1652 New England 3 Pence?

I really don't know why one of the posters here is doing their best to prove that the OPs coin is fake. What purpose does this serve now? Should the OP now withdraw the item from Stacks on the strength of these arguments?

Maybe it is, maybe it is not a fake, but it will not be established on the basis of the discussion here. Possibly the experts consulted by Stacks will be unable to be sure. At this point, we can't be sure, but if it were so obvious, we would surely know by now. I would believe that Stacks and their experts' opinions are quite credible.

@whatdowehavehere,


I am getting so very tired of you, I also stop putting more energy into responding to your meaningless, unsubstantiated, far-fetched and often laughable statements.
I don't have to prove anything to you, and if I could, you wouldn't believe it.

@ the rest, thanks for the support and trust!

That was my first thought as well, but from what I see now, the details are just about a perfect match. The narrower sections of the letters on Larsjan's coin are easily explained by the double strike.

Sorry you guys feel that way; just doing due dilligence. Nothing personal. I have avenues to some info that that may escape thr average person, and you can't deny Reality-otherwise, you just sound silly

I put my thoughts "out there". Again, Nothing Personal. So, we've been told that there are Experts (plural) who give it the "thumbs up"? I'd just like to know who they are, that's all.

Also on the middle part of the" E" the bottom the middle line on the original and sixpence looks like it bows down like a rainbow but on your coin it bows up . Maybe just an illusion? But it would have been guesswork for a copier since its nearly nonexistent on the original 3p if that makes any sence. Just an observation.

The other known counterfeits, and especially that "Mario fabrication", are not even remotely close to either larsjan's specimen or the MHS example and can immediately be dismissed at a glance. As others have said, the details of larsjan's piece in style and positioning of the punches are essentially equivalent to the original and are easily within the limits of strike variation. This is no doubt why the authentication process has been taking so long, and it is pretty exciting!

There will not be one metrological assessment that will flip the switch on its authenticity or inauthenticity, but it will be a combination of factors (ie. XRF, detailed visual observation, etc.) that will contribute to a final decision for those in charge of authentication. Even then, there will still be doubts, as expected for a piece where you only have one existing purported authentic example to compare it to! The bottom line is that this example is, by leaps and bounds, closer to the original than any of the known counterfeits that have been put forward.

I've been eagerly following this thread for some time and it has been very educational for me. I look forward to any future developments!

I think we've been down this road very early in the thread. I posted these early sales records previously. What stands out is "many of these specimens were unknown to American Collectors at the date of the various sales". The first Wyatt copies came from the 1839 Felt book, which may have been the first awareness of them in America. The 1745 Folkes book possibly made British collectors aware of them at an earlier time? I'm just speculating that it's possible that this "Quincy family" collector didn't know what it was.

Edit forgot to post the reference again.