George III 1806 Penny Fake Or Real

The green is not unusual on coins of this era and type... I have a 1799 cartwheel penny with similar and I don't believe it was mounted. Copper would not react with copper anyway and this coin is copper. The green is very hard and wont damage the coin, I tried verdi-care on some and it doesn't move it. It seems to be a mineral depost or something so I decided to leave well alone. (Its not attractive but if removed whats underneath might be equally unattractive)

This mark of the face is myserious to me, but I believe if anything was soldered on the coin that would be the entirely wrong place to do it.

The reverse is as I would expect...and the colour is normal... some of these coins are a light brown and some a very dark brown... the older generation used to treat coins with something that darkens them, I cant remember what but thats possibly why its not uncommon to find 1800's coins that colour.

Update. I've now found several references to the defacing of dies once they were considered worn.

Just one reference... "Royal Mint: Dies Matrices and Puncheons. ... Division within MINT Records concerning Coins, Medals and Dies ... by the Smith, and when the dies were worn out to see them defaced in the presence of the Warden, Master and Comptroller."

Apparently this was very common in many countries and often these dies were sold off and eventually reused by unscrupulous individuals to fake coins.

Perhaps this is the answer?

Mike.

It's certainly a puzzle Del; it looks like the 'X' was done first and then the long line which makes me think that it was not in any way intended to be part of the design.

I do agree that the defacing is quite small but perhaps if they sold them off the buyer would prefer it to be so. I haven't seen any similar defaced dies though to compare it with; I can only find references that it was common place to deface dies when getting worn and unusable but no examples of what they actually did.

However if you wanted to make it instantly obvious (should someone want to use it in the future) making marks like that on the face would be the best way to go.

One thing I'm fairly sure of is that it's not a fake, having examined pictures of the same year coin from the web.

Perhaps in time someone else will come up with a more plausible explanation. I'd certainly be fascinated to know; I love a good mystery.

Mike.

I don't understand the fascination with saying this coin has been mounted... I see no particular reason or evidence of it.

Generally a mounted coin has a bezel that go over it, this has 4 teeth which go through holes in the mount and are folded over to keep the coin in place. A bad mount would have the coin soldered in place...

A mounted coin therefore very often has 4 contact marks at north/south/east and west. This coin doesn't... nor does it have any colour difference from a collar partially protecting some of the coin and not other bits.

The only suggestion is the wear on R I T of Britannia... and those familiar with the coin might agree that very often these legends are not deeply struck and can suffer wear.

Nothing looks plated either... you can see the natural colour of the metal showing through on the rim of the reverse and on some of the teeth of the obverse but it is mainly showing a dark patina which is typical of this kind of coin (even if this darkness has been enhanced by some sort of oil as I believe was the custom in the past)

Defacing the dies is something I hadn't thought of but obviously a security measure to see that they would not be re-used. However I would have expected that a more thorough job would be done than just a couple of chisel marks. It certainly seems a plausable explaination in the absense of any other though.

Post-mint damage. There are drips of a similar solder on the portrait's neck.

I agree with Delboy; I don't think it's anything to do with solder. As a retired electronics engineer and using a soldering iron every day for decades it doesn't look like solder splatter to me at all, just corrosion and verdigris. As for the lines on the face it would be near to impossible to lay down solder on a surface like that.
I still go for the 'defaced die' explanation unless someone can come up with an alternative plausible explanation.
Mike.

I have a bunch of these and it looks real to me.. I meant to post earlier about a similar marking I saw on ebay auction. Looked like the exact same marking but on a Canadian Colonial Token.. The seller labeled it as an "overstruck" coin.. Wish I could recall the exact listing.