Brad Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Received an odd one: dated 1861 2-1/2D in silver. 17.77MM versus standard 18.2MM My scale is down so I haven't weighed it. Residual gilding of some kind. Definitely minted, not cast. Reeded edge There seems to be a possible incused stamp across the bust? Any help would be appreciated!!!! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Received an odd one:dated 1861 2-1/2D in silver. 17.77MM versus standard 18.2MM My scale is down so I haven't weighed it. Residual gilding of some kind. Definitely minted, not cast. Reeded edge There seems to be a possible incused stamp across the bust? Any help would be appreciated!!!! Thanks! Almost certainly a contemporary counterfeit. The dies are rather well done but there are several differences from the genuine. The piece would have been gillt in order to pass among the unsuspecting. From the the late 1830s to the 1860s such counterfeits were widely reported in newspapers and magazines. RWJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted June 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 That was my thought process as well. One thought that lingers is the use of silver, not brass or lead. They also could have used gold and still made money on the short weight, it being smaller than true quarter eagles.... If only I had my time machine running! Waiting for parts...LOL thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 That was my thought process as well. One thought that lingers is the use of silver, not brass or lead. They also could have used gold and still made money on the short weight, it being smaller than true quarter eagles.... If only I had my time machine running! Waiting for parts...LOL thanks! Silver was used because of the weight. It was often the case that a slightly thicker silver planchet was used to get around a difference in weight. Lead was seldom the case because some people would bite a coin to test the hardness. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted June 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Silver was used because of the weight. It was often the case that a slightlythicker silver planchet was used to get around a difference in weight. Lead was seldom the case because some people would bite a coin to test the hardness. RWJ Hadn't thought it all the way through but the use of silver makes some sense. Still not sure why is is so much smaller in diamter though. I would think that would give it away immediately as being a fake? Smaller size plus silver would result in a very low weight as compared to a true example. Further thought on this: Could the mark seen in the bust be an oriental chopmark? Were chopmarks used for testing materials or certifying? Interesting piece to say the least!!!! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hadn't thought it all the way through but the use of silver makes some sense.Still not sure why is is so much smaller in diamter though. I would think that would give it away immediately as being a fake? Smaller size plus silver would result in a very low weight as compared to a true example. Further thought on this: Could the mark seen in the bust be an oriental chopmark? Were chopmarks used for testing materials or certifying? Interesting piece to say the least!!!! Thanks! An Oriental provenance is possible but not likely. China and Japan, for example, were essentially on a silver standard and gold was very rarely used in commercial affairs. A chopmark would, in this case, have exposed the silver. It is much more likely that this piece was made for circulation in the United States, probably in a rural area where gold coins were not seen that often. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 An Oriental provenance is possible but not likely. China and Japan, for example, wereessentially on a silver standard and gold was very rarely used in commercial affairs. A chopmark would, in this case, have exposed the silver. It is much more likely that this piece was made for circulation in the United States, probably in a rural area where gold coins were not seen that often. RWJ The counter-stamp appears to be..............ERFEIT........or am I seeing things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 The counter-stamp appears to be..............ERFEIT........or am I seeing things? The letters on the head-dress are LIBERTY. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.