1788 Rare Coin

No, this was struck by the State of Connecticut after we won our independence under the Articles of Confederation. They used a bust that is SIMILAR to that used on the British Halfpence because the similar design would make the coins more acceptable to the public. It does NOT indicate Georgius III Rex.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Then who is it . I always thought it was him .I'm not a very good Native of Connecticut I guess .

 

This is what I read about the dirty money...

Introduction
A shortage of money was a problem for the American colonies. England did not supply its colonies with sufficient coinage and prohibited them from making their own. The early settlers brought coins from Europe but they went quickly back there to pay for supplies. Without enough money, the colonists had to barter for goods or use primitive currency such as Indian wampum, nails, and tobacco.

edited - copyright

 

The figure looks more Roman than Victorian to me. I don't know. I'm not very good at history at all.

 

Hey Joe, check this out :
STRUCK DURING THE REIGN OF AN AMERICAN KING – The copper half-penny coin was struck from 1727-1760 during the reign of England’s George II – America’s next-to last King! It bears a portrait of George II on the obverse and an image of a Seated Britannia on the reverse.

 

There is also a King George the 3rd Copper too . Here's some history of reign .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_halfpenny

 

It isn't anyone, just a bust similar in appearance to coins already familiar to the people. It isn't meant to actually be any particular person.

 

Compare this bust to the OP. It very much resembles King George III to me.

 

Because it's basically a counterfeit, but they had to do something so they gave people a familiar KG III coinage. ?? Kind of, I think.

 

I was just a little kid then, ask @GDJMSP , I think he worked there.

 

Someone will have to explain to me what this term "dirty money" is supposed to mean. Because other than outright contemporary counterfeits, there was nothing illegitimate about the state coinage issued during the period of the Articles of Confederation.

I think the familiarity concept has some merit as the Connecticut coppers do indeed have a design likeness to British coinage and it was always a challenge to introduce coinage and have it accepted by merchants and the public. But...

The Connecticut Coppers of 1785 to 1788 are most definitely not counterfeit. They were struck by a private mint owed by Samuel Bishop, James Hillshouse, Joseph Hopkins, and John Goodrich in accordance with a granted right of the General Assembly of Connecticut on October 20, 1785. The authorization was for no more than L10,000 of lawful money in the form of halfpence of six penneyweight (144 grams) and to bear a design of a man's head on one side.

The act also said "Nothing in this act shall be construed to make such coppers a legal tender in payment of any debt, except for the purpose of making even change, for any sum not exceeding three shillings."

The Assembly four days later passed another act: "No person shall coin or manufacture any copper coin of any description or size without permission...from the General Assembly..."

So, these Connecticut coppers were legal and struck under the authority of the General Assembly of Connecticut. Remember that the US won its independence in 1781 with Treaty of Paris signed in 1783. The former colonies, now neither colonies nor states, were more or less united under the Articles of Confederation until the Constitution was adopted, starting in 1787. The new United States did not pass a law creating a mint and coinage until 1792 and did not adopt decimal coinage until then.

There are many different incarnations of the "man's head" on the Connecticut Coppers such as the Roman Head, African Head, Round Head, Double Chin, Broad Shouldered, Ornate Mailed, Scholar's Head, Small Head, Mutton Head, Horned Bust, etc. But none of them have been claimed to be a representation of George III.

So, what is "dirty money"?

 

The Coinage Act of 1792
In 1787, the Constitution gave Congress exclusive power to coin money, and in 1792, Congress passed its first coinage act, establishing a national mint in Philadelphia.

I just made up "dirty money".

The coin in reference is 1778. So how did it fall under legitimate coin money if Congress did not pass the coinage act until 1792?

 

[QUOTE="Publius2,

So, what is "dirty money"?[/QUOTE]

It's certainly a way to get your attention, for sure. Thank you.

 

It's certainly a way to get your attention, for sure. Thank you.[/QUOTE]
you really are bored...

 

Holy quote mess

 

It wasn't intentional??? But it did. With good reason I guess because there is apparently something I'm missing. And I appreciate his input.

 

Back in the 1780s, after we won our independence, it seemed like you could circulate most any copper so long as it was round, brown and had a head on the obverse and a seated figure on the reverse. Here are few coins and counterfeits from the era.

A Vermont copper by Machin's Mills. Machin's Mills made real coins and counterfeits. The reverse on this one looks worn because it was also used to make a counterfeit British half penny. Making it look worn was thought to convince people to accpet it.



A Machin's Mills counterfeit.



A genuine British half penny.



A Connecticut copper

 

And here is a perfect example of the colonial coin conundrum.

 

Sorry about the quote mess.

 

Ah, this is what makes them interesting. I find modern coinage so boring with exact known mintages, who designed and minted them, precise grading scales. I'll take a little mystery and unknown, research and study any day!