Here is another old coin. I believe it is a 40 Reis. As the pics show it is in pretty rough condition. I was just wondering if this was correct or if anyone new anything about the counter stamp. It is apx 1 & 1/2 inches wide and weighs apx 24.5 grams. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I'll go through the books and see if I can find the counterstamp, but there's one thing that bothers me about it. The entire coin is heavily corroded everywhere except the fields of the counterstamp. That one has me confuzzled
The counterstamp is of one of the Brazilian states - Ceara,which is located in northern Brazil.Here's an article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceara . Aidan.
I was thinking maybe since the stamp area was recessed it did not corrode as badly as the rest of the coin but knoe that you mention it it very well may have been added later. Thanks again for all the help.
That is not a typical counterstamp that I see on Brazilian copper coins. I'm pretty sure that it was done after corrosion.
Aidan is correct, it is the counterstamp of Ceara in Brazil. The condition of it still bothers me though.
Doug,the counterstamp was added to that coin in 1833,which is why the counterstamp's condition is better than that of the host coin. Aidan.
Yeah, on the genuine examples. But I don't think this one is. You go get a corroded coin and counterstamp it - the surface under the counterstamp will still show the signs of corrosion - it won't be smooth like a newly minted coin.
The counterstamp was placed upon a Brazilean coin of 80 reis, reducing the value to 40 reis. The host coin is Brazil KM#342, minted from 1820 to 1823. The mintmark can be R (Rio de Janeiro) or B (Bahia)
One of the Forum members does great work with counterstamps. This sort of stamp will flaten everything in it's way, so it MIGHT have smoothed out the corrosion, but this coin at first glance looks a little weird - it has some explaining to do. How could the coin have been that damaged before c/stamping if it was all done (minting and c/s) within a decade or two of each other?
JBK,the coin looks like it was in circulation before it was counterstamped,that is why it is so worn in the areas outside the counterstamp.I have an English trader's currency token that is very worn before being counterstamped.It is a Union Copper Company 1 Penny from Birmingham dated 1812 that has the double counterstamp of the Bradford Workhouse.The counterstamp is much better that the host coin. Aidan.
I agree with all that, but it wasn't just in circulation, it was heavily abused by the elements. I am not sure how much time elapsed between minting and c/s, and if it were 100 years then maybe that would explain the disparity, but it seems it was c/s much closer to minting date.
