coinsandmedals

I have found over the years that coin collectors often collect other things. Some pursue items unrelated to their numismatic interests, while others pursue tangentially related items. In my case, my side collections fall more in line with the latter rather than the former. Often this takes shape in the form of numismatic references published in the mid to late 18th century, with the occasional spattering dating back to the 17th century. These books often make for nice shelf decoration with their weathered leather spines in addition to being full of contemporary knowledge and interesting engravings. Lately, this area of collecting has expanded to include other ephemera such as contemporary newspapers, which brings me to the current journal topic. Before I became entirely enamored with the Soho Mint, I spent a good deal of time building a collection of earlier English copper that I used to tell the story of the small change shortage that plagued England for centuries. This custom set entitled "Social elitism: As told by the history of English copper 1694-1807" won the most creative custom set award in 2019. I only mention this because that set tells the larger scope of the story that I plan to introduce here. Before showing off my new find, let me first set the context. England had witnessed a shortage of small change since the 1300s. Across several centuries "attempts" were made to fix the issue, but it was never fully resolved. In part, this was due to the reliance on silver, which necessitated increasingly smaller coins for the lower denominations as the price of raw material continued to rise. Although the idea to use copper in place of silver for the lower denomination coins had been considered as early as Elizabeth I's reign, it wouldn't be until 1672 under Charles II that we would see the first regal copper coin for England. Eventually, counterfeiters realized that a healthy profit could be made by melting down regal coppers and producing their own lightweight "coinage" from the raw material. This became an expansive issue in England that was only made worse with the introduction of tin coinage. Counterfeiting would continue almost unchecked throughout the reigns of William and Mary, William III, and George I. Lackluster distribution of regal copper by George II’s predecessors left the outskirts of England with an almost non-existent supply of copper, while large cities such as London were under siege by lightweight counterfeits made from the melted regal coppers that never circulated out the city. In short, the state of small change in England was a mess, and the initial response was to produce new regal copper to drive out the counterfeits. Production was authorized on July 21st, 1729, and signed into law by Queen Caroline in the King's absence. In theory, this approach might have worked, but as before, the output of regal copper was insufficient to meet the public's needs. Instead of fixing the problem, the new regal coinage made it worse. As in prior years, the process was simple. Counterfeiters would melt down regal coppers and use the raw material to cast lightweight forgeries. The difference in the weight would yield a handsome profit to the counterfeiter. Eventually, the scheme escalated, and regal copper was melted down, the metal diluted to a less pure state, and the forgeries were created from the less pure metal. This allowed a twofold profit for the counterfeiter because the less pure copper mixture allowed them to produce more underweight forgeries. This newfound profit instigated an explosion in counterfeiting activity. In response to the growing issue, George II issued "An Act for the more effectual preventing the counterfeiting of the current Coin of This Kingdom, and the uttering or paying of false or counterfeit Coin" on September 29th, 1742. The majority of the act concerns silver and gold coinage, but my primary interest is the new provisions related to the copper coinage. I have done my best to include scans of the original document when convenient. At times the area of interest is split between pages and it would be troublesome to properly format the pictures in a pleasing way for the reader. The excerpt below is a great example of this type of occurrence, and as such, I have resorted to simply quoting the text here. Here is one of the more interesting parts, as it relates to copper and silver coinage: "shall file, or any ways alter, wash, or color any of the brass monies called Halfpennies or Farthings, or add to or alter the impression, or any part of the impression of either side of an Halfpenny or Farthing, with intent to make an Halfpenny resemble or look like, or pass for a lawful Shilling, or with the Intent to make a Farthing resemble or look like, or pass for a lawful Sixpence" From this excerpt, it appears that a clear threat against the silver coinage existed in that copper coinage was altered to pass as either a Shilling or a Sixpence. This presents a new facet of the counterfeiting operation as it pertains to the copper coinage that I was unaware of and further highlights the prevalence of the issue. This point is further highlighted in the section discussing the uttering of false or counterfeit money. "And whereas the uttering of false money, knowing it to be false, is a Crime frequently committed all over the Kingdom, and the offenders therein are not deterred by reason that is only a misdemeanor, and the punishment often but small, although there be great reason to believe, the common utters of such false money are either themselves the coiners, or in confederacy with the coiners thereof" It is very interesting to note the writers openly suggest that those who commonly utter counterfeit money are also likely at best in cahoots with the counterfeiters. This further suggests that the crime had developed into a multifaceted operation, a notable maturation from prior counterfeiting operations. The document discusses the appropriate punishments for both offenses (i.e., counterfeiting/altering, or uttering counterfeit money). Given the focus is on silver and not copper coinage, I have not detailed it here. Before moving on, it is also noteworthy that the first provided excerpt of the document refers to the halfpennies and farthings as "brass" instead of copper. This error is later corrected in the document. It is not until the 6th paragraph that copper coinage provisions are revisited, and it is short-lived. Here is the whole excerpt: "And whereas the coining or counterfeiting any of the copper money of this kingdom is only a misdemeanor, and the punishment often very small; be it hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any person whatsoever, shall, after the said twenty ninth day of September, make, coin, or counterfeit any brass or copper money, commonly called a Halfpeny, or a Farthing, such person offending therein, and his, her, and their aiders, abettors, and procurers being thereof convicted, shall suffer two years imprisonment, and find sureties for his or her good behavior for two years more, to be computed from the end of the said first two years." From this, it is clear that the counterfeiting of copper coinage remains a misdemeanor, but unlike before, the punishments are much more severe. The new law provisioned a two-year prison sentence to those found guilty of counterfeiting copper coinage and further escalated the punishment by requiring the convicted to secure sureties for their crime-free behavior for two years after release. This last part is notable because the convicted were required to find someone willing to financially vouch for their good behavior. If the convicted were to violate the surety terms, the backer would lose whatever surety was required. In other words, it would be very quick to burn bridges with allies if found guilty, released, and subsequently convicted again. Of course, this provision is minimal in comparison to the next. The remaining portion of the document details a marked increase in the reward provided to those who apprehend offenders of any of the offenses mentioned above. For offenses related to silver or gold coinage, the reward was £40 per conviction, whereas they were only entitled to £10 for convictions related to copper coinage. To my knowledge, this is the most aggressive approach to counter the falsification of copper coinage taken by any monarch at the time. To make matters more interesting, the act further provisioned pardons under certain circumstances. "And be it hereby further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that whoever being out of prison, shall, after the said twenty ninth day of September, commit any of the offenses aforesaid and shall afterwards discover two or more persons, who shall, after the time aforesaid, have committed any of the said offenses, so as such two or more persons shall be thereof convicted, such discoverer shall have, and is hereby intitled to His Majesty's most gracious pardon for such his or her offenses." In other words, if a previously convicted individual were to provide information that directly resulted in the conviction of at least two others, their charges would be dropped, and a royal pardon would be issued. This pardon would allow the convicted turned informant to avoid the surety provision and wipe their slate clean, which would be vital to avoiding harsher punishments for subsequent convictions. As you can imagine, the language used opened many legal loopholes that were fully taken advantage of. Although the new law made the punishments more severe, it seems as though the impact was not as significant as intended. Peck (1964) notes that the law was not written concerning pieces that had noticeable differences to the regal issues. For instance, if the forgery had numerous spelling errors or slight alterations of the bust and did not have a nearly exact similarity to the regal issue, the prosecution was made much harder and often resulted in a minimal punishment. This is why so many non-regal pieces have slightly different legends and design details compared to the regal issues. This idea took off, and by 1751, counterfeiters were advancing to the use of hand presses to produce their forgeries. This allowed them to produce more pieces at a faster rate yielding even more profit. This quickly became a more sophisticated operation with one location melting the regal issues, one location diluting the copper, another producing the blanks, and yet another striking the forgeries. A final agent would be involved in distributing the counterfeits to the market. This fragmented process made apprehending the criminals very difficult. This is also when we see an expansion in invasion type coinage, specifically to the colonies, as the same counterfeiting laws did not protect them. This new document is tangible proof of the widespread issue and only adds to my enjoyment of the history surrounding England's copper coinage. Although it predates my main focus, the Soho Mint, it helps set the historical context that resulted in its success. Without the crown's dramatic failure to issue sufficient copper coinage, the failure of parliament to protect it against counterfeiting, and the court's failure to fully prosecute the guilty parties, the history of the Soho Mint might have been very different. So what are some of the other things that you collect? Are they related to your numismatic pursuits? What got you interested in your “side collection”?

It looks like your question has already been answered, but here are a few helpful links for your coins. 1942 Penny 1950 3 Pence 1959 6 Pence 1954 Shilling 1940 Florin 1941 1/2 Crown

I am not able to see the picture that you uploaded, but maybe I can help nonetheless. Below are images of an Irish Penny and Farthing that you can use to compare with your coin to identify it.

I appreciate the sentiment! You are much more skilled at photographing silver than I am. If I had more time and money, I would likely broaden my horizons a bit, but I have more than enough to handle as it is. Thank you for sharing!

My Irish copper collection closely mimics my English pursuits, with a limited scope from the 17th to 19th centuries. I find the Soho pieces most intriguing and accessible Armstrong and Legg pieces are my next favorite era of Irish coppers. I briefly explored modern coinage, but I found myself more interested in the earlier coinage. Perhaps that will change for me some day.

Thank you for the compliment, and congratulations on your journal award this year! Oddly enough, I got my start with mercury dimes, which evolved to large cents, which has permanently evolved to Irish and English copper. Once infected by the copper bug I never got over it. If I have learned anything from this hobby, it is that you never know what might catch your eye. The token itself is intriguing, but the added family connection brings it to a whole new level. Very cool, thank you for sharing!

@Just Bob thank you! I have yet to figure out how to properly capture the color of toned copper. The pictures make this coin look much darker than it really is.

Looking over the NGC registry awards this year, I realized that I had overlooked a valuable platform to share my numismatic journey, the journals. This year I intend to change that by sharing my collecting journey throughout the year. Each month I will do my best to share either a new addition to the collection, grading results from NGC, or any tidbits of numismatic knowledge I acquire. With that said, this is my first journal entry since 2013! In this installment, I would like to share the newest addition to my collection. An 1806 Irish Farthing graded MS-66 BN by NGC. This is the highest graded example at NGC (tied with two others) or PCGS (2 in this grade). I have a soft spot for Irish copper coinage, but it can be challenging to track down nicely preserved specimens. Well circulated examples are abundant, and at times you can find uncirculated pieces for sale, but they are often marred by environmental damage. The holder is pretty scuffed, so I will need to send it in for a reholder. In part, this is what I plan to spend the $500 grading credit that accompanied the registry award I won this year. I am still in awe of NGC's generosity. This particular example is a marked upgrade to my PCGS MS-64 example. My newest addition is nothing short of stunning. If the dripping luster is not enough to entice your fancy, perhaps the wholly original neon blue toning will do the trick. I have an affinity for naturally blue-toned copper coinage. Of course, one must avoid chemically altered coins (e.g., MS-70) while on the hunt. Like most numismatic skills, this takes some time and a lot of practice. Luckily this example shows a natural toning progression one would expect to see on an original piece. The fact that this example is nicely toned, Irish, struck at the Soho Mint, and nearly pristine makes it a grand slam for me. It has earned a coveted spot in my “top shelf” box alongside other nicely blue-hued copper pieces such as the coin pictured below. Out of curiosity, are there any other Irish coin collectors lurking on these boards? Or perhaps a fellow Soho Mint enthusiast? If you are neither, please consider sharing some of your numismatic “weaknesses”. What makes your wallet suddenly become a little thinner?

This is the second year in a row that NGC’s generosity has completely caught me off guard. I never expected I would win a major registry award, much less two! This year, the set that represents the core of my collecting interests won the “Most Informative Custom Set” award, and I am beyond grateful. The NGC registry provides an invaluable platform for me to share my collection and passion for the history it represents. I have dedicated a good deal of time to building several custom sets with the intent to provide knowledge to interested collectors in an enjoyable format. The NGC comments provide extended hope for that goal. This honor has provided some much needed good news in an otherwise bleak year. I would like to thank the NGC staff for their consideration and generosity. Congratulations to all the winners!

Don’t forget the academic misconduct report! This is the least enjoyable part of the job, but it is essential to maintain the university's integrity. I’ve processed some whoppers lately. My favorites are the ones that argue to justify their misconduct.

This was my understanding as well, but it appears PCGS has started to do so. I take issue with this but that is a topic for another thread.

Your point is undoubtedly true, and one of my sets, "Change for a gold pistole?" is an excellent example. It has only garnered 202 views since 8/15/2019. My other set, "Social elitism: As told by the history of English copper 1694-1807" has been viewed 467 times since 8/20/2019, but I am sure the honor it received from NGC last year boosted those numbers. The set in question "What comes next? You've been freed. Do you know how hard it is to lead?" has received a bit more attention with 684 views since 8/15/2019. Of course, there is no telling how many of those "views" are from me clicking on them, so using this as a metric for interest is of little help. Surprisingly several members have reached out to me in the past to comment on one or more of these sets. This is a rare occurrence, but it means a ton when a fellow collector takes the time to share their thoughts. There are some truly exceptional custom sets here worthy of more attention. I wonder if NGC plans to migrate the custom sets to the new registry page in the future, which might bring more attention to them.

Last year I spent a fair amount of time building three custom registry sets with the intent to update the historical write-up in each as I discovered new information. Unfortunately, given the dumpster fire that this year has been, I only found the time to update one of the three sets. Throughout this year, I have gleaned a ton of new knowledge from digital archives, articles, books, and conversations with several more knowledgeable numismatists. I have done my best to condense and incorporate this new information within the set, but there is always something new to learn. This particular registry set is significant to me as it represents the core of my collecting interests, but my primary purpose for building it was for others to enjoy it. With that in mind, I would like to see what others think and solicit suggestions for improvement. I am not fishing for compliments, but I would like to get a feel for what other collectors (both experienced and new) find useful and maybe learn a thing or two from some of the more knowledgeable collectors that frequent this forum. If you have the time and are interested, I would greatly appreciate your input! Here is the set description: Although my ambition is to build a complete collection of the Soho Mint pieces, this would be an unrealistic goal. Instead, my goal is to accumulate a representative sample of Soho pieces that depict the height of artistic and scientific ingenuity of the era. In completing this goal, I hope to bring knowledge to those interested by providing detailed pictures and accurate descriptions. A great deal of numismatic history remains to be explored by those unfamiliar, and what better way to learn than by looking at a selection of handpicked specimens? Here is the link to the set : https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/wcm/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=27859 These are the types of coins and medals currently contained within this set. *****If this is against forum rules, I apologize and request that the thread be deleted.*****

As if there were not enough anecdotal evidence from your original thread to make it clear that you have zero idea of what you are doing, this comment makes that fact undeniably clear. So you submitted an NGC graded coin to PCGS as a crossover, and now you are upset because they crossed the coin at the same grade (i.e., PCGS cracked it out of the NGC holder and placed it in a PCGS holder with the same numeric grade)? If so, this is your fault for failing to understand the seemingly fool-proof procedure for PCGS crossover submissions. All submitters have the option of requesting a minimum grade for crossover. In other words, you have the option to request that the coin remain in its holder unless it can be crossed at your specified grade, which can be higher or lower than the assigned grade on the original holder. So for your example, you could have specified that your NGC MS-63 not cross at any grade less than what you thought the appropriate grade was (i.e., MS-65). In this case, PCGS did not think your coin was worthy of anything other than MS-63. Had you correctly filled out the form, then the coin would have been returned in its original NGC MS-63 holder. Your comment makes it clear that you never understood the crossover process. It is abundantly clear to those of us well versed in submitting coins to TPGs that the problem started and ended with you.

Very cool. Thank you for sharing!

@Just Bob I just found another eBay seller (numisvlora) with multiple counterfeits listed along with well-circulated/damaged genuine coins. The English counterfeits are easy enough to identify (almost comical), but I did not have the time to look through the 9,721 items they have listed. Here is the link to their shop: https://www.ebay.com/usr/numisvlora Here are some item numbers that you can look up: 124484822719 124485664040 274253614980 @Greenstang this one is my personal favorite. It can be yours for $199.75!

All of the British coins are counterfeit. A cursory glance from even a novice could determine that much. I don't know enough about the Chinese coins to argue the point in detail but based on my general experience with numismatics I am comfortable calling them for what they likely are. I’ve already reported the British pieces. I just didn’t have the time to report the other 35 items they have listed.

I realize now that I failed to mention that they are listed on eBay. @Just Bob you should be able to pull the coins up by searching for the item numbers. On any note, I have included a link to one of them. If you view the sellers other listings you will see almost everything they have listed is counterfeit. https://www.ebay.com/itm/313341651600

A new eBay seller from Albania just listed a bunch of counterfeit coins. I have included item numbers for the 1799 halfpence, but it looks like everything else they have listed is fake. 313341651600 333823764654 174557497674

1909 P

The cheek and neck (i.e., the prime focal areas) on your coin are pretty marred up. In my opinion, your coin is nowhere near MS-65 quality. Here is an image on another 1884 CC graded MS-65 taken from Heritage. You should immediately notice how your coin has substantially more chatter in the primary focal areas than the example I provided.

@brg5658 thank you for the words of encouragement! I love the look of your 1892 1/2 crown. I find toned and prooflike coins to be the most difficult to photograph. I tend to be a bit critical of my images, but here are a few that I find tolerable.

@brg5658 thanks for the tip! You can still find a small usb version of the Jansjö lights at Ikea. I have one but I don’t find it particularly useful. The Nävlinge lights are nice but slightly larger than their predecessors. My biggest issue with them was trying to diffuse the light. I’ll order the translucent plastic tonight and give the cone diffusers a shot.

@brg5658 do you have a recommendation for the translucent plastic? I see a ton of options on Amazon.

Yes, I have and it distorted the image.