Can anyone solve this mystery for me? The links below are of the front & back. I have looked high & low for any info on this thing with no luck at all. You might have to copy & paste the links. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks! http://www.testpmann.veriotraining.org/pics/1.JPG http://www.testpmann.veriotraining.org/pics/2.JPG
I know Hi there There was an article in Coin World last week (I think) about this token. If I remenber right there are only a few that are genuine---I think your's is a remake. I'll try to find the article tonight--if someone else doesn't beat me to it I'm sure GDJMSP can give you a little more info Speedy
I found it!!! Well here is what I found. It is commonly called the "Bar Cent"--it is made out of copper--it is 1/32 inch less then an inch--It is listed on page 53 of the Red Book--IF it is a genuine it can go from $700-$4,500. From the pic if yours is real...$700.00. It was undated but minted somewhere around 1785. One way to tell if it is real--look to see if there is a small spur near the end of the second bar on the reverse (the second to the botttom) pointing toward the third bar. Mr. Breen records weights from 5.24-5.65 grams. Hope that helps. Speedy
Thanks for all the info! I was baffled for a while on this one. I didn't see any spur under the loop & just by the look of it it probably is a remake but I will have it checked out just in case. Thanks again!
Don't know what I could add to that Speedy - good job ! I will say that I agree with your opinion that it is a copy.
I don't know gentlemen, the strike is not that of the known copies. The known copies "the A passes under the S. I see what appears to be a casting mark at the top of the obverse, but this could have been placed there to add the coin to a necklace. Since this coin has the characteristics of the original, I would have it look at by a dealer.
if you look closely at the pic you can see a ring of dots all the way around the obverse. At approx 9 o'clock are the two most noticeable. And the porosity of the coin surfaces lead me to believe it has been cast - not struck. Now I'll grant you - porosity in and of it's own is not necessarily a reason for doubt in all cases. But coupled with the other marks it is strong evidence IMO. The reverse also appears to carry the hallmarks of a cast coin. Take a look at a genuine bar cent for comparison - bar cent
I don't know if the number of denticles is an indicator of authenticity, but if it is, the OP's coin doesn't have enough.
Both of you make good points. Since the origin of the bar cent is still not known, along with an unknown mintage, all that have the characteristics should be verified. The first known copies were made in the 1860's and still carry a nice premium. I am guilty of jumping to the copy theory myself, and I am trying to change that. 99 times out of 100, a found bar cent will be of modern origin, but if we don't do the necessary processes of identifying these coins we may miss something. A perfect example is the missing 1913 nickel that was deemed a copy until this past summer.
Check the rim of the coin for a seam. I've had colonial coins that were electrotypes (copies). That is, obverse and reverse copies that were "put together" to look like the real thing. They look deceptive but you will usually see the seam running down the middle of the rim.
