Possibile undiscovered pattern, Need help!!!

[Lost Dutchman]

Hi Gang!!

 

I have found the reference to this piece in the new pattern book as J1740 and J-1740a. This pattern was struck in silver and according to the book there is no listing for this piece in copper. As you can see the piece I have is this design in copper. It does show what appears to be an "3" under the "5" as some of the originals do. This piece looks to have been struck with a cracked die that extends through the date.

 

My guess is that this may be a later restrike in copper from broken dies... the alignment is off as well with a rotation of about 45 degrees counterclockwise. My other thought is that might be a complete counterfiet. I'd apprecieate hearing thoughts from you guys on this one.

 

Matt

 

 

[MarkFeld]

That does not look like a genuine item to me.

[robec1347]

I agree with Mark. If that were an authentic US Mint pattern, not only the shield and leaves on the reverse, but the devices as a whole, would have a ton more detail and sharpness than what is shown on your coin.

[RWB]

Sorry, all I see are red "X"s.

[Lost Dutchman]

That does not look like a genuine item to me.

 

I agree with Mark. If that were an authentic US Mint pattern, not only the shield and leaves on the reverse, but the devices as a whole, would have a ton more detail and sharpness than what is shown on your coin.

 

 

These are both things that crossed my mind while looking at this piece. I have never personally seen a counterfiet pattern. This is a relatively old piece. The collection it originated from looks to have been put together in the mid 60's. I suspect that what you gentlemen have pointed out is most likely the correct assessment.

[IGWT]

Many of the anomalies in the dies used to strike 1740 match those on your piece. I'd tentatively guess that it's a cast counterfeit. Do you have any pictures of the edge?

[Lost Dutchman]

 

Here is the best shot of the edge that I can get. The more I study it the more I'm sure it is a counterfiet.

 

[RWB]

They should match the other 1885 Eastman Johnson experimental pieces. Possibly a privately made copy sold for curiosity. Andy Lustig should be able to help.

[IGWT]

Here is an example of J-1740 side-by-side with subject piece for comparison. The die markers that I mentioned earlier are especially apparent on the reverse, e.g., (1) the die crack stemming from the middle of the second leg of the N in ONE, (2) the apparent die chip next to the serif of the C in CENT, and (3) what looks like minor repunching of the left serif of the T in CENT. Those similarities made me suspect a cast counterfeit.

 

 

But then I overlayed one piece with the other. I used the date to register the overlay of the obverses, and I used the shield to register the overlay of the reverses. There is significant difference in the relative positions of the letters is far greater than I'd expect as a result of inaccurate sizing of the images, suggesting that the piece was not cast from the mold of a genuine example. Interesting.

 

[michael]

unless the federal mint in philly cast it in 1885 or later in the 19th century

 

it is a...........................

 

a poor cast piece done outside the federal mint in philly and the fabric ofthis piece suggests most probably made by the lost wax process from a genuine original pattern

[michael]

myopinion from photo

[truthteller]

I vote for authentic. The piece appears damaged, somewhat corroded and worn. The coin, if struck in copper or bronze, would have a different set of characteristics than a piece struck in aluminum. What I find interesting is the center collar of the coin, which has a slight metal flow missing. On the copper piece, the center rim is lacking metal at 9 o'clock, and on the aluminum piece, the center rim is lacking metal at 3 o'clock. This would not happen from cast piece, but from a struck piece. In addition, the denticles about the periphery are sharp and separated, unlike a cast copy.

 

Good luck,

 

 

TRUTH

[kryptonitecomics]

It looks like a cast copy to me

[RWB]

Well -- that's why people pay big bucks to the authentication services.

[jonthecoinjunky]

It is a very interesting piece. There are quite a few numismatists whose specialty is counterfiet coins. In some cases people will pay more for a counterfiet coin than the genuine coin simply because it is a counterfiet.

 

Even as a counterfiet it is a neat piece, hopefully it will not be a complete bust.

[michael]

send to ngc and hopefully in hand it is genuine and then net graded for environmental damage

 

please let us know on here the results

 

how much does it weight in grams?

 

what is the exact diameter and thickness (done with a micrometer)??