1652 New England 3 Pence?

@whatdowehavehere
It seems like you want to label my coin as counterfeit regardless of arguments and evidence and convince everyone. Fine if you are in it like that, I'm not worried about it but just wonder why you put so much energy into it.
Maybe it would be an idea to apply to Stack's, this would save them a lot of time as you can conclude from my amateur photos within a few minutes that the cracks are contrived, the scratches are new, the patina has been created with spit and other means , and so on.
What I do worry about is that you know people who can easily fabricate such a patina and you also have a good recipe for this. Then in my opinion you are busy with the wrong intentions.

As I have said, years ago I bought an antique coin cabinet. I bought the cabinet from a woman, her father had once bought it at an antiques auction in the Netherlands and it had been there for at least 15 years before I bought it.
In principle, the purchase was only about the cabinet, the content was a side issue at the time.
The price for the cabinet was decent so that I could still earn nice on the sale, so no reason for the saleswoman to place a counterfeit coin in the cabinet, let alone spit on it to also get a patina on it.
I myself am also sure that I have not spit or tampered with it.
Obviously it is possible that it has a recent scratch on it because I did not attach much value to it in the beginning and just threw it in a tray with other coins that was on my desk, so it has been deposited here for at least a year before I started working on it.

After my first contact with Stack's, there was already a great belief that this was a genuine example.
Later they performed a detailed analysis of my coin and compared the punches with the MHS specimen at a very close level. It appeared to be a perfect match accounting for some variances in the striking.

@kbbpll
@that coin dude
I am also convinced that the similarities and accuracy are too great for a forgery.
We also have to see that the coin has a diameter of only about 19mm, which makes according to my calculations that the legs of the three I's are only half a millimeter wide.
In my opinion, such precision cannot be reproduced in these small dimensions.

Yesterday I was studying some photos of NE coins and found something in a punch of a NE Shilling auctioned by Heritage.
In the NE punch of my coin you can see faint lines, I also found this line in the punch of the NE Shilling.
Could these be toolmarks, prints of the tools the original stamps were made with at that time?

@steviegetz
I agree, there are definitely enough professionals with the skills to make a die that can be used to make a convincing forgery.
In the meantime I have seen enough examples of this and your coin is a good example of that too. However, in yours I see convincing differences between the real one and the forgery.
The letters are clearly different, if you would lay them over each other you would see that no letter is a clear match. Something which is the case with my coin and which seems impossible to me to achieve on such a small scale, even by the most talented craftsman.
In addition, if it were possible, it would take so much time and effort, so why save only 1 copy. Then more should be known I think.

To larsjen: when I was a kid, a dealer sold me a coin that he knew was NG. Ever since then (50 years later) I'm still on a mission. I'm only pointing out Why it should be thoroughly exmined, because several things "don't add up" That newish scratch with the old toning over it is a big Red Flag to me.

History: I was involved in the founding of The Colonial Coin Collectors Club, and have been doing this for a long time. Heritage wanted to hire me, but I made more by "picking them off" than I would have by working for them.

I hope that it works-out for you. It would be a cover coin for a catalogue and bring a Million Dollars at least.
Also, Ancient Coin collectors are very familiar with intricate, artistic renderings that are barely 5mm across. These die-cutters did that without magnifying lenses

I'm certainly not an expert, but don't you think that the method of minting at that time did not guarantee the creation of 2+ absolutely identical coins. From this it follows that each coin is unique and each of them can have its own characteristics. Other angle, drawing offset, etc. Probably partly because of this, the experts can not immediately give an accurate assessment

to larsjen: the reason that you don't see more of the NE coinage, esp. the 3D, is that it wasn't a very big mintage to begin with, and its dissemination among the Public was such a disaster, that those not lost, hidden or, in your case, exported were turned-in to be melted to make the first of the Willow and Oak Tree coinages.

Case in point: we know that the Shillings at least were exported; I had a mid-17thC coin guide book, published in London, describing a new shilling type the author had seen, presuming it coming from 'Norwiche'...

Yes, the results for the OP's item has been made known; now we see if it matches, like a fingerprint, the specs of genuine pieces. Wanting to accomplish anything by matching the OP's coin vs. another counterfeit NE 3D (if one can be found) is a futile effore; it wouldn't prove anything, as the source(s) for counterfeit silver is unknown-unless, of course, you had a ton of the same ones... then you could probably figure it out

I don't know what the specs for NE silver are; otherwise I would post them. We do know that old, worn and clipped Mex City/Potosi Cob silver was the primary source for NE+ coinage. If there is an SA match, then break out the Champaigne...

Im guessing it should be close to 925 silver. May find some clues in Louis Jordan's or Christopher Salmon's books on Ma Silver