1788 Massachusetts one cent - counterfeit?

I focus on U.S. mint issues 1793 to present, so colonial and post-colonial copper are not my forte.

A colleague brought me a 1788 Massachusetts one cent coin......or did she?

I can't post pics because I'm at work now, and I don't know if she will allow me to take the coin home to photograph.

One of the first things I noticed was a very tiny "R" counterstamp on the date side of the coin. I googled it and found a couple of other people asking questions about this counterstamp. This makes me suspicious that it's a counterfeit (possibly a "R"eplica???)

Has anyone else seen this coin with this counterstamp?

I am suspicious that this coin is a counterfeit for other reasons, but for now, I'd just like to know about the counterstamp.

Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm no authority on colonials, but I would think any coin can have any counterstamp anywhere on it.

What are the other concerns you mentioned ? Convince her to let you take a few pics. Eager to hear how this one turns out !

 

The rims look funny; looks like they've been shaved down or something.

My biggest concern is the edge. It almost looks like a base metal has been coated in copper, and the copper is starting to flake off. I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like.

Also, the devices look a bit dulled, and I am unable to match this to any of the known die varieties that I can find (although, admittedly, I don't have access to all of them here at work.)

 

If it has a tiny R counterstamp then it is almost certainly a replica. Before the hobby protection act some companies used the R instead of COPY an the R is also the standard way that British companies mark replicas.

 

Conder is right, I have seen quite a few of these replica Massachusetts coins with the "R". The genuine coins do not have it.

 

Now with pics:









For now, I'm sticking with the replica theory. Can anyone point me to documentation about this counterstamp being on replica coins? I'd like to provide something in writing to my colleague.

Thanks.

 

I don't know of any documentation, but no question that is a copy. As you state it is base metal with a copper coating which is flaking off. The genuine coins are struck in copper.

 

yup, fake.

Why?

Well, that is hard to say.
The planchet and strike look just 'too good'.

Also, the surface looks 'too nice.'

 

I agree with Treashunts 'scientific' (smiley) analysis and conclusion on why he thinks this coin is fake.

Here is an authentic ( at least I hope so) Massachusetts cent, in approximately the same state of preservation as the O.P coin. Note the difference in the sharpenss of detail and strike. The O.P coins appears to have a mushy strike, typical of coins which have been cast rather than struck. The planchet does not appear to be of regular thickness throughout, and it is probably underweight as well. Some differences are subtle, and difficult to describe in words, but become obvious when comparing to a genuine specimen.

 

Thank you all very much for your help. Greatly appreciated, as always.

 

cast copy. Check the rim for the ring. The details are all off, the flaking is the real giveaway though.

 

Eduard:
Sorry, but you can see wht it was hard to describe.

Also, I just noticed the tiny R on the reverse.

Well I believe that it is short for: Really Reasonable Replica.

 

Hello everyone,

I have been doing some research and a link brought me right back to CT! Imagine that, lol.

Anyway Nice thread something i did not know about. I actually (so sad i know) had to go check both my 1787 and 1788 pieces "just to make sure"

Thankfully no "R" on them. I am pretty sure there authentic, but never did have them slabbed, so, one never can be to sure. I have done some research on them, (wt, size, etc) and everything checks out.

Well, again, nice thread.

Regards,
Stan

 

Haha.. Not to open an old thread, but same here. I was researching a "coin" I was given in a bag of miscellaneous world coins and found one that was an obvious fake. After looking closely, I saw that the tiny chunk taken from the back was a tine R. I thought that may be a marking that it is a fake but I had never heard of it. Anyway, I ended up here. I thought I'd post because if you are new to coins, the info. in this thread is good to have!

 

Does the R on the back of the 1788 cent stand for Ryder. if you can find anything more post it. TD Ohio

 

I have a 1788 R cent colonial. Looks copper.

 

Yea...i read online that the R on back of the 1788 cent stands for Ryder. a special collection.

 

The R most likely stands for replica, as no genuine coins have it. Ryder was the man who classified the different die varieties of Massachusetts coppers with a number designating the obverse die and a letter the reverse die, so they are known as Ryder 1-B, Ryder 3-C etc. If the coin has the R stamp, it is a replica.

 

@Colonialjohn might know what the R is all about. The 7yr old OP coin looks like a possible electrotype

 

What is the replica 1788 cent value.