Hey gang! This coin crossed my counter this morning. It weighs 9.3 grams. I pretty much wrote it off as a contemporary counterfeit... but I noticed the edge lettering and thought this could possibly be a pattern. There are pattern quarters struck in 1827 that were struck in copper but nothing noted for this date which also lends it to be a counterfeit. The porous surfaces don't help any either. Thoughts?
I would like to pose a possibility to you. Consider the possibility of a large cent planchet at 10.89 grams and 29 mm getting mixed up in the half dollar planchet bin PRIOR to receiving the edge lettering. This would simply be an error (wrong planchet), rather than a counterfeit. This coin would have thinned out from a strike on softer metal and when subject to elements causing porosity, would likely be about 9 and a half grams in weight. Now softer metal would normally make me think the initial coining at normally greater pressure than a typical Cent strike would result in a stronger strike, but that is offset by a reduction of metal to fill the dies. I'm not sure if the castaining machines were still in use in 1831 or if they had converted to using collars to make the edge inscriptions on halves. The cents were plain edged by then.
That thought had crossed my mind... but I don't see anything indicative of being struck on a smaller planchet. Even with the high pressure machines we use today you still see quarters struck on nickel blanks that aren't able to fill the striking chamber.
But copper is MUCH softer and requires MUCH less pressure than nickel, silver or clad. And remember, it's only a couple of mm off. A centered strike would be barely noticeable.
I guess I could use the bust half book and see if it matches up to any of the known dies for that date.
I would lean towards a contemporary counterfeit. If it was a pattern, or a wrong planchet (of a weaker metal), I would expect the strike to be much better. It looks like there was some serious weakness in the details of the devices, especially the eagle.
Interesting idea about a large cent planchet. The weakness in the eagles breast and the front bust would appear to be lack of metal flow. Usually lack of metal flow shows up predominantly in higher relief areas toward the center. Interesting hypothesis if you wanted to do the legwork to explore it.
Just for fun I'll check it against known die pairs as I get time in the morning. That will tell us a lot. I'm off for the evening.
I gotta go with fake too. My guess would be it was originally copper with a silver wash or plating. And it has apparently been in the ground, so somebody probably just pitched it when they discovered it was a fake. Then it was found later.
It is not an Overton Variety. The S in states & U in Unum are not positioned correctly. And it is not a listed type in the Contemporary Counterfiet Capped Bust Half Dollars 1st edition by Keih Davignon either. I will say that it really appears to be a counterfiet to me.
It's almost certainly a contemporary counterfeit. I think we can disregard the cent planchet theory. The lettered edge proves that isn't the case. The bust half is 32.5 mm in diameter as a finished coin. The prestrike diameter is probably somewhere in the 31 mm diameter range. So what happens when you run a 29 mm copper planchet through a Castaining machine set to put a lettered edge on a 31 mm diameter blank? What happens is no lettering. And it is highly unlikely that a cent planchet would have completely filled out the full 32.5 mm diameter. The Castaining machine was in use through 1836 for the half dollars. They never used collars to impress lettering on the halves. The reeded collars were use on half dollars starting in 1836. (Reeded edges on half dimes, dimes and quarters from the collars started much earlier, 1795 and 1796. Reeded edges were NOT applied by Castaining machines.))
What's to say that it's a contemporary counterfeit instead of a contemporary one? Didn't these see a lot of circulation as trade coinage in Asia up until the middle of the 20th century?
I was wondering about it being a cast contemporary counterfeit so I looked at some facts. 1763 degrees silver melts 1984 degrees F copper melts 2797 degrees F iron melts Old tyme Blacksmith’s forges can reach temperatures of 2400 degrees F, more than enough to melt a crucible of raw copper or pure silver (even 90% silver 10% copper, coin silver) that could have been poured into a negative impression mold. It would behoove the counterfeiter to melt down large cents, pour and then electroplate the final layer to mimic the half dollar. This could have been done as early as 1857. I just wonder how much bust coinage was still circulating during the Civil War era? Quote: In 1857, the next new wonder in economical jewelry arrived called electroplating - when the process was first applied to costume jewelry.
Interesting. My understanding is that there was a serious coin shortage during the war, largely due to the introduction of paper money (Gresham's law), so I doubt many were still circulating. There may have been some in the American West though, since there was a shortage of virtually all forms of money out there until the Carson City, Denver, and San Francisco mints got rolling.
Electroplating maybe, but there were ways of putting a silver coating on base metals LONG before 1857. (There were silver coated base metal coins in ancient rome.) It could be chemically deposited or flame gilded using a mercury amalgam. There are probably other methods as well. So this coin could very easily have been made in 1831, well before 1857.
