Help With Information On Counterstamp 1882-H Canadian Cent

It was purchased by me in the US. Of course in it's 142 years there's no telling where it has traveled. There were also some Thomas Buffey's I found in the UK, so it could have been counterstamped there as well.

Thanks Anaximander. I appreciate the help!

I looked in :

British Countermarks on Copper and Bronze Coins
J Gavin Scott

No mention of your countermark, and no mention of a Canadian coin.

Here's a longshot or Buckley's Chance:

Perhaps the grandson of William Buffy, Philip T. Buffey, became the owner of William Buffy's tavern at some time before or near the date of your coin; and perhaps Philip used his middle name instead of his first name (as some are known to do); and perhaps T. Buffey stamped coins for his tavern.

Philip T. Buffey (Canada 1876-1959), son of George M. Buffy (Canada 1827-1900), son of William Buffey (Canada 1798-1873)
Source: https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~rcj...f.html#15081

Then there's this:
"Brampton, Ontario", a.k.a. "Village of Brampton" a.k.a "Buffy's Corners"
Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia...cle/brampton

And this:
Prior to 1834, the only building of consequence at the corner of Hurontario Street and the 5th Sideroad (now Main and Queen Streets in the centre of Brampton), was William Buffy's tavern. In fact, at the time, the area was referred to as "Buffy's Corners". Most business in Chinguacousy Township took place one mile distant at Martin Salisbury's tavern. By 1834, John Elliott laid out the area in lots for sale applied the name "Brampton" to the area, which was soon adopted by others
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brampton

Thanks igwt79 for the suggestions to check out. I'll do some studying on the links you provided.

ExoGuy, Those are great tips on how to go about researching this counterstamp. I'm going to keep working on it. You know you are the reason I got interested in counterstamps in the first place. Your posts on this forum are always interesting and informative. I decided to get in on the fun. Thanks Bill.

@dar76124 .... The Brunk reference is now available, FREE, online.

https://archive.org/details/2006mer...145/mode/1up

Some thirty years ago, I purchased my first computer from Radio Shack, a Tandy. It gave me the ability to start building a database for my c/s collection which then numbered around 700 pieces. Presently, the collection is four times that amount and growing. As time progressed, I realized that I needed a simple way to highlight pieces that offered the best chance for a positive attribution. I opted for including a numeric "PROOF" field, ranging from 0 to 4, as follows ....

0 - PUZZLER - A c/s with virtually no chance of attribution (e.g. - random numbers or letters)
1 - POTENTIAL - A c/s that has minimal evidence for attribution (e.g. - only a surname)
2 - POSSIBLE - A c/s for which there are two distinct suspects (e.g. - two contemporary individuals with the same name, initials)
3 - PROBABLE - A c/s for which there is a likely attribution (this, given credible circumstantial evidence)
4 - POSITIVE - A c/s that is attributed (this, by virtue of conclusive evidence)

The attribution of c/s's is, in effect, like a court judgment, a conviction, given the weighing of evidence. When assessing c/s's, there's much evidence to be considered or weighed. There's the font size, the inclusion of accompanying stamps (e.g. - town or address, occupation), multiple name stamps, pictorials, style (smith's hallmarks, logo stamps) and name clues (e.g. - uncommon surnames, initials).

I'd humbly suggest that reading my c/s posts and comments on the subject, you can see and study many pieces that are PROBABLE and POSITIVE; this, that you may judge the evidence which differentiates one from the other. Offhand, I'd recommend the recent posting on the UNICORN stamp.

My one criticism of the Brunk and Rulau reference books is that they were too lax about demanding evidence from their many contributors. Also, they rarely distinguished between POSSIBLE, PROBABLE and POSITIVE attributions, what I call my "P-scale."

During my periodic phone conversations with Greg Brunk, he was onboard with my need to differentiate between these levels of attribution. That said, I understood and much appreciated the daunting task that Greg and Russ Rulau undertook in compiling their tremendous books on this and many other subjects!

That's true, to a point. The principal problem with collecting c/s's, as I see it, is that too many folks depend upon Brunk and Rulau listings being "gospel" whereas there are many erroneous listings. Futhermore, auction/seller attributions can be on shaky ground, too.

A parallel issue is the collector purchase of certified coins. The catchphrase, "Buy the coin, not the slab" implies that the purchaser should learn to grade coins, himself.

When it comes to buying counterstamps, the purchaser needs to know upon what basis a given coin was attributed. The simple fact that a c/s is listed in a book doesn't mean that the attribution is valid. Check the book and see if the author's attribution is grounded upon solid evidence. If evidence is lacking, do the homework, which amounts to personal research, seeking out articles about the c/s, posting on a forum, etc..

Collecting c/s's involves a lot more than plugging holes in an album. It's a demanding and engaging process for a collector. That said, I've found it to be a most rewarding pursuit these past forty years.