I Stumbled into Another TPG Controversy- 1733 "Halfpenny"!

I was offered this cool TPG certified error 1733 halfpenny; seller noted it was not a regal example but a contemporary counterfeit.



Internet image of subject coin


Internet image of a regal halfpenny

The subject example was recently sold through a major auction site:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/gre...L5vh09epKJjhO1WUrVT0DwPn1IVufAdHvBSTJBb7ceeJs

Excited to learn more I posted it in one of my Face Book Groups and experts confirmed it as being from the family of "flat struck" fakes dated 1733, 1737, 1751, 1753, and 1771; per an expert in the Group these are mostly George II's, though some come muled with George III dates. "This family has a LOT of error strikes in it, with double and triple strikes and brockages known. The family is also ridiculously lightweight, usually close to half regal levels, so it's even more surprising this (briefly) got slabbed!".

All images courtesy of the owners:






It was also noted it was not struck in a collar as stated on the TPG label, as the coiner's equipment was primitive at the time. And we can't even be sure it was an "error" without knowing the coiner's intent since so many "mint errors" are seen in this family!

Responses to my question of where this was coined the response was "Definitely England, and definitely far after the date they bear. Likely 1790s. Dies and planchets may have been made in Birmingham, but they could have been sold to smaller coiners pretty much anywhere in England. This family hasn't had plates made for it yet, and that will tell a lot. If there are a great number of dies that pair together then it would be more likely to have happened in one mint. But if there are a lot of dies that pair only with one or two others, then that would suggest this "cottage industry" method of coin production".

An unfortunate unintended result of my Group post was the TPG's interest in it as I was told he contacted the current owner through the previous seller and applied pressure to either send the coin back to them or remove it from the holder prior to selling it (to me).

No need to look up the cert, the TPG nuked that as well...

Best, Jack.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have to wonder how much dosh the said TPG would be willing to count out to buy the coin back and de-holder it? Kind of reminds me of the Micro-O Morgan counterfeits that made it into TPG plastic and then later on they were determined to be a circa 1930's era forgery - albeit in 92-96% fine silver vs. .900. But when they do sell, they sell for a lot more and are sort of a black cabinet collectable.

I myself collect black cabinet stuff, but that is really about all I am going to say about that.

 

Thanks for sharing! The contemporary counterfeits ran rampant well into the 1790s, and there is no shortage of interesting examples spread across numerous families. I have not devoted much time studying them, but you would be surprised how often these pieces make it into TPG holders as regal issues. I will not state which company, but one of the major TPGs has a greater propensity to make this error.

Of course, there are instances in which it makes sense for a TPG to certify a contemporary counterfeit. Here is an example of such a piece from my collection. In this case, it is correctly labeled as such by the TPG.

 

It is remarkable how lax the British crown was concerning coinage during the 18th century. It is as though after the tenure of Sir Isaac Newton at the Royal Mint in the very early part of the century everything rather fell apart. Counterfeit was rampant, especially with lower value coin as those denominations were the most oft neglected by the Royal Mint. It was not until just after the Napoleonic wars that Britain took a serious effort at minting significant quantities of coinage, and effectively banning tokens and prosecuting counterfeiting.

 

They missed a marketing trick there. Could have slabbed it in oversized plastic as 'Genuine, a TPG error'. And the label number? Probably Poor 1.