Conder101

I'm sure you remember back during the cent shortage of 1974 when business used to give out pieces of candy instead of the one cent pieces they didn't have. Think hard times and civil war tokens, or in England the old 17th, 18th, and 19th century trade/provincial tokens.

Of course the "Dinosaurs" only had to deal with three grades of Uncirculated. then when they got those down they added two more. When they had a handle on that they added another one. and then finally put in the last five. and made fun of the very idea that anyone would be able to grade precisely enough to have grades in between those grades (as one service tried). Oh but wait now we have in between or + grades, and "high end for the grade" Newbies today don't have the luxury that the Dinosaurs did, they just get kicked into the deep end.

I don't have my copies of Early American Cents and Penny Whimsy available, but I believe in the 1949 EAC he only used 60, 65 and 70, and I don't believe he ever actually used 70. In the 1958 Penny Whimsy he may have expanded to use of 63 and 67, and I'm still not sure he ever actually used 70. That was as far as Sheldon took it. All the other grades were courtesy of PCGS. Before PCGS even the ANA "Sheldon system" never went beyond 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, and 70.

One other reason for a preference for fine gold bars for exporting was that if depositied gold was made into coins the depositors would be charged for the copper used to alloy the metal. then once it arrived overseas it would often be then melted down and made into either fine gold bars, or coinage. and they would then be charged again, this time a refining charge to remover the copper they had paid to have added to make coins. Rather then be charged twice they would just ship fine gold bars, which would be accepted at their value upon arrival.

Yes they may be EXPERT opinions, but they are still opinions, and sometimes opinions, even expert ones, are wrong.

Because people carry the bills they get in change back to the stores and spend them. They don't stuff them in jars when they get home. So they tend to stay in circulation. In that case they don't have to worry about rounding, just raise the price of every item 1 cent per year. If you don't have change to give back rounding to the next 5 cents doesn't really help.

I think possibly heat damaged.

I didn't see anything wrong withthe ear, but that looks like it might be a pretty good die chip down below the ear at around 7:00.

It quite possibly came that way when he got it.

Not to the best of my knowledge (unless it is the unknown date) But this doesn't have the look of a Henning, the lettering is too sharp, and the Hennings are typically overweight, about 5.4 grams.

Frankly Roger I agree with you, or at least it is in violation of the HPA. Just like those 100 dollar "patterns" the Smithsonian had made that NGC slabbed.

1834 Act of June 28, 1834

What if it went back to the company that called it fake but this time they called it real. Would it still not sit well with you? After all a professional still called it fake.

Obviously none of them ever mated then because I've nevers seen any half dimes after 1873. You sure it wasn't the seated dollars that mated?

The problem is today anytime someone mentions cleaning with baking soda, everyone assumes they mean using that paste. Dipping a coin in water that has had baking soda COMPLETELY dissolved in it, probably won't hurt it. As long as it gets a VERY thorough rinsing to remove every trace of that dissolved baking soda before it is allowed to dry. And yes it can be used to neutralize an acid dip. But then you still have to get all the baking soda off.

That does look like it.

They are calling them that because neither of those coin were made intending for them to be released into circulation. They were made for sale to collectors only. After 2002 the Sac dollar was NIFC and the half dollar was NIRC from 2002 to 2016 and since 2018. The 2017's apparently were made for circulation.

110% sure it's a fake.

And by read it we don't mean just look at the price lists. In fact those can pretty much just be ignored.

The current standard reference for the counterfeit farthings and half pence is "Contemporary Counterfeit Halfpenny & Farthing Families" and that was where I checked to try and find your coin. The two families I mentioned, Machens Mills Family and the Georgivs Triumpho Family, are the only two listed that include coins dated 1776 and your coin is not among them. That was why I wondered if it might actually be a 1775. But there are a LOT of families that include 1775 dated coins. Checking all of those will take some time (and there are also more contemporary counterfeits that aren't listed yet which is why the 300 page book I mentioned is also labeled Volume 1. No other volumes have come out yet. It is estimated that there may be as many as 10,000 varieties.) Would it be possible to get good FULL pictures of it out of the holder? Be careful on this. They will slab and identify Machins Mills contemporary counterfeits, but they may not slab other contemporary counterfeits, and if they do they may not fully identify them. So you might get the coin back in a bodybag with just the notation counterfeit, or not a type that we do. And if they do slab it it might just be noted as "contemporary counterfeit". Before you send it make SURE that they will identify it by variety. Otherwise it isn't worth sending.

Not a restrike, a copy of a pattern double eagle by Charles Barber J-1773 Pollock 1992 Unique in the Smithsonian collection I don't recognize the "mint mark" of the company that made this piece

Not an evasion piece, contemporary counterfeit. Don't know if it is British or American origin but I would guess British. Can't match it to any of the documented families in my reference. Highly unlikely it is a blacksmith token they are much cruder than this coin. I only have two family listing that include 1776 counterfeits, the Machens Mills Family and the Georgivs Triumpho Family and this 1776 rev doesn't match either if the 76 reverses for those families. There is a chance the date is 1775, the many of the counterfeiters deliberately made the 5 on their dies look very much like a 6. (And the fact that part of the digit is off the planchet doesn't help.) That would open up a lot of other possibilities that I don't want to try and go into right now The evasion refers to evading the anti-counterfeiting laws. Under the law at the time a coin was only a counterfeit if it was an EXACT copy of a regal coin. So the Evasion pieces took advantage of the general populations illiteracy and would make similar looking copper coins with mis-spelled legends, nonsense legends, or inscriptions that would look similar to people who couldn't ready such as GEORGE RULES instead of GEORGIUS REX. There is a rev where instead of BRITT ANIA it says BONNY GIRLS. Since the coins weren't exact copies they evaded a charge of counterfeiting.

If it is, that's called a stain.

Another Chinese counterfeit.

Nope Chinese counterfeit.