still accepted by people because of habits? Did he sell them as commemorative dollars? As iron pieces?

[klondike mary]

So nickels are still relevant, yes? Did he create half-eagles from nickels? YES. Or did he also create counterfeit nickels? No.

Civil war relevant? No.

In lieu of snow and ice, we get 34 degree weather with rain. Since much of my job involves driving to houses to take pictures, this has been unpleasant. Weather is starting to improve, though. Looking forward to sunny days in the 60's. Good! Planning a trip up the country about April 1, and want the weather to co-operate!
Hobbsicle

[klondike mary]

Was he relevantly aware of the change in coniage? More relevantly aware of the withdrawal of money? Both? Change in coins and withdrawal = were half eagles withdrawn? Changed in some aspect? Were they still in circulation? This is true.Together with other similar coins? Similar in some ways, but of different metal. Relevant their face value? Yes. Was the value of half eagles changed as a consequence of the change in coniage? Did other coins take the value of half eagles? I think the eagles, of various denominations, just ceased to be circulated. Were people aware of the withdrawal? Did he pass money just for certain types if transactions? Yes!

Were the money adopted by the counterfeiter fake as half eagles but "original" as a new currency type? (E.g. he tried to coin fake half eagles starting from a lower value currency. Yes! He ended up inventing a new currency type) No.. Hence they could have been accepted by people?
Changing money relevant? Yes! Rests?

Did they represent in fact the fake value of worthless money They were not worthless, but they were not worth $5 either.? Or maybe he changed the image on half eagles so that it resembled the new version of it? No, but....
Did he produce the fake version of withdrawn money still accepted by people because of habits? No money had been withdrawn from circulation. That only happened later. Did he sell them as commemorative dollars? As iron pieces? No to both.

Earnest has the right idea. Josh passed off coins of lesser value as gold half-eagles, worth $5. How did he do this, and how did he avoid prosecution?
Earnest

[Earnest]

Ok maybe out of context but...are tokens relevant? Chips? Payphones relevant? Signals relevant? E.g. he exchanged fake 5 dollars tokens with 5 dollars.
Did he pay for regular transactions with the fake money? Or maybehe donated the money? For the law the ones that he made were not transactions? E.g. he gave as a gift an envelope with the fake coins? Or maybe he left the coins somewhere and someone took them pretending they were a payment for a service/object but he simply defended by asserting that the money were not a payment?
Relevant transactions: did he pay for a service? Did he put the coins inside vending machines?

he tried to coin fake half eagles starting from a lower value currency. Yes! --> was the lower value coin in circulation before the "coin reformation" (i.e. the change in coins)? Only after it? Relevant? Relevant the face value of the lower value coin? Did he counterfeit such currency before? Did he scratch coins? Did he change the exterior of the money? The something depicted on them? (Was there something depicted on them?) Was it simple to confound the lower value coin with the half eagle? If so relevant how they differed? For something visible? A number? A code? The beginning of a code? Others? Did he sell money to collectors?

how did he avoid prosecution? --> was he manipulating money for the law? Or maybe for the law he was manipulating something worthless? An object?

Changing money relevant? Yes! --> did he want to change half eagles with other money? With lower value money (e.g. half eagles with 5 coins of 1 dollar?)? Did people want to change money with half eagles so that he was forced to counterfeit money? To be sure: changing in the sense of obtaining an equal quantity of a lower value coniage in exchange of half eagles? Or changing in the sense of changing the appearence of coins? Or both? Is changing money in the former sense a transaction? Did he just change half eagles?

[klondike mary]

Ok maybe out of context but...are tokens relevant? Chips? Payphones relevant? Signals relevant? E.g. he exchanged fake 5 dollars tokens with 5 dollars. No to all.
Did he pay for regular transactions with the fake money? Yesish. Remember, the 'fake' money was real money, it just was not real 'eagles.'Or maybehe donated the money? For the law the ones that he made were not transactions? E.g. he gave as a gift an envelope with the fake coins? Or maybe he left the coins somewhere and someone took them pretending they were a payment for a service/object but he simply defended by asserting that the money were not a payment? No or n.r. to all.
Relevant transactions: did he pay for a service? Did he put the coins inside vending machines? no, n.r.

he tried to coin fake half eagles starting from a lower value currency. Yes! --> was the lower value coin in circulation before the "coin reformation" (i.e. the change in coins)? Yes. Only after it? Relevant?Yes. Relevant the face value of the lower value coin?Yes. Did he counterfeit such currency before? Before what? Did he scratch coins? No. Did he change the exterior of the money? Yes!The something depicted on them? Noish. (Was there something depicted on them?) Yes. Was it simple to confound the lower? Yes.A code? The beginning of a code? Others? there were numbers on the coins, but mostly n.r. Did he sell money to collectors? n.r.

how did he avoid prosecution? --> was he manipulating money for the law? Or maybe for the law he was manipulating something worthless? An object?no or n.r. to all.

Changing money relevant? Yes! --> did he want to change half eagles with other money? With lower value money (e.g. half eagles with 5 coins of 1 dollar?)? Yes, coins or paper money.Did people want to change money with half eagles Yes, people would give change for half eagles. so that he was forced to counterfeit money? He was not forcedTo be sure: changing in the sense of obtaining an equal quantity of a lower value coniage in exchange of half eagles?Yessish. Or changing in the sense of changing the appearence of coins? He did change the appearanceo of coins. Or both? Is changing money in the former sense a transaction? Yes, in the sense that he bought an item, paid with more than the item was worth, and received change.Did he just change half eagles? Yes, and this is relevant.
Earnest

[Earnest]

was him a magician? are tricks relevant?

when people changed the money did they notice that they exchanged real money with counterfeited money?
Is the following situation relevant?: he went inside shops and asked "have you got 5 pieces of 1$ to exchange with an half eagle?". And the merchants did exchange them. Is it correct? Or maybe he was relevantly less specific than that asking just " Can you break this?" and then the merchants themselves gave him 5$ (hence he did not commit any crime).

was the lower value coin in circulation before the "coin reformation" (i.e. the change in coins)? Yes. --> so both half eagles and the lower value money that he counterfeited were in circulation before the coin reformation, right? Hence, could he have counterfeited such lower value money before? Was a new "format" of half eagles introduced? A new format of the lower value coin?

Did he change the exterior of the money? Yes! --> a detail? an image? dividing the coin in head and tail, did he change the exterior of the head? of the tail part? Of the edge? Did he add something to the original (i.e. the lower value coin)? Remove something? Did he put the coin in a liquid? Paint relevant? Is money weight relevant? E.g. since they were made out of gold (I think), the check made by merchants or Government in order to control if they were fakes was to weight them on a balance scale. If their weight was correct they supposed that the right amount of gold was present and hence qualified the coin as original.
numismatic relevant? Study money? Did he invent a new method of money forgery?

Maybe a little WAG --> there were tons of counterfeit in circulation so that authorities pretend that people being in possess of such "fakes" were innocent.

[klondike mary]

Was him a magician? are tricks relevant?No and no.

when people changed the money did they notice that they exchanged real money with counterfeited money?
Is the following situation relevant?: he went inside shops and asked "have you got 5 pieces of 1$ to exchange with an half eagle?". And the merchants did exchange them. Is it correct?No. Or maybe he was relevantly less specific than that asking just " Can you break this?" He did not say that. and then the merchants themselves gave him 5$ This is close, but he did purchase an item.(hence he did not commit any crime).This is true also.

was the lower value coin in circulation before the "coin reformation" (i.e. the change in coins)? Yes. --> so both half eagles and the lower value money that he counterfeited were in circulation before the coin reformation, right? Yes. Hence, could he have counterfeited such lower value money before? Any time between about 1883 and 1910, when the design of the coins changed. Was a new "format" of half eagles introduced? A new format of the lower value coin?This.

Did he change the exterior of the money? Yes! --> a detail? an image? dividing the coin in head and tail, did he change the exterior of the head? This of the tail part? Of the edge? Did he add something to the original (i.e. the lower value coin)? Yes.Remove something? Did he put the coin in a liquid? Paint relevant? Yope to both. Is money weight relevant? E.g. since they were made out of gold (I think), the check made by merchants or Government in order to control if they were fakes was to weight them on a balance scale. If their weight was correct they supposed that the right amount of gold was present and hence qualified the coin as original.The exchange had been done before any such tests were made.
numismatic relevant? Not sure what you mean. Numbers are relevantish, though. Study money? Did he invent a new method of money forgery? The method may have been new as applied to counterfeiting, but the technique was not new.

Maybe a little WAG --> there were tons of counterfeit in circulation so that authorities pretend that people being in possess of such "fakes" were innocent.No, alas.'
I think Google is alowable at this stage.

Earnest

[Earnest]

This is close, but he did purchase an item --> an item concerning money? A general item? A specific one? A relevant one? Did he financially gain the same amount as the half eagle (i.e. 5$) by buying the item? More? Less? Did the merchant give him money in the form of change?
Did he purchase an item whose cost was such that half eagle should have been broken since there was no change anymore thanks to the coin change? E.g. I imagine something like him entering the shop and asking for an item costing 2$. He claimed he only had an half eagle and the merchant did not have old 1$ or 2$ coins because of the change of coinage (for instance 1$ coins were transformed into 1$ cash) Is a particular change relevant?
Did he ask the merchant how was the value of a counterfeited money faking not to distinguish it from the new format of the lower value coin?

Did he add something to the original (i.e. the lower value coin)? Yes. Did he put the coin in a liquid? Paint relevant? Yope to both --> did he cover something? did he melt something? Did he add a liquid? did he add a number Did he add a figure? Did he clean the coin? Chemical reactions relevant? Material of the lower value coin relevant? Iron? Gold?

Were there relevantly boxes with a certain amount of money? Were half eagles common to see at the time? Did he clean the money? Did he make something related to the item he purchased? Did he make an exchange of money with the merchant? For instance he asked the merchant an half eagle to scratch lottery ticket and then ave him back a counterfeited half eagle. If so, was the merchant aware of the exchange?

I think Google is allowable at this stage. --> ok I tried to google the least I could. Indian quarters vs half eagles? Indian half eagles forgery?

I had a WAG but since scraping and scratching had been excluded it is no more valuable....but still I say it for fun --> I was imagining him going to a shop, buying a lottery ticket scratching the ticket and at the same time the coin which was before "soften" through a chemical reaction.

[klondike mary]

This is close, but he did purchase an item --> an item concerning money? An item that cost money, yes.A general item? A specific one? A relevant one? Just a small item; this is relevant.Did he financially gain the same amount as the half eagle (i.e. 5$) by buying the item? More? Less?A bit less. Did the merchant give him money in the form of change?Yes.
Did he purchase an item whose cost was such that half eagle should have been broken since there was no change anymore thanks to the coin change? E.g. I imagine something like him entering the shop and asking No.for an item costing 2$.Of less value than that. He claimedno. he only had an half eagle and the merchant did not have old 1$ or 2$ coins because of the change of coinage (for instance 1$ coins were transformed into 1$ cash) Is a particular change relevant? No particular combination of coins/paper money - just had to add up to a certain amount. -
Did he ask the merchant No. how was the value of a counterfeited money faking not to distinguish it from the new format of the lower value coin? No, n.r.

Did he add something to the original (i.e. the lower value coin)? Yes. Did he put the coin in a liquid? Paint relevant? Yope to both --> did he cover something? did he melt something? Did he add a liquid? did he add a number Did he add a figure? Did he clean the coin? Chemical reactions relevant? This, everything else no or n.r.Material of the lower value coin relevant? Iron? Whatever nickels are made of. Gold? The higher value coin was made of gold.

Were there relevantly boxes with a certain amount of money? No. Were half eagles common to see at the time? Fairly common. Did he clean the money? Did he make something related to the item he purchased? No to all.
Did he make an exchange of money with the merchant? He bought an item, paid for it with the fake coin, and received change.For instance he asked the merchant no. an half eagle to scratch lottery ticket and then ave him back a counterfeited half eagle. No. If so, was the merchant aware of the exchange? Not at the time.

I think Google is allowable at this stage. --> ok I tried to google the least I could. Indian quarters vs half eagles? Indian half eagles forgery? Indians n.r.

I had a WAG but since scraping and scratching had been excluded it is no more valuable....but still I say it for fun --> I was imagining him going to a shop, buying a lottery ticket scratching the ticket and at the same time the coin which was before "soften" through a chemical reaction. Not softened.
Earnest

[Earnest]

Just a small item --> did he buy it daily? weekly? monthly? whenever he had to do something (e.g. send letters?)? stamps? pawn shop relevant? An item made of gold? A piece of jewelry? Cigarettes? Recycled items? a dice? price tags? Something connected to money? Taxes relevant? Is it something that is easily consumed? Burned? Put into trash? Is it made of paper? Metal? Something that is still sold? Something that was sold under the coinage change? Did the item bought make the transaction legal? Did he buy a bill? A receipt? a quittance?


Had he bought something else would the puzzle have worked? If not, because it would have been illegal?

[klondike mary]

Just a small item --> did he buy it daily? weekly? monthly? IDK, let's say intermittently. whenever he had to do something (e.g. send letters?)?no. stamps? pawn shop relevant? No to both.An item made of gold? The item he purchased? No.A piece of jewelry? Cigarettes? Recycled items? a dice? No or n.r. to all. price tags? There was either a price tag or some indication of cost on/near the item. Something connected to money? Taxes relevant? Is it something that is easily consumed? Burned? Put into trash? Is it made of paper? Metal? n.r. to all.Something that is still sold? Something that was sold under the coinage change? n.r. to all. Did the item bought make the transaction legal? The item was legal and the transaction legal.Did he buy a bill? A receipt? a quittance? n.r.


Had he bought something else would the puzzle have worked? If not, because it would have been illegal? Depends on the value of the item.
Earnest

[Earnest]

There was either a price tag or some indication of cost on/near the item. --> relevant? Price of the item: 1 nickel? One of the lower value coin? 2? more than 2?more than 3? Is the change with half eagle always the same? i.e. it cannot be broken differently? Is it the only item at that price? was the price commensurate with respect to the new coin system? For instance had the item cost a fraction of the newly introduced coins, would the price be expressed relevantly into decimal points? Was it rounded? Relevant? Is it relevant to identify the item bought? If so is it relevant for establishing the reason why he was acquitted and released?

Is the item found mainly in: bars? Pubs? Supermarkets? does it deal with: food? is it a tool? leisure? Hobby? Sport?health? Technology? a pen? something that can be found also nowadays?


WAG--> the symbol of the new coin was yet unknown. E.g. the symbol was the $ now widely used but to be defined at that time.

[klondike mary]

There was either a price tag or some indication of cost on/near the item. --> relevant? yes Price of the item: 1 nickel? This.One of the lower value coin? 2? more than 2?more than 3? Is the change with half eagle always the same? i.e. it cannot be broken differently?The change might be made up of different combinations of coins and bills, but would always come to $4.95. Is it the only item at that price? was the price commensurate with respect to the new coin system? For instance had the item cost a fraction of the newly introduced coins, would the price be expressed relevantly into decimal points? there were not necessarily recently released coins. Was it rounded? Relevant? Is it relevant to identify the item bought? If so is it relevant for establishing the reason why he was acquitted and released?All n.r.

Is the item found mainly in: bars? Pubs? Supermarkets? does it deal with: food? is it a tool? leisure? Hobby? Sport?health? Technology? a pen? something that can be found also nowadays?Item was not the same thing every time. Only the value of the item is relevant.


WAG--> the symbol of the new coin was yet unknown. E.g. the symbol was the $ now widely used but to be defined at that time.Sort of OTRT here. The 'fake' coin did not contain the word or symbol for 'cents'
Earnest

[klondike mary]

A recap and some hints:

The time period of this puzzle was the late 19th century, though it could also have been in the first decade of the 20th. At that time, gold coins - eagles, half-eagles, and double eagles were in circulation. Only half-eagles are relevant. Also in circulation were the same denominations of coins that we now have in the UlS, but they did not all resemble the coins we now have.How they differed is relevant.
How (in what manner) the counterfeits were passed is relevant.
His lawyers argued that he was not technically guilty of fraud. How could this be?

[biograd]

Is it relevant that a nickel and a half eagle were both worth "5 of something" (cents and dollars, respectively)? Was an amount of money relevantly stated as just "5", with the "cents" or "dollars" being implicit but technically ambiguous?

[Earnest]

Quite a lot that I did not engage in this one so sorry for any repetition...

[...] but they did not all resemble the coins we now have.How they differed is relevant. --> so I guess that they were modified in order to solve the technical issue spotted in the puzzle right?

How (in what manner) the counterfeits were passed is relevant. --> were the counterfeits exact copies of half eagles? were the counterfeits build/formed/obtained with new (for the time) coins that now you have in US but that differed from actual coins in the relevant manner you cited? DID THEY DIFFER: in the value? In numbers displayed? In how they were called? In how they were called by people? In how they were displayed in price tags?
Oh well now that I read back that the problem was on nickels I guess I have a WAG --> old nickels had only the symbol V (roman for five). So counterfeiters just cover the nickel with gold and spend it for half eagle. The issue was corrected by adding the word "cents". Maybe the technical issue lies on the fact that covering nickels with gold, half-eagles and nickels had nominally the same value (they weight the same, had the same materials and looked almost the same), hence no injustice was technically made.

[klondike mary]

Is it relevant that a nickel and a half eagle were both worth "5 of something" (cents and dollars, respectively)? Was an amount of money relevantly stated as just "5", with the "cents" or "dollars" being implicit but technically ambiguous? YES. OTRT, Biograd!
biograd

Posts: 624

[klondike mary]

[...] but they did not all resemble the coins we now have.How they differed is relevant. --> so I guess that they were modified in order to solve the technical issue spotted in the puzzle right? Yope. Probably not 'modified' to solve this problem, because I doubt it became a wide-spread problem. The design would change periodically anyhow.

How (in what manner) the counterfeits were passed is relevant. --> were the counterfeits exact copies of half eagles? Not exact, but close enough to deceive a casual glance. were the counterfeits build/formed/obtained with new (for the time) coins that now you have in US but that differed from actual coins in the relevant manner you cited? No, he used coins that had been i circulation for some time.DID THEY DIFFER: in the value? In numbers displayed? In how they were called? In how they were called by people? In how they were displayed in price tags? No or yope to all.
Oh well now that I read back that the problem was on nickels I guess I have a WAG --> old nickels had only the symbol V (roman for five). So counterfeiters just cover the nickel with gold and spend it for half eagle. The issue was corrected by adding the word "cents". Maybe the technical issue lies on the fact that covering nickels with gold, half-eagles and nickels had nominally the same value (they weight the same, had the same materials and looked almost the same), hence no injustice was technically made. Yes, yes, yes!. You've got it! He simply had an unscrupulous jeweler friend gold plate a nickle. Both had a woman's head on the 'heads' side (the goddess of liberty). Though there may have been slight differences in weight, etc., these were not discernible on a cursory look

I thought about titling this puzzle "Heads Up," but was afraid that would give it away!

One more detail: Why could he not be prosecuted for fraud?
Earnest

[Earnest]

Yes, yes, yes!. You've got it! ---> happy for that. It was an hard one for me (since I come from Italy and don't know much about US monetary system).

"Heads Up," but was afraid that would give it away! --> would have been a cool title but yes maybe too much on the topic

One more detail: Why could he not be prosecuted for fraud? --> maybe because after all he gave a nickel for a nickel? i.e. he gave a fake half-eagle, i.e. a nickel and received a nickel as charge...oh maybe also the object but technically is it as if there was a discount or so...he givees money in exchange of an object...

[klondike mary]

Yes, yes, yes!. You've got it! ---> happy for that. It was an hard one for me (since I come from Italy and don't know much about US monetary system).I would think not very many US citizens would know about gold eagles, etc., since America has been off the gold standard since well before I was born, and I'm no spring chicken.

"Heads Up," but was afraid that would give it away! --> would have been a cool title but yes maybe too much on the topic

One more detail: Why could he not be prosecuted for fraud? --> maybe because after all he gave a nickel for a nickel? i.e. he gave a fake half-eagle, i.e. a nickel and received a nickel as charge...sort of OTRT. change is relevant. oh maybe also the object but technically is it as if there was a discount or so...he givees money in exchange of an object... Yes. Not the same object each time, but an object of the same value. Closing in!
Earnest

[Earnest]

Not the same object each time, but an object of the same value. --> i.e. a nickel so that the change is always $4.95, right? Not sure but in the .95 part there is a nickel as change right? Is it relevant? Or is relevant the change as a whole?
the same kind of object? Is it relevant that it is not always the same object? Can we assume that he buys the objects in the same store? The fact that the items are small is relevant to justify their cost of a nickel? The fact that they could be easily hidden? The fact that they got unnoticed by someone? The fact that he could took them in his pockets? Were the items smaller than a nickel? The same size? Relevant?

Why could he not be prosecuted for fraud? --> because a fraud is an intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right, but he did not made a deception? Had he changed a half eagle with 5$ would he have committed a fraud? If so, because he made a request to the seller? Does he relevantly wait for the slyer to ask him money? Or maybe he gives to the seller the money together with the items bought so that they do not exchange any word?

At least from what I read there are very few things that can be bought with less than a dollar in the States...not sure.

[klondike mary]

Not the same object each time, but an object of the same value. --> i.e. a nickel so that the change is always $4.95, right? Not sure but in the .95 part there is a nickel as change right? Is it relevant? Or is relevant the change as a whole?
the same kind of object? Is it relevant that it is not always the same object? Can we assume that he buys the objects in the same store? The fact that the items are small is relevant to justify their cost of a nickel? The fact that they could be easily hidden? The fact that they got unnoticed by someone? The fact that he could took them in his pockets? Were the items smaller than a nickel? The same size? Relevant?

Why could he not be prosecuted for fraud? --> because a fraud is an intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right, but he did not made a deception? Had he changed a half eagle with 5$ would he have committed a fraud? If so, because he made a request to the seller? Does he relevantly wait for the slyer to ask him money? Or maybe he gives to the seller the money together with the items bought so that they do not exchange any word?

At least from what I read there are very few things that can be bought with less than a dollar in the States...not sure.Now, yes. But this happened over a century ago. But you have basically got the

*****************SPOILER*******************
Joshua Slocum passed off gold-plated nickels as $5 half-eagles, but he never bought anything that cost more than 5 cents, so the shop owners were not defrauded of any goods. Sure, they were out $4.95 in change, but, as his lawyers pointed out, the salespiople voluntarily gave him that money. He never asked for it. He couldn't, being a deaf-mute.

If you had a Liberty-head nickle today, you would be sitting on 3 million+ USD. If you had one of Josh's gold-plated nickels, well, it would't be worth a plugged nickel
Earnest

Posts: 2922
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

[klondike mary]

Not the same object each time, but an object of the same value. --> i.e. a nickel so that the change is always $4.95, right? Not sure but in the .95 part there is a nickel as change right? Is it relevant? Or is relevant the change as a whole?
the same kind of object? Is it relevant that it is not always the same object? Can we assume that he buys the objects in the same store? The fact that the items are small is relevant to justify their cost of a nickel? The fact that they could be easily hidden? The fact that they got unnoticed by someone? The fact that he could took them in his pockets? Were the items smaller than a nickel? The same size? Relevant?

Why could he not be prosecuted for fraud? --> because a fraud is an intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right, but he did not made a deception? Had he changed a half eagle with 5$ would he have committed a fraud? If so, because he made a request to the seller? Does he relevantly wait for the slyer to ask him money? Or maybe he gives to the seller the money together with the items bought so that they do not exchange any word?

At least from what I read there are very few things that can be bought with less than a dollar in the States...not sure.now, yes. However, the time of this puzzle was in the 1890s. And yes, that is the

****************SPOILER***************************
Joshua Slocum passed off gold-plated nickles as $5 half-eagles. He would pass the money over with the 'Liberty' head facing up, but as he never bought anything worth more than 5 cents, the shop owners were not defrauded of any goods. Sure, they were out $4.95 in change, but, his lawyers pointed out, they gave that to him voluntarily. He never asked for it. He couldn't, being a deaf-mute!

If you had one of the original Liberty head nickles today, it would be worth over 3 million USD. If you had one of Josh's doctored nickles, it wouldn't be worth a plugged nickle!

[Earnest]

ahahahahahah nice one!