Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="cwtokenman, post: 1248275, member: 2100"]Hopefully the OP is still around. While I agree that the counterstamp appears to spell out "E. STOCKE", I think that is incorrect. The "O" does not look like it matches the other letters, and its space should have been much wider. Since that space is so narrow, I believe that it is an "I", with the long serifs giving the appearance of an "O". If I am correct, there is a listing for an F.E. STICKEL (and also for an F.E. STICKLE). The stamp could have been physically too large to fit the "F" on the coin, and there appears to be a faint "L" at the end. What clinches it for me is that F.E. STICKEL's counterstamp is shown in the reference with the same slight arc as on the OP's coin (most c'stamps are straight), and both spellings of the name also included a horseshoe along with the name according to Brunk. So, I feel that this merchant is identified in Brunk's book as S-964, and hence would possess a higher value than mentioned above. Brunk thought this person was apparently a blacksmith, who could not decide on the proper spelling of his name. As a side note, in doing genealogy research within my own family, I find that it was not uncommon for folks back in that time to change the spelling of their name(s), sometimes multiple times.[/QUOTE]