Early 19 CT Milled Contemporary Counterfeits Struck Using Transfer Dies?

This counterfeit type is in my new book coming out. Most are of a mercuric silver amalgamation type and probably over a high copper host coin.

HOWEVER - let me ask since the dies MATCH regal dies EXACTLY - do these types come in gold Proofs. Could it be an impaired Proof issue as this coloration mimics one in my collection of another type which is confirmed as being issued as gold proofs?

Too lazy to check KM.

John Lorenzo
Numismatist
United States

Its probably then a silver mercuric amalgamated wash (i.e., or brush on) (not plated) over a high copper substrate. Why the dies match exactly to a regal - perhaps they were discarded or stolen out of the mint. It happens ... but this is the first I have read - but due - as you say to the commonness of this particular counterfeit type I have never done a study if other regal dies have been used to create this form of contemporary circulating counterfeit of the period. No way - 100% certain that this fabric or this scenario even suggest a modern forgery type. IMO.

JPL

The fact that there was believed to be a "European" die duplication process in existence before 1845 is documented in Riddel's Monograph. So it is apparent that the US mint was unaware of exactly what the process was or who developed it.

It is equally obvious that Riddell believed that the process was used to duplicate the "French" dies of Durango - specifically the dates 1832 and 1834 (Riddell # 365 and 371). That points to a mid 1830s date. By 1839-1844 the city of New Orleans was flooded with these coins.

Few of the counterfeits are cast, so I do not believe they did it using a casting process. Many cast counterfeits were made but they are easily distinguished by looking at very fine details.

What that process was exactly is more difficult to pin down. I found several references involving M. Boulton and his Soho operation. Boulton was, as early as the 1790s, looking for a way to duplicate objects like etchings without involving an engraver. I believe that Boulton's process was employed before 1820 to make many of the UK token counterfeits. It is also apparent that the milled issues of the UK mint were copied in similar ways before 1820. The process was developed BEFORE electro-typing or spark erosion came into existence. This is based on patent applications I have read which fix most electro-galvanic processes well into the 1840-43 time frame.

I have also noted that the French colony of Haiti was also deluged with high quality counterfeit issues (copper with a silver plate) as early as the 1820s. These counterfeits are still common and seem to be very close copies of the originals.

Boulton was in communication with the French mint and his contacts with their engineers may have resulted in the spread of information in both directions. The French and Boulton both worked on collars and planchet insertion by mechanical apparatus as well. I have not located definitive proof of which country developed the technology first or who learned from who but England (specifically Boulton) and the French are the prime suspects for development of all these techniques.

Just simply reviewing the coinage of France and England from the 1790s to the 1820s demonstrates the progress of minting technology. The other nations tended to lag behind.

Loss of fine details in the transfer process is also seen in the creation of molds or dies by electro-typing.

I also wonder if a simple 1-1 Janvier type lathe could not have been used to replicate dies? Many of Boulton's inventions were mechanical by nature and were based on the earliest usage of modern measurement standards. A lathe system seems to be a technology that would be natural to Boulton while casting simply does not.

OK - you twisted my arm - here is coin #70 from my new book due out soon in about 4-5 months from the chapter on Foreign Counterfeits of 1500-1800. I do go a little later with some pieces but this is the title of the chapter. These were probably struck in copper and then as you say either silver washed or silver plated. In terms of what type of silver plating. In my book I try to show examples of silver foil - to crude Sheffield types - to Sheffield Birmingham types to eventually silver electrodeposition after 1840. Coin #70 is a Three Shilling Bank Token of these types which IMO is more rare than the two types you picture which are seen quite often in ebay UK.

To me these are copper struck then silver plated as in specimen #70 the surface appears treated with mercury or used in the manufacturing process. With silver wash its mixed in with silver - spread on the copper substrate (i.e., coin's surface) then fired off (annealed) always leaving some detectable Hg level on the surface picked up with XRF analysis.

Sorry no picture here but there is great photos in my new book. Be patient.

Specimen # 70
1815 Great Britain 3 Shilling Bank Token
Trace Mercury Silver Plate over a Low Zinc Brass Alloy Host

Country: Great Britain. 1815. KM# Tn 5; S.3770; ESC-423 Type. 35.15 mm. 10.5 grams. Medal Turn Die Axis. Regal issues struck in silver at 92.5%. Obverse: George III Laureate Head facing right. Reverse: Legend within wreath. Issued by the Bank of England. XRF Analysis of Surface: Copper (74.83%), Zinc (5.82%), Silver (2.51%), Mercury (0.61%), Arsenic (0.58%), Tungsten (0.14%), Antimony (0.12%), Nickel (0.08%) and Bismuth (0.06%). Mercuric silver plate similar to Sheffield plate over a high copper/low zinc brass alloy type. Sometimes mercury is used to prepare the planchet for better silver plate adhesion and not just as a mixture aid for better silver spread. Provenance: Great Britain Coin Show in 2012.
Notes: As any collector of these issues can tell you these tokens were counterfeited seriously in great quantities. The principal reason behind these issues for the Bank of England Dollar Tokens and other tokens was the inability of The Royal Mint to pay the market price for silver to create regal silver coins. Not a desirable William Booth product who has been considered by some to be the principal forger of the Bank of England Dollars of 1804 (KM#Tn 1) as he died in August 1812. He was suspected of counterfeiting all denominations of Bank of England tokens and was without a doubt the most prolific forger of the Regency Era. Some of these coins were found on his premises in Victorian times and are now in a local museum. In July 1811, the Government announced that counterfeits of the Three Shilling Bank Token were in circulation. The appearance is whiter and they sound very dull when rung. They are of copper, thinly plated and worth about a penny. On the whole they are executed nearly as well as those issued by the Bank, and it is much to be lamented that the execution of the Bank Token has admit¬ted of so early and easy a counterfeit. Persons to whom they are offered will do a public service by endeavoring to trace the quarter from whence they first came into circulation. Public exasperation at the continuing shortage of silver coins had by that time pushed many provincial banks and not a few factory owners into issuing their own private silver tokens. Specimens of this caliber are worthy of any counterfeit collection. The student should realize the more silvering obviously the more desirable a counterfeit is of this bi-layer type (i.e., silver plate over a low zinc brass alloy).

Seuk - will take another look but mine shows? surface peeling (from memory?) unlike your three OBVIOUS silver wash examples above - but my example is such high grade and has no wear points it may have fooled me due to its near Mint State perfection? BTW - great article. If I had this article I would have included a BOE but based on your research sounds like a BNJ article is in order or something similar based on your die counts! <BG>.

JPL