What Is This Coin?

It's a pattern. This one usually comes in silver-plated bronze (Sheffield plate), although it is known in white metal and silver (both very rare). The plated variety is plentiful as patterns go, maybe 32-64 known.

They are thought to have been struck in Spain.

I owned one briefly in 2012.

My last post was actually written prior to John's last post. So he has let the cat out of the bag.

Here are the facts about the coin:

1. It has a non-sense legend that reads A. Do 1840 O.M.C. - which no one noticed sorry to say.
2. It is made of Silver plated bronze according to the seller, however, based on the copy I own it is actually a Sheffield Plate over copper strike.
3. The hole is positioned like a typical cancellation mark not a suspension hole. My copy of this coin is also holed and in addition it was test cut. The hole in my coin is also eccentric.
4. The coin has an about 90 degree die rotation - which is common among counterfeits but rather uncommon for genuine coins.
5. The coin has very odd looking 1 punch and on my copy several letters appear to be repunched.
6. The lettering is poorly layed out - crowded near the date widely spaced in the assayer notation.
7. The coin has a distinctive eagle - rather attractive but never employed at any mint. While the upper portion of the eagle is attractive, the lower portion is not as well done. Notice the crude way the foot "grasps" the cactus with toes extended horizontally in a very unnatural pose.

For me the conclusion when I first saw this coin was both simple and obvious - the coin is a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit. It looks like a typical counterfeit and in fact has many of the characteristics of a counterfeit.

But John has now identified the coin as a rare pattern made for Durango - which is how Krause and several other works portray the coin.

I ran into these same posts long after I had collected my example of the 1840 A.Do O.M.C coin. So imagine my shock to find that in my collection of counterfeits sat a Rare Pattern.




It didn't seem to fit the facts, so I did some research.

Here is one of the highest graded examples of this "rare" coin as it appeared in a Stacks Auction.






The coin is actually listed in several references, but some confusion exists. In Krause Fourth Edition 1801-1900 it is listed as:

Pn59 1840 Do 8 Reales Silver Plated Bronze no price.

Directly above the Pn59 listing and between Pn59 and the partial picture of the 1840 version is listed another pattern:

Pn57 1836 Do 8 Reales Silver $ 1,500.

Photos of all patterns are not given so I have to presume that the 1836 and 1840 Do patterns are unrelated.

The next entry is for PnA58 and Pn58 which might have been listed between 57 and 59 numerically except that PnA58 has an accompanying photo. Pattern PnA58 is a partially dated 184x Do in copper and Pn58 is listed as 1840 Do in white metal. Both of these are associated with a picture of a coin that uses the concave wing eagle seen on Guanajuato 2 reales.

We all know that Krause is noted for compiling errors, so I did more looking and found:

In 1967 Neil S. Utberg listed some patterns in his "Numismatic Sidelines of Mexico". Included is a picture of this same coin with a poor accompanying photo. The entry reads:

D6-3 Durango 8R Pattern . Milled edge. Silver. Proof.
* 8R A Do 1840 OMC 10Ds 20Gs This being the first year that three assayer initials used. Octavio Martinez de Castro. Use of "A" not known by me..... $ 250.

The coin is very reflective silver and appears to be high grade. Dies are the same. However, Utberg makes a statement at the end of his list of seven patterns that I find very interesting.




I think the 1840 A.Do fits into the counterfeit category because the coin is not beautiful - it is poorly finished - the dies were poorly punched and the surface were poorly ground before striking. Shiny or reflective does not mean the coin has a beautiful appearance. Anyone familiar with patterns will note that this coin does not look like a typical pattern.

I am concerned that a Sheffield plate coin has once again passed as silver and has been mistaken for a rare genuine issue.

Here is another instance where the coin was published:



Here the reference is different - there is a claim there are silver and white metal copies listed as PN48 and PN49.

So are there silver, white metal and silver on copper copies? Or is there one single type silver on copper Sheffield?

There is a Heritage listing as well:



And here is another from 2011:



Where are the others? All three copies I can trace seem to be silver on copper or bronze. John can attest to how often copper is misidentified as bronze.

I will address the problems with the die work in a subsequent post.

andyg Interesting comment about veneration. I am not aware of anyone who venerates the Mexican symbol or eagles as they would a religious icon. However, while an inverted suspension makes it easier to kiss the image right-side-up I would be more concerned that the inversion would be considered insulting or sacrilegious. The only other answer I have read for an inverted coin was as a protest with regard to unpopular French Kings.

TwoKopeiki Regarding Sheffield Plate - it does not work with bronze. Sheffield plate worked when the core metal was Copper or German Silver. The components did not expand and bend at identical rates with other alloys. Electro-plates on the other hand can use many different cores. Regarding the other facts - origin of the coin in Spain, the rarity of silver and white metal versions and the population of silver plated examples - where did they come from? Is it a conflation of other sources or from one definitive source?

Bob,

My information comes from a collector of mexican patterns, who's been researching them for close to 20 years. He doesn't post on these forums, but his handle at PCGS is pruebas. I will send him a note about this post and hopefully he can chime in.

Still not seeing any form of a Sheffield plate from these photos. Its either electroplating or a silver wash type application IMO. I am not even going to consider the accuracy of any numismatic firm calling something a white metal ... if some examples have crossed the block in this alloy.Bronze or low zinc brass? Would like to see one LIVE at an auction viewing ...

JPL

It seems so from Napier and his discussions of electroplating in terms of any pieces arising pre-1840 being unlikely as electroplated as the technology was not yet developed. Just realize coins can be backdated and perhaps true regals exist for this type? Usually when something spurious? like this arises its good to go back in time to 19thC catalogs and see the write-up of the piece. However - after all this time in CC research for 40 years I can't recall any patterns made with silver wash or electroplated silver if indeed this is the TOP LAYER or silver treatment ... this is a curious piece which seems to go against the definition of a Pattern.

A case in point some believe in that December Cayon Auction coming up in a couple of days that the NE counter-stamp piece is a spurious piece produced in the 1950-1960's ... this NE counter-stamp trying to link itself to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It has a 2000E+ starting point. The jury is still out on that one ... again Cayon Numismatics have been WONDERFUL and I have personally picked up a lot of great pieces from this firm. Since this coin is out of my price range I have not investigated it further ... I do recall some discussions in the C4 sphere with this counter-stamp as NE Mass. Coinage currently brings $50,000 + on any survivor or denomination

Still like to hear from that researcher.

Concerning some more information on this NE piece - Julia Purdy supplied this information to me:

Hi John - I think this may be what you mean? It is from the July 2015 C-4 Newsletter "NE" The Elusive New England Countermark by Kenneth Bressett.

I read this article and am still not clear on exactly what is going on with this coin. I think it is thought that this is the same coin as from the 1907 Stickney / Chapman sale which at that time had a Guatemala counterstamp. And that sometime between 1921 and 1976 the NE stamp was stamped over the Guatemala stamp?

And this was done so that the coin could be tied to Stickney's 1860 description of the NE stamp on a coin in his collection from the Castine hoard - which has never been found....?

These are all new to me until I read the Bressett article (which was super!)

FYI for everyone - I found the auction link here:

https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?...&lot=2028697

JPL:

The pedigree on this piece is quite interesting: Chapman - Stickney: 2763; Chapman - J.S. Jenks: 7158 - H. Christensen: 886 (12/10-11/1976) - Cayon (5/10/2005): 5035.

No real conclusions on its tie in with New England. Cayon provides a reference but I did not read it.

Its a mystery coin and apparently unique with a formidable pedigree. No one yet has called it spurious or a fantasy but it does have a RECORDABLE pedigree back to Stickney (1907).

A GREAT conversational piece ... and apparently UNIQUE in terms of this NE countermark on ANY host coin from my research.

Note that the weight matches up EXACTLY to the Stickney recorded weight of 25.99 (Cayon lot description weight:26 grams).

Its common knowledge this American colony always had difficulty keeping silver within its borders so perhaps this was an attempt - you can also argue that with a date of 1652 is this just too good of a coincidence?

Again - no other countermark of this design has ever been discovered to my knowledge on any other host coin of any country.

JPL

Bob - something to consider - rather than just limiting yourself to a proposed 99% Ag reading with a XRF reading viewing the applied silver with a Scanning Electron Micrograph device (SEM) this will appear differently than a silver foil, Sheffield plate or even a silver wash application. Having your company perform SEM microstructure views (not metal % assays) of these FOUR application methods would prove most beneficial moving forward. In simpler terms for other readers what would the magnification of say 200X look like on a coins surface for these FOUR silver application methods on the surface of the coin.

You would need this standard to move forward on this so-called Pattern. You will need TWO tools here - the purity of the silver with electrodeposition and its mocrostructure view in terms of how it looks on the surface of a counterfeit at 200X (as an example - magnification).

These four microstructure standards can then of course be used for side by side comparisons on Sheffield plate and Ag electrodeposition - on other questionable examples - maybe - questionable - since to a trained eye with time this is indeed like apples and oranges (ie., a trained collector using a standard 10X loop cross-comparing Sheffield Plate with an electrodeposited Ag counterfeit say of a Cap and Ray which has been silvered and underweight or at or near regal).

I did a paper once which was buried in some C4 Journal on Sheffield Plate and its microstructure just to confirm it was just a physical process with no outside chemical influences - just Ag and Cu - bounded together with a certain application method. In the same article was a coin also showing Au and Hg as the two main ingredients used in gold gilding on a early 19thC English gilded proof in lower grade (i.e., impaired Proof). The usual types we see at auction (1804?). Soho Manufactory.

Just microstructure - can be a powerful tool to prove a point and CERTAINLY to confirm your suspicions here - true you would need a volunteer to send you one of these so-called 1840 patterns and then compare to these (4) standards - well - not so much the FOIL standard.

JPL