I am curious as to whether any of you think that this SEGS grade holds water. I don't have experience with SEGS and rely on my eyesight (preferably with magnification) and, to some degree, PCGS, NGC, ICG and ANACS if I'm buying online, though I've seen under and overgraded examples in all of their slabs. I’m thinking it is Fine but probably won’t grade straight, though I’m not clear on the rules with some of these early Colonial Coppers, they do seem to be more lenient and these were widely known as having poor strikes. I’m excited to add this to my low grade Colonial Copper collection – and the portrait of Washington looking like King George and Lady Liberty in the 13 (colonies) barred cage amuses me. (Info from coins.nd.edu) The "Georgius Triumpho" is the only Washington token bearing the date of 1783 that is actually known to have circulated during the Confederation period. All other Washington tokens bearing the 1783 date, which is the date of the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, are now known to be commemorative tokens produced during the Nineteenth century. An early date of manufacture is confirmed for the "TRIUMPHO" since at least one of these pieces was used as a planchet by Matthias Ogden at his Elizabethtown, New Jersey, mint and overstruck as New Jersey coppers. The obverse of the Triumphant George copper shows a laurel wreathed Washington in the style of the King George III Irish halfpenny (without the shoulders and mail armor) with the legend "GEORGIVS TRIUMPHO" (Triumphant George). The imitation of the George III obverse is so close that at first glance it is not evident which George is referred to, either Washington or George the King of England! The reverse of the copper also imitates the British halfpenny but less closely. It depicts a female figure taken to represent Liberty but is in a style quite similar to Britannia. Like Britannia the figure holds an olive branch in her outstretched right hand and holds a staff in her left hand. To be identified with Britannia the staff should be a trident, while for Liberty it would have been more appropriate to have included a liberty cap on top of the staff. Unlike Britannia, the figure is not seated but stands behind a gate consisting of thirteen columns with a fleur de lys in each corner. This obviously symbolizes the thirteen united colonies with the fleur de lys representing the French financial aid and support that helped to bring victory. The legend on the reverse is "VOCE POPOLI" which is actually the Italian rather than the Latin (populi) for "By the voice of the people" with the date 1783 in exergue. Mike Ringo has observed the "TRIUMPHO" token shares some letter and number punches with the 1783 Constellatio Nova token, Crosby 1-A. This is the variety of Constellatio Nova that is considered to be by a different diemaker than the other varieties (but from the same mint). Also, as Newman has recently discussed, it is most probably these 1783 Constellation Nova coppers were produced in 1785.
If I had to guess, I would say the pitting and the color don't really correlate...it's probably been worked on....but it is a very interesting and historical piece.
Haven't seen these before, can't comment on the grade. My first thought was that "Georgius Triumpho" and the resemblance to the halfpenny was a deliberate sarcastic dig directed at England - was it?
Frequently it is suggested this coin was intended to have a double meaning. However, as it was produced in England (Birmingham most likely) it seems more likely the diemaker simply made an image imitating the style with which he was most familiar. Even in America the likeness of Washington was not well know at that time. In fact, it was not until the end of the confederation period, with the ratification of the constitution and Washington's election as the first president, that his image became universally recognized. Paul Bosco suggests the reverse is satirical, depicting Britannia imprisoned behind a thirteen bar cage. The author of the informed article (and source of my information here) cited above from the University of Notre Dame adopts the theory that it it simply an early attempt by an English diemaker to depict Liberty.
Thanks! Seems like producing a "triumphant George" coin in 1783 England may have raised some eyebrows too. But I shouldn't try to interpret things from 240 years in the future.
When I was in elementary school I learned that George Washington was our first President - but actually he was the first President under the Constitution - which wasn't ratified until 1789. The Treaty of Paris ended the 8 year long Revolutionary War in 1783 and then the colonies operated under the Articles of Confederation. In the 6 years between the Treaty of Paris when America became an independent nation, and the adoption of the Constitution and election of Washington, several men were leader (though it was a rather weaker position) holding the title of President of Congress. Several men held this position, with some overlap prior to the Treaty of Paris and after ratification of the Constitution: John Hanson (Nov 5 1781 – Nov 3 1782), Elias Boudinot (Nov 4 1782 – Nov 2 1783), Thomas Mifflin (Nov 3 1783 – Nov 29 1784), Richard Henry Lee (Nov 30 1784 – Nov 22 1785), John Hancock (Nov 23 1785 – Jun 5 1786), Nathaniel Gorham (Jun 6 1786 – Feb 1 1787), Arthur St. Clair (Feb 2 1787 – Jan 21 1788), Cyrus Griffin (Jan 22 1788 – Apr 30 1789), and Samuel Huntington (Sept 28 1779 – July 10 1781).
FWIW, in my library I have a multi-volume set of the Annual Register, a current-events accounting published yearly in England. What we call "The American Revolution" is mentioned in the appendix, almost in passing: "Reasons supplied by the American Colonies for withdrawing their allegiance to the King." The volume for 1789 includes extensive coverage of the French Revolution. My sister has (or had; I'll ask) the next twelve volumes.
So, what was the mood in England among these coin/token/medal makers in 1783? Here we have a "triumphant George" coin made in 1783 England, and recently I've dug into the 1776 Continental dollar and how it's been suggested that it was also made in 1783 as a token for sale in England. Much has been made on the 1776 about "EG FECIT" on some of them, meaning "EG made it" and trying to determine who "EG" was. And yet, the only Latin on the coin taken in its entirety is FUGIO EG FECIT. Fugio and the sun dial, in that context has always been interpreted as "time flies", since fugio means "I flee/fly." But what if, on some of the 1776 coins, "EG" actually means the common abbreviation exempli gratia, "for example." FUGIO EG FECIT could become "I run away, for example, he did." King George running away, and triumphant George? Between this "triumphant George" token, as George Washington and not King George, and the 1776 dollar, also now reputed to have been made in 1783 England, I'm wondering if they were taking potshots at the monarchy.
They may have been taking pot shots at the monarchy. The American Revolutionary War cost the British a fortune. It came on the heals of the French and Indian and the Seven Years Wars which had also been very expensive. It was those wars that led the government to demand higher taxes from the American colonies, which stirred up a lot of the trouble. George III was the one in the government who pushed the war the hardest. The Boston Tea Party really piqued him off. The loss of the American colonies was the most glaring failure of his reign. If you look at his reign, excluding the American Revolution and the lengthy periods when he lost he mind, George was a decent king.
Here is a George III half penny. I think you can see by the profile who is on the Georgius Triumpho copper. Of course, the British probably had no idea about Washington's appearance.
