An Unabashed Cast Counterfeit 1787 68-W NJ Colonial Or Am I Nuts?

yes, Jack Young had already published the information. The one I found was a later die state

burfle23: recut left foot of R, recut chin, badly recut hairline, repaired leaftip, a few other things different from the example provided by you

The debate is part of the fun! Showed it to a couple of C4 friends with the 3 following results:

I don't know if anybody could make a statement like that on a coin like this without actually having the coin in hand. I've been collecting Colonials for more than 35 years and there's not many around still alive who exceed that. I'd be curious who this individual is with 50 years experience. The coin looks good to me.

There are parts of it that appear to be a modern cast, and parts that could be legitimate environmental damage. I would want to see it in hand before making any firm judgement either way, but I would at least put it in the "suspicious" category for the time being...

I can see why someone would think cast, and possible the raised areas on the obverse are from casting, however truthfully it is very difficult to tell a cast (unless really obvious such as a giant port or similar) from a photo. I would put it in a possible pile myself. I see some things that support cast, but others that do not.

-- The piece "may" have retoned/been retoned a one point... or that could just be lighting. I would lean towards retoned at some point. Either way, that doesn't really mean prove or suggest anything about the piece's age/origin.

-- The thing that strikes me is how mushy/blobbish the raised design elements are (e.g., legend lettering). From that, I would lean towards a cast. If, say, a George II halfpenny presented like this, one would immediately call it a cast contemporary counterfeit.

Even if cast rather than "regal", I don't see that it has to be a modern numismatic fake. Those scratches (both the large older ones and the smaller ones that maybe could be a bit newer) could have happened organically... from circulation, from the ground, from bouncing around in a junk box. And again, recoloring, retoning, etc. is so common on cleaned ground-find copper.

Now, whether other pieces offered alongside this piece may in totality point to a certain conclusion... would really have to analyze each piece, no?

Question - how common are cast contemporary counterfeits of NJ coppers?

Brainstorming here:

- We know that some of the old collectors would have copies cast or electrotyped to fill cabinet spaces, but that was more common for super-rare pieces.

- This is a scarce variety, so there certainly would be an incentive to cast a copy of it. But it's far from unobtainable. As a scarcer variety it might be harder to find a high grade example to copy.

- There are a few NJ specialists. Can any of them confirm the existence of a contemporary cast ctft of this particular die pairing?

- As an R5 variety there's a better than average chance this coin has been seen before; it may have been through a C4 or EAC sale, through an auction house, through the inventory of a prominent NJ/colonial collector, etc. So with some research you might be able to determine a possible provenance that could help nail down its origins. There's not enough of these out there where they can fly under the radar for long.

- That being said, the number of collectors who collect NJ with an aim towards completing Maris sets is quite small. So they would be likely the only ones with a motivation to NEED a cast copy for their cabinets.

- Non-modern ctfts of other state coppers DO exist. They are in their own category and highly collectible in their own right. However, there were also many overstrikes on existing coins and reused planchets that can cause the mushy, blobby look and the rusted/pitted look. The same look can also be caused by defective (impure) planchets, metal loss/deposition due to soil acid leaching or black sand, e.g., saltwater effect, oxidation, die defects, and so on.

I think the consensus here is leaning towards "possible" but there is a gulf between that and "provable."
But then again this is getting into areas of colonials that are much beyond my rather limited knowledge.

Also, grouchy, since an important factor for you is that other NJ pieces there seem to be of the same ilk... let's have the item numbers (just copy paste the actual numbers, don't link). The suggestion is already out there, so let's just get to it. No one cares enough to dig through his 200+ Jersey copper listings... let alone at Christmas.

Struck - an improperly annealed planchet. When copper is in a molten state it readily picks up hydrogen and oxygen very easily and quickly. If improperly annealed or the planchet is not properly brought down temperature wise it can create a multitude of bursting gas bubbles on the surface and in some cases raised lumps. As is the case here a myriad of burst gas bubbles - could also be a improper mix alloy in this situation as a secondary factor. The late Mike Ringo had a good assortment of cast NJ's but this is struck - not cast. A good piece which should not have been pulled.

John Lorenzo Numismatist United States

P.S. Now back to where I belong - Latin American Numismatics

<BG>

I beg to differ with John... the Physics of Striking do not support this being a die-struck item. That "bar": between AE & S could only be on a struck coin if it were part of the original design, an overstrike, or if the die broke. There are no other coins of this variety that look like this, so a "Planchet Theory" would not be workable. It would not be the only planchet in the strip with such egregious faults. What you suggest is fantastical. If you look very closely, I don't think you will see any signs of true circulation, grade notwithstanding. Sometimes, a Cigar is just a Cigar