• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

coinsandmedals

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    862

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 Content Type 

Journal Entries posted by coinsandmedals

  1. coinsandmedals
    I just recently joined the NGC collector's society, and I just wanted to take the time to make an attempt to get know some of the fellow members
    Hi all,
    I just recently joined the NGC collector's society, and I just wanted to take the time to make an attempt to get know some of the fellow members. I'm currently home from college for the summer and I wanted to continue my research on American coins, and figured that the resources that the society has to offer would take my collecting experience to a new level. I have been collecting since I was about six, so roughly 14 years. My first collecting Mercury dimes, and since then my collection has expanded to other coins, some of which I never really thought that I would ever collect. I remember when I was younger and looked at auction prices for what I thought were "just pennies", thinking "who would pay several thousands of dollars for a penny?", now I find myself trying to explain to others; my mother included that it's not just a penny. I acquired a great collection of coins over the years but sold them recently to help pay for college expenses, and I'm currently working on restoring my collection to the level it was previously. I just recently started a large cent collection and I'm on the hunt for an inexpensive book that would break down by year all of the variations for the large cents, any suggestions? I would really enjoy the opportunity to talk to other large cent collectors, as I'm sure you can imagine it isn't easy finding someone close to my age who actually understands the unique history and craftsmanship behind each coin. I do have one pressing question, how to you reply to posts; I have looked for a reply button but I have had no luck finding it, any hints or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to getting to know all of you better, and I can't wait to become more active in the society!
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  2. coinsandmedals
    Odd looking PCGS holders.
    Over the past week and a half I have had the opportunity to add a few nice certified coins to my collection without my budget taking too big of a hit. I have gathered a total of 8 more certified Coins, and a total of 4 raw coins. I would add more pictures but I think it might to a bit overkill. I have added a picture of a 1938 D Buffalo nickel graded MS-65 in an old PCGS rattler. My question for this coin is if you guys think it is worth the time and effort to send it to CAC. I apologize in advance for the poor quality pictures but it's the best I can do for now. I also picked up two PCGS franklins in old holders that I have never seen before; they are almost the same size and width of an NGC slab. I managed to fill a few coins to my 7070 but I have not had the chance to add to my large cent collection, it seems to me a harder to task to buy early copper without holding the coin in hand. If you guys want to see pictures just let me know and I will be happy to post them!
    So this is what I picked up....
    1945 S Wheat cent NGC MS-67 RD
    1961 Franklin PCGS PR-65 CAC
    1963 Franklin PCGS PR-65 CAC
    1957 Franklin PCGS Rattler PR-66
    1938 D Buffalo PCGS Rattler MS-65
    1962 Franklin NGC PF-64 old fatty holder with neon blue edge toning
    1959 Franklin PCGS PR-65 Odd looking old holder
    1959 Franklin PCGS PR-66 Odd looking old holder
    The following are all raw coins.....
    1875 S twenty cent piece AU
    1939 Mirror Proof Canadian dollar
    1841 Large cent AU-UNC
    1805 Large 5 half cent VF
    http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u518/coinsandmedals/1938Dobv.png
    http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u518/coinsandmedals/1938Drev.png

    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  3. coinsandmedals
    Here is another sneak peek of a new NGC custom registry set that I am working on. Please feel free to share anything related!
    Collecting the medals struck at the Soho Mint introduces quite a bit of variety. Although I likely would have admired the artistry of the piece, I find it unlikely that I would have taken the time to procure it for my collection. Beyond the societal level impact of agricultural science, my general collecting interests are unrelated, and as such, this piece would not have normally garnered a second glance. Nonetheless, it was struck at the Soho Mint, and Küchler engraved the dies, and therefore it deserves a prominent position in my collection. It is interesting to note that Pollard (1970) attributes this medal as being struck in 1793, but more recent research by Tungate (2020) indicates that it was struck in 1797. The Board of Agriculture ordered medals in September of 1797, and Sinclair (the president at the time) requested that specimens in copper, silver, and gold be sent for inspection. Tungate (2020) notes that a bill of over £44 was sent to the Board of Agriculture on October 7th, 1799. This bronzed copper specimen has retained its original silver-lined brass shells and inscribed wrapper. It appeared as lot 227 of the 2002 Moton & Eden sale of the James Watt Jr. Collection. At the time, it sold for £260. Tungate (2020) indicates that only 74 of these pieces, across all metals, were reportedly struck. It appears that Matthew Pier Watt Boulton (i.e., Matthew Boulton’s grandson) retained the dies upon the Soho Mint's demise in 1850, but no other information about their whereabouts is known (Vice, 1995).
    Historical Context: I initially had some difficulty obtaining information about the Board of Agriculture. It appears most of the digitally available information pertains to the National Agricultural Society, still currently in operation. At the time, I did not realize how closely the two were related. The modern society owes its very existence to some degree to the original Board of Agriculture. This short narrative aims to familiarize readers with the historical context that gave rise to the medal presented and reiterate the cautious tale of unchecked egos and unrealistic ambitions. The two later facets were undeniably the eventual downfall of the Board of Agriculture.
    Although some degree of controversy once existed about who deserved credit for establishing the Board of Agriculture, it appears that this argument has essentially been put to rest in modern times (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). Our story begins just before the idea for a Board of Agriculture became more than a fleeting fantasy. In April of 1793, the Kingdom was suffering from a currency shortage, and the government seemed to have few ideas of how to remedy the issue. Sir John Sinclair made a simple suggestion to issue temporary low-value exchequer bills in a total of £5,000,000 to temporarily relieve the shortage. Mitchison (1959) noted that Sinclair had already arranged for several bankers to send the money requested before the legislation had even moved beyond the preparation stage. This set up a nice quid pro quo situation in which Pitt found himself in the debt of Sinclair (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). Sinclair, eager to call in his favor, floated the idea of establishing a Board of Agriculture. Pitt's understanding was that Sinclair was naming his price, and thus backed the proposal for the creation of such a board. With the help of Lord Melville, the idea was sent before the house for approval to formally present to the King. As reproduced by Clarke (1898), the proposal read:
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, entreating that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into his Royal consideration the advantages which might be derived by the public from the establishment of a Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement: Humbly representing to His Majesty that, though in some particular districts, improved methods of cultivating the soil are practised, yet that, in the greatest part of these kingdoms, the principles of Agriculture are not yet sufficiently understood, nor are the implements of husbandry, or the stock of the farmer, brought to that perfection of which they are capable: That his faithful Commons are persuaded, if such an institution were to take place, that such inquiries might be made into the internal state of the country, and a spirit of improvement so effectually encouraged, as must naturally tend to produce many important national benefits, the attainment of which His Majesty has ever shown a most gracious disposition to promote; and, in particular, that such a measure might be the means of uniting a judicious system of husbandry to the advantages of domestic manufacturing industry, and the benefits of foreign commerce, and consequently of establishing on the surest and best foundations the prosperity of his kingdoms : And if His Majesty shall be graciously pleased to direct the institution of such a Board for a limited time, to assure His Majesty that his faithful Commons will cheerfully defray any expense attending the same to the amount of a sum not exceeding £3,000."
    The proposal was supported by many, as was customary further discussion was tabled until a second meeting held on May 15th, 1793. It appears, however, that by the next meeting, a large body of opposition had taken hold of the house, and Sinclair's proposal would be put to the test. Clarke (1898) lists some of the most boisterous members of the opposition, which included arguments that other societies such as the Society of Arts already performed the objective of the new board. The merits of this argument could be examined, but in reality, the potential of the proposed Board of Agriculture would far extend any mutual interest with the Society of Arts. Nonetheless, the Society of Arts had been established for over 40 years and by now was self-sufficient and therefore not reliant upon government funding. This led to a suggested amendment of the proposal that essentially eliminated the need for government funding (Clarke, 1898). Of course, this would have spelled doom of the Board of Agriculture, as the money provided by the government would at times be the only thing sustaining the board, and as we will soon see, without any government assistance, the board could not survive. Luckily the proposed revision was rejected, and the original proposal was overwhelmingly supported by a vote of 101 to 26. The newly formed Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement was provided a royal charter.
    In Sinclair's haste to get things going, he inadvertently pissed off one man of considerable influence, Lord Chancellor Loughborough. Before the business of the new Board of Agriculture could begin, the Great Seal had to be affixed to its charter; however, Sinclair had already arranged for the board's first meeting to occur on August 22nd, 1793. He sent the Royal Charter to be sealed the day before with a note explaining his hope that the process would be done quickly, citing the meeting scheduled for the next day (Clarke, 1898). Aggravated by Sinclair's disregard for the duty of his office, Lord Loughborough took his time sealing the charter. The charter was not sealed, or at least Sinclair was not made aware it had been sealed until the afternoon of August 23rd, 1793, which required that the first meeting be postponed. The Royal Charter stated that the board was to be made of sixteen officers and thirty ordinary members. In addition, the board could appoint any number of honorary members as they needed, but the rights of these members were to be limited to attending and voting within general meetings on all matters unrelated to the internal structure of the board. The lowest class of membership consisted of corresponding members, which could include foreigners, who had no right to attend or vote in meetings. An annual meeting was to be held around March 25th, during which new officers would be elected, and five ordinary members would step down to allow five honorary members to be promoted. Usually, those who attended the least number of meetings were asked to step down (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). All votes were to be cast by ballot and counted after each vote commenced. It appears this practice was employed throughout the lifespan of the Board of Agriculture. By March 18th, 1800, honorary members were granted the right to debate on all matters unrelated to the internal structure of the board, and it appears that such memberships reached a peak of over 500 by 1809 (Clarke, 1898). Although several notable changes were made to the powers associated with the presidency, the overall structure endured.
    The Board of Agriculture held its first meeting on September 4th, 1793, upon which the session was adjourned until January 23rd, 1794 (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). It was during this period that set the board on a collision course that would take years to correct. The president, Sir John Sinclair, had an idea to send surveyors to all parts of the Kingdom to write reports upon the agricultural activities and best practices employed. In theory, that would not have been a terrible idea. Sinclair, however, acted in haste and set surveyors about their business without first consulting the other members or setting strict terms of the employment of the surveyors, nor the terms of publishing their findings (Clarke, 1898). During his first address, Sinclair made his plan clear to the other members, and it was eventually settled upon, but even if the other members objected, it was too late to halt what was already in motion. The cost of producing and subsequently printing the reports was extraordinary, and despite multiple complaints from those in charge of the board's finances, the damage had already been done. By May 11th, 1795, the board was in debt to the tune of £5,863 with only £200 in funds available on hand. If not all of it, most of this debt was incurred by Sinclair (Clarke, 1898). A resolution was eventually passed in March of 1797, limiting the president's powers to access funds held by the board, which undoubtedly was an effort to keep this madness from occurring in the future.
    Sinclair's reports were almost all received by July of 1795, but they were mostly in poor order (Clarke, 1898). The lack of coherent structure and the considerable variation in the quality of the reports made them all but useless. The reports hurt the board's reputation and, in some instances, roused suspicion about its intentions. One such incidence, as it relates to tithes, is well recorded as causing a rift between church leaders and government officials, which translated to tension between the board and all parties involved (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). This tension would continue to cause issues for the board until its eventual demise. In short, the reports by large were a failure, and the cost of printing them far exceeded any revenue they generated. In 1796 the board decided to forego printing the remaining reports unless they merited special attention. In its place, they published "Communications", which aimed to disseminate the collective knowledge of the board. Of course, Sinclair added his own flair to the project and took no less than 82 printed pages to detail how the board came about (Clarke, 1898). During Sinclair's tenure as president, the board did influence several essential acts of parliament, such as the legislative action that shifted the responsibility to maintain proper weights to local magistrates. This reduced the ability of unethical traders to take advantage of the poor by ensuring they received the fair amount of product they paid for. Clarke (1898) detailed that perhaps the most crucial development was the report made of Joseph Elkington's methods of draining wastelands. Without the action of the Board of Agriculture, his knowledge would have undeniably been lost upon his death as he made no effort to write about his practices. Despite all of the advances made, Sinclair left the board in deep debt.
    A new president was elected in 1798, John Southey Somerville, and his quick thinking eventually resolved the financial issues of the board. When he took office, the board was £420 in debt with an anticipated incoming expense for services rendered that amounted to an additional £1692 (Clarke, 1898). He proposed that all printing, except for that done to publish the communications be seized, and that no less than £400 of the yearly government grant of £3000 be put aside to pay off debt each year until it was resolved. Seizing to print Sinclair's reports amounted to a saving of £1000 per year. He further proposed that the savings should be used to offer premiums (i.e., prizes) for essays of "discoveries and improvements in the most important and leading points of husbandry", which was adopted by the Board on May 25th and 29th of 1798 (Clarke, 1898). This system of annual prizes would become a permanent fixture of the Board of Agriculture, and by 1800 there were no less than 23 prizes offered for essays on a host of topics. These prizes were intended to be honorary awards of little financial significance, so it is not surprising that gold and silver medals were the original source of recognition. As time went on, monetary rewards were associated with the medals, and in some instances, the entire prize was monetary (Clarke, 1898). Nonetheless, the medal depicted here is of the general design employed by Küchler at Mathew Boulton's Soho Mint. The essay's provided useful material that allowed the board to fulfill its primary task of disseminating knowledge about best practices. In short, the annual prizes proved an effective tool to generate new material that the board could then, in turn, publish and sell to others. 
    The annual prizes would serve a critical role in late 1800 and early 1801. The price of wheat had skyrocketed. This provided a large amount of motivation to convert otherwise fertile grasslands into wheat farms to turn a handsome profit on the temporarily high prices. The consequences of doing so were not well understood. The Board of Agriculture played an important role in what would have otherwise been a national catastrophe had the majority of the grasslands been converted. On December 17th, 1800, the board offered prizes totaling £800 for related essays, further supplemented by an additional £800 provided by parliament (Clarke, 1898).  Over 350 essays were submitted, which gave rise to a report on June 19th, 1801, presented to the Lord's Committee laying out the recommended course of action (Clarke, 1898). as it turns out, converting the grasslands to produce wheat was detrimental to the soil and caused enough destruction to make its conversion back to grasslands nearly impossible. As Clarke (1898) argued, this undoubtedly played a crucial role in saving some of the most bountiful grasslands in the world.
    As useful as the Board of Agriculture could have been, the government largely dismissed it, and its somewhat peculiar status made many question its true intentions. This is very clear when considering the general dismissal of the board's recommendation to avoid what they predicted would be a massive food shortage in 1800. The board recommended that the government import large quantities of rice from India through the East India Company, but the government ignored their pleas (Clarke, 1898). The food shortage of 1800 eventually became so widespread that the government decided to act, but they were too late, and by the time the rice had arrived, the issue was resolved by a large crop yield in 1801. In all, the failure of the government to heed the warning of the board is estimated to have cost upwards of £2,500,000 (Clarke, 1898). Throughout the remaining years of the board, they worked diligently to influence the passing of an enclosure act, but the rift between them and the church made this all but impossible (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). The government already dismissed the board out of hand, and with the influence of the church against them, they truly stood little chance of being effective in their efforts.
    The Board of Agriculture hit an era of prosperity, and by 1819 they had a positive balance of over £2,000. The yearly government grant was soon to be applied for, and for reasons not entirely clear to me, the board decided only to request £1,000 of the usual £3,000 grant (Clarke, 1898). This lapse of judgment would prove nearly fatal for the board as the government soon decided to withdraw any consideration of further government funding. Without the annual influx of the government grant, the board's financial situation became bleak. In part, this was due to their inability to scale down their scope of activities within the means of their available funds. They continued to offer hefty prizes for related essays and spent large sums of money organizing exhibits. To offset these costs, the board opted to raise money through donations and subscriptions. This practice was later extended to the general public, who could become an honorary member with the endorsement of two existing members. This privilege came with a subscription fee of £2 and two shillings per year or twenty guineas for life membership (Clarke, 1898). From contemporary documents, it appears this was initially a success, but by May 24th, 1822, it was clear that some form of government grant would be needed to maintain the board. Although the leadership petitioned parliament, they were not granted any further support of a notable amount. Eventually, plans were made to dissolve the board, and it was decided that relevant documents should be relinquished to the Record Office in the Tower. In addition, the remaining balance of the board minus the expenses paid to publish any worthy work were turned over to the board to the Chancellor of Exchequer. This amount summed to just over £519 and was relinquished just before the board's final meeting on June 25th, 1822 (Clarke, 1898).
    As noted by Clarke (1898) and Mitchison (1959), the Board of Agriculture fell victim to many shortcomings that eventually led to self-destruction. Perhaps the greatest of which was the board's inadvertent quarrel with the church of England over a perceived threat to tithes, which in turn led to friction between the church and government. This friction between the two harbored a great deal of intense ill-will between the board and both church and government officials (Clarke, 1898). It is little wonder why the board was never able to secure additional funding, much less influence a sweeping reform of the enclosure act. Nonetheless, the board of agriculture did impart several notable influences on the current state of agricultural science. If nothing else, it laid a solid foundation for the Royal Agricultural Society of England. The latter would continue the work of the former, expanding upon their research while also avoiding the same pitfalls that led to the demise of its ancestor. There is so much more to this story, and the information provided above is only a tiny portion of the fascinating history surrounding the Board of Agriculture and its members. I encourage those interested in learning more to seek out the publications I have cited repeatedly here.

    Obverse: The obverse design depicts King George III facing right. Unlike Kuchler's usual renditions, the King is neither draped nor armored, but instead, the bust is truncated with the initials "C. H. K." appearing at the undermost portion. The King's hair is short, with several small locks of hair falling closely behind his neck and a large lump of hair appearing just above his ear. Resting upon his head is a crown of laurel tied together by a knot with two bows and two loose ends. The second bow is partially obscured by the first, but both extend behind the King's head toward the rim. The two loose ends fall behind the neck, one of which closely adheres to the curve of the truncation and partially rests below it. A large wave of hair partially obscures the laurel crown just below the three uppermost leaves. The legend "GEORGIUS III · D : G · MAG · BR · REX." appears near the bust of George III. This legend is contained within a neatly formed circle of tiny beads. Between the innermost rim and the beaded circle is an open wreath. The left-hand side is a laurel branch, while the right appears to be wheat. The two branches are tied at the bottom center of the medal by a knot with one big bow and two loose ends. The loose end on the left wraps around the front of the laurel branch, while the right wraps behind the wheat branch to the front. The inner beaded circle and wreath are superseded by a piece of partially rolled parchment, upon which the legend "BOARD OF AGRICULTURE ESTABL'D · 23 · AUG · 1793 ·" appears. This is contained within a relatively wide and raised rim, which shows numerous rust spots indicating that this die was improperly stored for some time before being reused.
    Reverse: The reverse of this medal depicts an allegorical figure designed to represent agriculture. She stands in the center facing right and wearing a loose-fitting gown draped over her shoulders, which extends to her sandaled feet. In her right hand, she holds some tool that is not immediately identifiable to me. Her left hand rests upon a spade partially dug into the ground with a snake coiled around it. Resting upon her head is a winged cap. She stands upon a piece of land at the foreground with small pieces of grass protruding through, upon which "C · H · KÜCHLER . FEC·" appears on the exergual line. In the immediate background, a plough appears to her left, and two tools, one of which is a scythe, appear to her right. I am not sure what the second tool is, and it appears Boulton was also unsure as he asked Küchler, "What is this ball intended for?" in his notes upon the initial design (Tungate, 2020). It is worth noting the distant background appears to depict two very different farming landscapes (i.e., the flatlands and a mountainous region). Immediately above and wrapping around the inner portion of the rim is a blank ribbon partially rolled on each end. In exergue, the word "VOTED" appears in the upper right corner. These two areas were left initially blank so that the medal could be engraved with the winner's details; however, as noted by Pollard (1970), a significant degree of variation occurred in how this was executed. This is contained within a relatively wide and raised rim, which shows numerous rust spots indicating that this die was improperly stored for some time before being reused.
    Edge: Plain – although it appears some medals were engraved with the winner's details (i.e., name, titles, and what it was awarded for).
    Size:  48mm
    Notes: Interestingly, a single bronzed copper specimen resided in the James Watt Jr. Collection. We know that Sinclair requested that specimens in copper, silver, and gold be sent, but it seems unlikely that many copper or bronzed copper pieces would be struck. These were prize medals commissioned on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, meaning that the quantity struck was under the careful control of Boulton at the board's request. We know from other contemporary accounts that Boulton refused to sell copies of commissioned pieces, even to his most esteemed collectors (Pollard, 1970). Given other contemporary information, it is likely safe to assume that this medal was produced at the Soho Mint under the careful direction of James Watt Jr., who was an avid collector. It is no secret that he would sometimes use old dies to produce a piece or two missing from his collection of Soho Mint wares. The Board of Agriculture seized to exist in mid-1822, which coincides nicely with Watt Jr.'s tenure as Master of the Mint. Given that this medal was not struck in gold or silver, it seems unlikely that it was ever meant to be issued, suggesting that it might have been a one-off piece struck later to fill a hole in an otherwise remarkable collection. This would also account for the numerous rust spots throughout the obverse and reverse designs.
    References:
    Clarke, E. (1898). History of the Board of Agriculture 1793-1822. London: Royal Agricultural Society of England.
    Davies, E. A. (1952). An Account of the Formation and Early Years of the Westminster Fire Office. Glasgow: Robert MacLehose & Co. Ltd.
    Mitchison, R. (1959). The Old Board of Agriculture (1793-1822). The English Historical Review, 74(290), 41-69.
    Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
    Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
    Interesting links:
    https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/royal-agricultural-society-of-england/
    https://www.library.wales/discover/digital-gallery/printed-material/gwallter-mechains-reports-for-the-board-of-agriculture
  4. coinsandmedals

    The Often Untold Story: Contemporary Counterfeits

    By coinsandmedals,


    My 2021 numismatic journey
    1797 twopence – Genuine Example

     
    Matthew Boulton's Soho Mint was able to rapidly produce high-quality copper coinage that would stand the test of time and ultimately meet the needs of the general. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to refute the accomplishments of the Soho Mint. Still, some may wonder if his coinage was immune to the counterfeiting that had plagued England for centuries. To address this, we must first revisit the pence and twopence pieces of 1797. Despite the lack of edge lettering, the new pence and twopence pieces did have some features that would deter counterfeiting. For one, the coins were well made and noticeably more massive than any other circulating regal piece. Their expansiveness allowed for the possibility of wide raised rims that contained the incuse legend. The large raised rims would help protect the primary devices from excessive wear, and the incuse legend assured it would survive long after the raised rims wore down. All of this is to say that for counterfeits to pass, they would have to be of much higher quality, which would likely translate into less profit for the counterfeiters. Although not the intent of Boulton, there was another factor that protected at least the twopence pieces. As it turns out, the general public was not very fond of them (Selgin, 2011). They were enormous and heavy which made them too bulky to carry around in any quantity. Because of this, they tended to build up in storekeeper's drawers, but the storekeepers had no real way of exchanging them for paper money or silver. All of these factors made them unpopular and therefore were less susceptible to counterfeiting. However, I cannot say the same for modern counterfeiters, as these pieces seem to be a favorite target. Pictured below is a modern counterfeit of the type that is rather convincing upon initial inspection and conforms to the standard weight, diameter, thickness, and overall design as an original. Still, there are subtle differences in design that distinguish it as a counterfeit when comparing it to a genuine example from my collection (i.e., the one pictured with the black background). I have listed each coin's basic specifications and included the same information for genuine examples in parentheses. See if you can spot the markers that distinguish this "1797 twopence" as a fake!
    1797 "twopence" – Modern Counterfeit

    Weight: 55.80 grams (56.69 grams)
    Diameter: 41 mm (40.64 mm)
    Thickness: 5 mm (5 mm)
    Edge: Plain (Plain)
    The Pennies were also rather large and heavy (i.e., 36 mm and weighed an ounce), but they were better received than their larger counterparts and circulated in excess of the next 65 years (Dyer, 1996). This made for an ideal target for counterfeiters. The large raised rims, incuse legend, and high quality did not prove sufficient to curb counterfeiting (Ruding, 1799; Ruding, 1819; Doty, 1998; Selgin, 2003). Individuals could collect genuine examples, melt them down, and make lightweight pieces. The excess copper from this process would yield substantial profit. Although this never became a widespread problem, it contradicted Boulton's claim that his coins were far too high quality to be counterfeited, and he had a vested interest in curbing the issue. Most notably, he wished to secure future contracts to strike regal English copper, and this counterfeit issue could prove a considerable hindrance. Boulton was so concerned that he announced a 100 guinea payment for actionable information about the counterfeiters (Doty, 1998). As detailed by numerous sources, this led to a man named William Phillips to come forward with information about three counterfeiting outfits located in none other than Birmingham (Dickerson, 1936; Peck, 1964; Selgin, 2011). Boulton acted on this information, which eventually led to numerous arrests.
    Although some of the earlier pieces were low-quality casts that were easily identified, the counterfeits became quite sophisticated as time went on. As noted by Clay and Tungate (2009) and further substantiated by Selgin (2011), the shallow designs proved to be much easier to reproduce than Boulton thought. Soon counterfeiters were engraving dies and striking pieces that were close replications of the actual coins despite the use of hand-operated presses. For those of you interested, Dickerson (1936) gives a full unabridged replication of the letter Boulton sent to the Lords of the Committee on Coin, which details the simultaneous raid on three separate counterfeiting facilities. However, so far, the focus of the counterfeits discussed were products created from fake dies. Peck (1964) notes that some counterfeits were produced using genuine dies that were stolen from the Soho Mint. He makes this argument based on the die diagnostics of the pieces he observed. I have complete confidence in his conclusions; however, I have had no luck finding additional information on this topic. He even mentions that the origin of these struck counterfeits using genuine dies remains a mystery.
    1797 “pence” - Contemporary Counterfeit Pence NGC VF-20

    Weight: 18.91 grams (28.34 grams)
    Diameter: 34.4 mm (35.8 mm)
    Thickness: 2 mm (3-3.5 mm)
    Edge: Plain (Plain)
    An odd discrepancy to this point comes from Doty (1998), who points out that the working dies for the pence and twopence pieces were destroyed under the supervision of a Royal Mint official on July 26th, 1799. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility the dies were stolen before being destroyed, or that perhaps by "destroyed", he means that the dies were defaced. This would certainly explain the large gash across the reverse of the contemporary counterfeit pictured above, which was struck using genuine Soho dies (i.e., P-1110). Peck (1964) mentions that the pieces were struck on a light planchet that was roughly 1 mm thinner than usual (i.e., 2 mm instead of 3 mm) and weighed substantially less (i.e., about 19 grams compared to a full ounce). The weight alone is enough to give these coins away; however, the next biggest clue can be found within the legends which run into the rims. The struck pieces using the genuine Soho dies (i.e., Peck-1110) are rather good, and I imagine these readily passed as currency at the time. To take this one step further, I would not be surprised if these fooled some collectors who assumed they were well-circulated genuine examples.
    The information provided above is well documented by multiple modern publications and numerous contemporary sources. However, the information presented from this point forward is something that I am still working to disentangle. That said, if you have any relevant information, please let me know!
    Since the production of the 1797 and 1799 coinage, the price of copper had risen dramatically. It appears the rising cost of copper had created a sense of concern among The House of Commons that the now heavy copper coinage of 1797 and 1799 would be largely exploited. They go so far as to state their concern for the melting of copper coin put in circulation in 1797 and 1799 in the indenture dated March 26th, 1805, which provided Boulton the green light to produce the 1806 coinage. I can imagine their fears were confirmed with reports of large quantities of pence and twopence pieces being collected with the intent to melt them down. One such report was detailed in The Times on April 13th, 1805, in which eight casks of these coins weighing over 2000 pounds were seized by police (Peck, 1964). It stands to reason that the House of Commons was concerned that England's state of copper coinage would once again slip into disarray if left unchecked. The natural solution was to dissuade rampant melting and subsequent reintroduction of lightweight counterfeits with a fresh supply of regal copper coinage of the proper weight. It appears, however, that this might have also had unintended consequences. The steep rise in copper prices necessitated the reduction in weight of the proceeding English copper struck at the Soho Mint in 1806 and 1807, which now provided a different source of profit for counterfeiters. They could now produce their renditions of the new regal coinage using the heavy twopence and pence pieces as a supply of raw material. To make matters even better, they could closely adhere to the standard weight of the new pieces, and the general public would likely be none the wiser, all the while generating a handsome profit for themselves. Production of the new regal coinage did not officially start until March 20th, 1806, with farthings taking precedence over pence and halfpence. Accordingly, Doty (1998) reports that by March 31st, 4,833,768 farthings were delivered and 19,355,480 pence closely followed that in May, and 87,893,526 halfpence by the end of June. Production of farthings, halfpence, and pence continued into 1807, yielding an additional 1,075,200 farthings, 41,394,384 halfpence, and 11,290,168 pence. The mass production seemingly overwhelmed distribution efforts. In fact, it appears that the distribution of the third English contract was not complete until 1809 (Doty, 1998). Once production had stopped, a total of 165,842,526 new copper coins had been released into circulation, leading to a glut in copper coinage. The new security features of the 1806/1807 coinage likely made it increasingly difficult to produce convincing counterfeits. Passing their counterfeit wares was also likely made much more difficult once a healthy supply of the genuine article was available for comparison. Nonetheless, several of these counterfeits have survived for modern collectors.
    Any documentation regarding other contemporary counterfeits of Soho English copper beyond those of the 1797 coinage is nearly non-existent. I have several books on counterfeit English copper coinage, only one of which mentions a Soho piece. In his 2015 publication entitled "Counterfeit Georgian Copper Coins", Richard Coleman only lists one contemporary counterfeit of an 1806 halfpence (CH-1806B-1; page 82). He notes that this piece appears to be die struck and in good form. He also provides scant commentary of design details that distinguish it as a counterfeit. I have in my collection a contemporary counterfeit 1806 halfpence (pictured below) that appears to differ from the one pictured in his book, suggesting that more than one variety exists. It stands to reason that others also exist, but the lack of auction appearances paired with next to little documentation makes it nearly impossible to form any solid conclusions. If only the counterfeiters kept such meticulous records as Matthew Boulton.
    1806 “halfpence” - Contemporary Counterfeit (with edge included in the picture)

    Weight: 8.7 grams (9.45 grams)
    Diameter: 27.18 mm (29 mm)
    Thickness: 2 mm (2-2.5 mm)
    Edge: Partially engrailed but very shallow (deeply engrailed)
    Likewise, it appears that contemporary counterfeit 1807 halfpence also exist. I have one such piece in my collection that seems undocumented in any reference that I have found to date. A more crudely executed and moderately circulated example came up for auction earlier this year, suggesting that others likely also exist. Although somewhat unrelated, it is worth noting that the counterfeit sold for more than a graded MS-64 genuine example would likely have fetched at the time. The piece pictured below has a plain edge, numerous design, and basic specification discrepancies, distinguishing it as a circulated contemporary counterfeit.
    1807 “halfpence” - Contemporary Counterfeit

    Weight: 6.42grams (9.45 grams)
    Diameter: 27.93 mm (29 mm)
    Thickness: 1.43 mm (2-2.5mm)
    Edge: Plain (deeply engrailed)
    I recently acquired a counterfeit 1806 penny, the first of which that I have come across. It is interesting to note that no mention of contemporary counterfeit pence pieces is made in any reference beyond the counterfeit 1797 pieces. In this instance, the coin closely adheres to the standard specifications, but the plain edge and numerous design discrepancies help identify this piece as a circulated contemporary counterfeit. Also, like the 1806 halfpence, this piece has a color more consistent with what one would expect from a piece struck in brass.
    1806 "penny" – Contemporary Counterfeit

    Weight: 18.60 grams (18.89 grams)
    Diameter: 34 mm (34 mm)
    Thickness: 4 mm (3 mm)
    Edge: Plain (deeply engrailed)
    Despite Boulton's claims, his coinage was not immune to counterfeiting, but this does little to detract from his undeniable legacy. Before his involvement, the counterfeiting issue was so prevalent that a Royal Mint report from 1787 estimates that 92% of circulating copper was counterfeit (Peck, 1964). Although I do not have an estimated number to report, I would hazard to guess that this number was substantially lower and remained so after Boulton flooded the country with high-quality copper coinage. In my humble opinion, the Soho Mint products are some of the most exciting pieces that portray a story of rapid advancements in the art and science of minting. This era of profound development played a critical role in curbing mass counterfeiting and established a legacy that can still be felt some two centuries later in our modern coinage.
     Although not nearly as eye-appealing as the genuine articles, contemporary counterfeits are an integral part of the story that provides a different lens to view the historical context that gave rise to their existence. In this instance, they provide a unique glimpse into the effectiveness of Matthew Boulton's Soho Mint against a crime that plagued England for well over five centuries. Without their existence, one might falsely conclude that Boulton's coinage was immune to the very issue it set out to correct.
    Please feel free to share any contemporary counterfeits in your collection, even if they are from a different country, era, or metal!