At first glance this appears to be a cast fake of the New Hampshire Colonial by William Moulton. The casting seam is obvious around the edges. It was shown to me by a friend who suspects it is fake (usually safe) but would hate to condemn a good piece (especially one too rare to be illustrated in Red Book). The problem is that the Moulton varieties were mostly patterns and many were cast rather than being struck so that is not as certain a bad sign with these as it would first seem. The coin is distinguished by a large die/mold flaw on the reverse. It weighs 4.8g. Does anyone have experience with this version? I have seen photos of fake examples of the type but this is not from the same mold and none of them showed the large flaw. If fake, can you point to its maker or purpose (e,g, part of the set used to advertise a Readers' Digest history book???)? Is there an online repository of fake Colonials like the one for ancients run by Forvm?
I was at the Virginia Numismatic Association Convention and show last weekend. Someone came up to me with a "coin" just like this. It was way underweight - very obvious. Larry Briggs mentioned there had been many replicas made and sold as souvenirs in various historical venues.
This is 4.8g. What is the proper weight? It is quite possible it is the same coin. I have no idea what these should be (remember 99% of my collection is 500 years older than 1776). If the coin were an ancient, I'd say there was zero chance of it being real but when I read that Moulton made cast patterns and most of the existing coins are patterns, I did not know what to think. I was hoping the huge flaw would be diagnostic.
It should be noted, of course, that New Hampshire was the first state which considered the subject of coinage following the Declaration of Independence. There were several acts which addressed New Hampshire coinage. They varied as to specification of weight. There is little else known. Thus with what has been found, there is no consistency with weights, let alone, whether such specimens are all real or if some are fantasy pieces. As far as your casting flaw is concerned, none of the illustrations found in my research are consistent with it. Mind you, some numismatists estimate that as many as 4,800 were cast, so such a flaw, if such numbers were truly made, is within plausibility. Durst reports three varieties: The Wide Tree, Narrow Tree, and W.M. Varieties are all cast. You have the third of course. He also reports two different weights were authorized for these coins. The first weight for them was to be the weight of official English Halfpence, made of pure copper. The second weight was to be 5 pennyweight, ten grains. Comprehensive Guide to American Colonial Coinage, pgs.88,89, Sanford J. Durst, (c)1976 Crosby reports: Crosby confirms Durst's assertion above, and also mentions that a specimen was discovered weighing 155 grains. In addition, he mentions that there existed an engraved version with a weight of 127 grains. The Early Coins of America, Sylvester S. Crosby, (c)1875 Breen reports the following: Committee formed March 13, 1776 recommended specimens be the weight of the standard English halpenny, or approx avg 152.17 grains, 9.86 grams. Given that most the halfpennies in circulation by that time were quite worn it is an estimate - the last largest shipment from the Tower Mint hadn't happened since 1749. The Act of June 28, 1776 permitted any form of coppers, with a weight of 130 grains / 8.42 grams each. Breen-706: 3 to 5 known, one example weighs 5.15 grams, diameter about 28mm. All of the other types listed by Breen are not your type. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, Walter Breen, (c)1988 Bowers reports: Bowers reports shortly and succinctly that the W.M. variety is a possible fantasy issue. He asserts that this variety has no basis in legislation at the time. He does list one auction, Garrett III Sale (10-1980), AG, US $7500. Whitman Encyclopedia of Colonial and Early American Coins, Q. David Bowers, (c) 2009 Hope this helps, - CheetahCats
You're welcome. If you're really heck-bent on having this specimen authenticated, I'd recommend sending in to a TPG. And even then, if comes back body-bagged, I'd resubmit it to another for a 2nd opinion. There really isn't a whole lot known about the New Hampshire; the experts are at odds about the whole subject. Bowers pretty much implied that he didn't agree with a lot that Breen had said. And even if the second TPG sends it back body-bagged, I still wouldn't toss it.
