Upvote:3
In 17th century England there was a shortage of copper coins. Even lumps of copper were accepted since the value of coins were effectively their bullion weight so trade tokens or outright fakes were perfectly acceptable, provided they were copper. However, if you faked silver or gold coins you were hanged, drawn & quartered (or burnt if you were a woman).
Upvote:3
The quotation "fino al '600 riprodurre monete altrui fu considerato legale" actually means that it was legal to counterfeit other people's [i. e. foreign] money, in fact, aristocrats, churchmen, traders, and guild engaged in such counterfeiting, and it was usual for official mints to counterfeit their own currency (thus producing debased coins) β but a private individual could be severely punished if caught by the affected authorities and could end being boiled alive.
There's an interesting chapter on currency counterfeiting in England in Malcom Gaskill's Crime and Mentalities in Early Modern England.
Upvote:17
As stated, the question has a simple answer: no!
In Rome the right to mint currency was strictly reserved to the emperor. The emperor might at times devolve the right to mint copper or silver (but not gold!) coins to certain favoured cities, but it was his to grant and his to withdraw. There were severe punishments for counterfeiters (don't remember offhand how severe, but rest assured they were so).
Btw, ironically, the imperial government itself often resorted to debas*m*nt which nowadays would be called by the respectable name of "turning on the printing press" but in ancient terms is very much akin to counterfeiting.
What, however, your source might have had in mind is that gold or silver bullion, however processed, used to serve as legitimate means of payment. Probably one could legally inscribe his name on his bullion, although I don't know why they should be doing that.