1776 New hampshire coin?

we might have a N.H coin...

Hi -- We've had a coin in our family, just sitting in a drawer, for many years without knowing that it might be a copper coin from New Hampshire. Tonight we were looking online for information on it, and ran across this message board. We realize that there were many copies made, but we still have hope! Our coin, however, does not have the harp on the one side that y'all were talking about. It has WM and American Liberty on one side, and the 9 pointed tree in a bowl on the other, with the numbers 1776. It looks really old -- the edges are smooth, though it is crude and dark. It appears to be copper that's very tarnished, but of course we don't dare to clean it just in case it is real! Also, the impression of the tree is not centered. It's about 2.3 cm wide and almost exactly the size of a modern quarter, though not as thick. Is it possible this is an authentic copper coin? Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you GDJMSP, I have been putting a lot of time into the early coppers these past two months. My lack of knowledge in this area shamed me. The New Hampshire coin was the designed after the Declaration of Independence. The coin that Linnybinny speaks of is a unique engraved piece. According to R.S. Yeoman author of the RedBook, the purported patterns are of doubtful origin. William Moulton designed the coins, but no records were kept as to how many were made. The coins made were to have a harp on the reverse, and the pine tree on the obverse. He does speak of the unique engraved piece with the initials WM on the reverse.
Now the good news.
Breen lists several New Hampshire coppers as patterns.
Composition: Copper
Weight: Variable
Diameter: Variable

1776 Pattern copper. Tree on straight ground Always cast.
1776 Pattern copper. Tree on mound. 3 to 5 known. Always cast. Weighs 5.15 grams.
Modern cast forgeries exist in quantity; these have occasioned doubt of all specimens offered.

This information is found on page 60 of the Breen encyclopedia.

If linnybinny can post a photo that help a lot. The tree on the modern forgeries is considerably different than the original coin.
Now old forgeries also exist, but no photos are given on these. So if the coin in question matches enough of the original, it may be worth the time to be authenticated.

If it turns out to be a forgery. They still have a fantastic conversation piece.

 

Thank you, National Dealer, for replying! We are very excited about all the information you have given us, one way or the other. I'm going to try to post pictures on here for everyone, but I'm not sure how to do it, so hopefully it will work!

 

You are very welcome. Can you add the photo of the obverse also?

 

I couldn't attach both pictures in one reply, so I tried to do it in two, but one of the picture's file is just too big. National Dealer, can I send you the other picture in an email? Also, what does "cast," "obverse," and "reverse" mean, and how do I tell those two apart? Thanks!

 

Sorry about that. I sometimes forget that the terms we use aren't generally well known outside of the communinty. The front of the coin is called the Obverse. The back of the coin is the Reverse. Cast is a term describing the way the coin was made. Most coins are made using dies to strike the coin. Casting is using a mold to make the coin. This is a basic idea. Yes you may send me an email. Just click on my profile and send the email.

 

I took another picture and got it to work! So here is the "obverse". =)

 

Nice pic. I know it is difficult getting large photos here, so if you would check your private messages, you will have my email address to send me a larger photo. I can give you a better guess from that. Thanks!

 

Thanks for the email. The larger pics were a bit blurry, but still good enough.

When looking at the coin in question, I would label this a modern forgery. Since the original coins were cast, the obverse and reverse should not be off center. This is a characteristic of die strikes. Also, the edge of the coin would show evidence of casting marks, which do seem to be on your coin.

With that said, your coin still exhibits a lot of the original design not commonly seen in copies. Usually modern copies are not faithfully reproduced in exact details of the early coppers. (until very recently). If you have a friend at the post office, you could take this coin and have it weighed in grams.
The coin in question is of the straight ground variety. No official weights are given, but should be near the 5.15 grams.
Also, if you have a coin show in your area, or a dealer, it may be wise to have the coin examined. Even the original forgeries carry a small premium these days. ($10 to $20)
You have a great conversation piece that should be shared with friends and family.

 

Thanks so much for all of your help with this! It's been really fun!

 

Well I am thankful that you stopped by the forum. It is a great little place to talk coins. If you have any more questions, please stop by again. I know all will apreciate it.

 

I got one of these coins also . Got it from my grandfather. Here are some pictures

 

Welcome, jimmydubois.
Nice pictures.

 

I have one very similar to jimmydubois that I found during home renovation while living in NH. Any interest in pic email iEDITED - not a good idea to post ones person email address -

 

I think ND is working from an old RB. In the 2010 RB, the NH's are on pages 55 thru 56.

Also, someone told the OP to contact EAC when EAC does NOT seriously get into colonials, they are primarily 1792 and later. The best peeps to talk to are C4 peeps:

http://www.colonialcoins.org/

Also, I would love to see pics! :thumb: If I had pics, I could contact a few C4 peeps to see what they think.

Ribbit

Ps: I just noticed this thread is 5 years old and the OP posted and ran. :goof:

 

I'm still here, I still have the coin in the safe.

 

I was referring to the OP (original poster).

Ribbit