US-Colonies Circulation - 1785 Christian VII Skilling

Pictured is a 1785 Danish Christian VII 2 Skilling that arrived today for inclusion in my "Colonial Williamsburg" collection.

​

Pursuant to Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 135, Coinage for Colonial Virginia, Eric P. Newman, (c)1956, pg.33, one specimen of this type and year was discovered during the renovation of Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. Such a discovery confirms that at least one specimen [of this type] had been indeed in circulation sometime in Virginia's colonial times.

At present I do not have an attribution for this specimen, if indeed attributions have been documented or if in fact have been confirmed to exist. Further study in the matter is being conducted.

It's planchet is slightly smaller in diameter,as well as thinner than a U.S. dime. The vendor who sold the specimen to me described it in VG+ condition.

A quarter-millennium has passed, and though the specimen is a bit rugged in appearance, I think it still possesses remarkable detail and beautiful coloring

Any comments and thoughts about it are appreciated and welcomed!

Thanks, kindly

CheetahCats

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like it

 

I do too...
Looks like a lot of history in one small little silver package

 

An outstanding example! Congrats on your pick up

 

Thats pretty interesting, I've never seen one before. What is the equivalent of 2 skilling in todays cents?

 

I would say that is a very difficult question. The Danish monetary system was reorganized a bunch of times. See this article for more information.

I believe concurrent to the theme of this posting, what's more important is what this particular specimen would have been valued at, say within and during late U.S. Colonial, U.S. Pre-Federal, and U.S. Pre-1860 times. Foreign specie of all kinds were traded in the U.S. [territory] during these periods. It is only an educated guess, but my thoughts, based on the appearance of its silver content, weight, and dimensions, that it would be valued at equivalently to somewhere around 10-12 U.S. cents.

But as I said, this is only an educated guess. More research is ongoing.

 

Is it possible for a coin that was minted in 1785 to have been in circulation during "Virginia's colonial times"?

 

I did not edit the intro paragraphs correctly. I recycled the wording for the thread's title and opening paragraphs from an earlier posting of another specimen for my Williamsburg collection. The opening paragraphs should in fact, read:

"Such a discovery confirms that at least one specimen [of this type] had been indeed in circulation sometime in Virginia's early statehood."
​

My mistake, my apologies.

 

"Such a discovery confirms that at least one specimen [of this type] had been indeed in circulation sometime in Virginia's early statehood."

CheetahCats,

I tried to reply, but I don't think my message posted, so here we go again...

I really like your thinking - using archeology to guide what should be included. I've been a disciple of Ivor Noel Hume for years.

You may have mentioned this idea elewhere in a post, but...I've also been on a quiet crusade to have the 1708-1767 (w/ big gaps) coinages of Denmark for the Danish West Indies included in the American "colonial" series. The rationale is that coins made for a part of the U.S. (the DWI are now the U.S. Virgin Islands) by another country have just as much claim as those made for British, French or Spanish territories, such as the 13 original states, VT, TX or OR. The fact that a later piece was found in Virginia just convinces me all the more that the earlier ones belong.

Attached are pics of a couple of 12 skillings pieces that I own. The 1757 piece was purchased at the Mt Vernon gift shop -- but I don't think that qualifies as being "found in Virginia".

I just ordered, but haven't received, a 1764 contemporary counterfeit 24 skillings struck in copper. I think it may be related to the one muled with a 1783 Georgious Triumpho.

All in all, an interesting and under-explored series.

Your thoughts on the subject?

By the way, if anyone has examples of the 1740 1 or 2 skilling pieces ($$$) or the 1708 / 1749 gold coinage ($$$$$), please post.

Best

 

I concur with your thinking.

Here is another article that I posted [elsewhere] that discusses archaeological digs pursuant to Russia's colonization of North America:

Imperial Russian Colonies in America

The Russian colonization of North Americas began in 1732 and lasted until 1867. It began when the Imperial Russian Empire laid claim to northern West Coast territories. Like the western Europeans, the Russians also sponsored expeditions in search of natural resources, as well as lay claim to land for Russia and her trading activities. In pursuit of these efforts, the Russians established support settlements and defensive outposts all along northwest lands that bordered the Pacific Ocean.

Near Bodega Bay in Northern California is one such outpost: Fort Ross. The Russians maintained it until 1841, when they abandoned the region.

For the Russians, their colonial aspirations and activities were largely unprofitable. Russia offered sale of their Alaskan territory to the United States in 1857. After delays due to the Civil War, the U.S. finally purchased the territory in October of 1867. It was this financial transaction which finally ended Russia's presence in North America altogether.

Below please find one specimen of the Russian coppers from my cabinet that were trading during Russia's North American colonial days. Similar copper kopek pieces minted during the reign of Catherine II have been found during archaeological excavations at Fort Ross¹. Discoveries of such coppers have been found elsewhere, including Canada, Alaska, and by scant accounts, as far south as the island of Hawaii.



- Cheetah

_________________
1. The Context of the Cemetery at Fort Ross: Multiple Lines of Evidence, Multiple Research Questions, Lynne Goldstein and Robert A. Brinkmann, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Volume 39, Number 4

 

I would be interested in seeing a posting of the specimen that you speak of.

The Georgius Triumpho token in of itself is a bit of a mysterious piece. Some argue that the bust on the obverse of the Georgius Triumpho token has an uncanny similarity to contemporary counterfeit Irish halfpence of the period - namely 1781, 1782, and 1783 pieces. In addition, comparisons have been made with respect to Goddess of Liberty on the reverse. The top half of the Goddess is extremely similar to English contemporary counterfeits of the period as well.

Anton and Kesse¹ proffer that the Georgius Triumpho token was most probably struck sometime around 1787-1790, in contradiction to earlier theories that it was actually struck earlier. Previous evidence had suggested that several earlier New Jersey coppers had been struck on Georgius Triumpho planchets (Maris 73-aa and 56-n), but that has since been questioned.

Thus, if your specimen was indeed struck over a Georgius Triumpho copper, there exists a lot more dynamics to the piece that what might appear:

It could imply that your 1764 24 skilling piece was struck sometime after 1787-1790; or -
It may sit on an earlier contemporary counterfeit (or evasion) with the bust of George and Hibernia very much similar to the ones which appear on the Triumpho².
​

- Cheetah

____________

¹ The Forgotten Coins of the North American Colonies, Anton & Kesse, Woodcliff (c)1990

² A Journey through the Monkalokian rain forests in search of the Spiney Fubbaduck, Greensword, Bramcote, (c)1993

 

I do not doubt that these did circulate in colonial/early Federal America. But I feel that I must question your interpretation of the archaeological evidence. A find of a single coindoes NOT necessarily mean that the type circulated there in any number. If a dozen or so were found, then it is most likely they did. A single coin could easily be a random piece that worked its way to the colonies, not representative of the general pattern of circulation.

To frame it in another light: imagine a British merchant in China, circa 1820. He carries back a Chinese cash coin as a souvenir, later losing it. When that coin is found in excavations, it obviously does not mean that cash circulated in England!

 

I think I'll defer to Newman in the matter of Virginia; And McMahan and Farris for the Russian coinage. But thanks.

 

CheetahCats,

The piece I was referring to is a muling (not an overstrike) of a copper counterfeit 24 skillings "ship" reverse with the Georgius Triumpho obverse. Mike Ringo and Syd Martin co-authored a CNL article about it called "Discovery of a New U S Colonial Coin Type", published in August 2002, starting on sequential page 2361. Apologies for not mentioning Syd in my previous post. Ringo's specimen was sold as lot #534 in the 8th C4 auction, 2002.

In his encyclopedia, Breen alluded to a NJ 73-aa being overstruck on a Georgius Triumpho, but, as I recall, couldn't trace it. However, Dennis Wierzba did discover an example and publsihed an article about it "A Georgius Triumpho as the Undertype of a NJ 73-aa" in the C4 Newsletter (Vol 7, #2, Summer 1999, pp.14-20.) As far as I know, that attribution still stands and establishes ca. 1790 as the latest period for at least the first GT's to have been made.

I have seen 1780's Irish halfpence that closely resemble GT's, but I have seen one particular 1776 Irish counterfeit that was a dead ringer for its head, in every detail. It was sold on eBay a few years ago. i bid what I thought was a reasonable price, but it went MUCH higher -- around $250 as I recall -- at a time when counterfeits were still very cheap. So, evidently, someone else recognized the similarity.

If you'll recall Mr. Vlack suggested initial West Indian circulation, then GA and FL, for the GT's in his 1960's Early American Coins. A few years ago, I asked him if he recalled what led him to that conclusion. At that time, he could not recall the specific evidence that he had used.

All in all, I'm confident that the GT's originated in the 1780's, whether the 1783 date is actual or commemorative. That's in the period of interest or darned close to it.

Finally, attached is a pic of a GT from my collection - the more common die state, with the reverse crack.

Best,
ARguy

 

I have to agree with CheetahCats on this one.

 

Hi Guys,

In response to the 73-aa overstruck on the Georgius Triumpho, it is still the only confirmed example of the GT undertype known. I saw the coin recently as I placed it into a well known collection and the undertype is quite bold. It was found in a Bowers and Merena auction about 10 years ago described as being overstruck on an Irish counterfeit. I will I had a picture of the piece so I could post it, but..........

I think the evidence all points to a striking of 1790 or a few years earlier for the Triumpho pieces. They really are great historical coins!

 

Indeed. You did say muling. My apologies. Scratch what I said before.

I do believe we're on the same page though :thumb:

Beautiful specimen too!

 

Thanks for confirming the 73-aa. Its provenance is reported to originate from the Boyd collection. And in support of your statement about it being the lone piece confirmed, indeed there seemed to have been a mis-attribution re: the 56-n when it appeared in Spiro, Lot 1571... and such error in attribution continued when it reappeared in Bareford, Lot 186.

 

Hi CheetahCats,

I do believe the 56-n was misattributed in both sales. Bill Anton viewed the coin in the Bareford sale and confirmed that it was not a Georgius Triumpho undertype. I have not seen the coin in person myself though. The 73-aa that Breen mentions overstruck (as well as other NJ varieties) on Triumphos were all viewed by Mike Hodder and Mike Ringo over the years and they were found to be over Irish counterfeits with similar letter punches.

The 73-aa confirmed with the Triumpho undertype is fairly low grade with surface porosity. In general this does not seem like the kind of coin that Boyd would have bought condition wise. It also would have shown up in one of the Boyd/Ford duplicate sales or the Ford sales themselves. It really is a cool coin!!

 

If I understand what you're saying, it was Anton who reported this as fact in his book "The Forgotten Coins of the North American Colonies"

(I'm starting to have some doubts about this book by Anton anyways - but that's a whole other discussion...)