Thread: 1652 Masachusetsin Oak Tree Shilling. Real or Fake?

Hi all. Just joined from Texas.

Found two 1652 New England shillings in a retail shop over the weekend. Unfortunately they have been fashioned onto a necklace but do not have holes in the coins. They don't have any marking that are different from the ones I've seen online except a circular "O" shape that veils the "II" part of the "XII" on the back. See attached photos.

Any advice? [ATTACH][/ATTACH]

Do they both have the odd circular shape over the roman numerals?

I don't know about these coins, but find the thread interesting.
My first thoughts are:

*2 rare coins in 1 place, and both made into necklaces... How odd is that?
*Both coins have an abnormal shape overlaying the central design... One genuine coin with an abnormality, maybe, two with the exact same abnormality, both in the same shop... No.

Just my .02
I hope I am wrong, but you know what they say about "too good to be true".

Yes, both coins do have the abnormality. I think you're right. That's what I thought too. I wonder still what the "O" represents and if these 'replicas' have any value?

Thanks for the .02!

Hi All,

These appear to be modern reproductions of an Oak Tree Shilling from Massachusetts. I do come across many of these that have been made into jewelry over the years. One of the big giveaways (minus the surfaces which are not right for MA silver) is the letter W in NEW ENGLAND. On all Oak Tree coinage the middle of the W crosses at the top and is connected with a line. There is no W that crosses like this one does.

Keep in mind, just because a piece was made into jewelry does not necessarily make it a fake colonial. On EBAY in the last year a well known collector purchased an genuine Pine Tree Shilling (Noe 3) in XF45 made into a necklace (which seemed contemporary!) for $18 because everyone assumed that nobody would use a real coin. Well, we were all wrong! I saw and confirmed the piece as genuine at the ANA in Boston this year!

Great info. Thanks a bunch. Any information on the "O" abnormality? Any significance?