1776 Continental Currency- Real or Fake?? 1 1

[Tish]

I am pretty sure this is a fake but thought I would put it out here to be sure. I found this in the bottom of a drawer from my deceased grandmothers home. It looks more silver in real time than this picture. The photo makes it look brass. Currency is spelled with only one "R" so I'm pretty sure that is a telling sign of it being fake.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Tish

[MarkFeld]

Welcome to the forum.

 

It is a poorly made replica, with no numismatic value.

[david3142]

There are real ones with only one R, so that isn't telling. However, the crude quality, rough texture, and wrong metal are clues. We just had another thread about this kind of coin. They must have been very popular at some point!

[CaptHenway]

Replica. No value.

[planman2014]

One of these days somebody is going to call or email me about a 1776 Dollar and it be real......one day.

[coinman1794]

Unfortunately, this is a very low-quality, cast replica.

[thebeav]

Unfortunately, this is a very low-quality, cast replica.

 

That's probably about the worst I've ever seen. When I was a kid, in the 60's, the ones they sold at the local museum were much nicer.

 

Paul

[Tish]

Thank you all. It is as I thought but I wanted to get the word from the experts.

[Crystal b]

On 12/26/2016 at 10:50 PM, planman2014 said:

One of these days somebody is going to call or email me about a 1776 Dollar and it be real......one day.

I have a pewter 1776 that has only one r and want to sell it if it real.

 

[Conder101]

Sorry, it isn't.

[PerryHall]

It's a replica as others have pointed out.  It wasn't made to fool collectors.  Rather it was made as a souvenir to be sold at gift shops at historic sites to tourists looking for a memento of their visit.

[Metalmomma2011]

How about this, replica as well? 

[WoodenJefferson]

22 hours ago, Metalmomma2011 said:

How about this, replica as well? 

I'm certain an example exists with a complete set of beads/dentils around the rim, but far and few between come like this, so I would be suspect immediately until proven elsewise. 

[MarkFeld]

On 4/6/2018 at 5:33 PM, Metalmomma2011 said:

How about this, replica as well? 

Absolutely.

[Candace_Brendle87]

I have one of these coins that I have been holding onto, not knowing much about it. I am going to assume with the probability of it being real, that this too is a replica? For some reason the coin looks more like its got a copper tint, but the color in the bottom photo is correct. I am thinking it is Pewter, but like I said, I really am not sure.

[Conder101]

It is a better copy than is what usually is seen, but unfortunately it is still just a copy.

[TheBlueJay]

Let me guess, this is also fake?

[tejas1836]

43 minutes ago, TheBlueJay said:

Let me guess, this is also fake?

 Yes. It even says "copy" just above the date.

[BillJones]

Recent information about the “Continental Dollars” in “The Numismatist” (January and July issues) are making the real thing less attractive. Research shows that these pieces were Revolutionary War commemorative medals that were issued from England in the early 1780s after the war ended. They were not issued as part of the Continental Currency series at all. Therefore these pieces were never “money.” They were the product of a business venture to capitalize on the end of the American Revolutionary War.

[LINCOLNMAN]

It will be interesting to see if there is any change in future prices of these pieces. Goodness knows big money is spent on other "colonial" tokens that were made in Britain as advertising pieces or for collectors.  

[BillJones]

I can't see how the prices will not be effected by the information that has come to light recently. I know I am glad that I did not get involved with this issue, although I did seriously consider it.

[coinman1794]

My thoughts after having read the January article only:

The evidence seems very convincing, though it is quite patchy and circumstantial. I'm disappointment they did not present any evidence to suggest when these pieces were actually made, or by whom. It remains possible they were made during the War, it not by the Congress, then perhaps for the Congress to consider. What if the coins sent to the Chemist were silver versions, and the pewter are restrikes? Perhaps they were hidden away by whomever made them, during the war, and they reappeared around 1783. Or, if the small flyer was issued to accompany them as medals, we now have a new So-Called Dollar listing to submit, HK-0, which will be the most valuable So-Called Dollar ever made and could be a boon to medal collectors everywhere.

In my opinion, because we never knew where they came from, their having been mentioned and discussed by founding fathers really helps, and not hurts, their appeal. Finally, I do not believe that base metal currency would have been accepted as money, certainly not as a "dollar." Early Americans were very sensitive about their underweight coppers. Even medals of inferior metal were less appealing at the time.

We'll see what I think after reading July!

Edited July 10, 2018 by coinman1794

[LINCOLNMAN]

On 7/10/2018 at 12:28 AM, coinman1794 said:

their having been mentioned and discussed by founding fathers really helps, and not hurts, their appeal. 

 

I missed this, was it in the article? 

One thing that we can deduce from the pop reports is that this was an experiment (or experiments) that didn't go anywhere. Not many have been graded and those tend to be in better states of preservation, including many graded as MS. 

We may never know why they were made or by whom, but it looks like some more sleuthing in England is in order. 

[coinman1794]

I said this because I was considering the possibility that the Robert Morris prototype in silver was a Continental Dollar. I guess I read that into the text. What was his coin, though?

[coinman1794]

After reading part 2, I still have more questions than answers. And, while a new discussion is a positive development, I personally don’t care for some of the dismissals made by the author, who claimed he did not want to speculate.

The authors spend a good bit of time discussing the gap in $1 denomination Continental notes between 1776 and 1778, as Newman made this the focus of his theories on the Continental dollar. They point out that Newman claimed the intentional gap was done to make way for a circulating pewter dollar coin. The authors shoot this down by saying the Congress printed equal numbers of each denomination of notes, at each printing, and that if they stopped printing dollars for that reason, they would have had to strike over 1 million pewter dollars to make up the gap. Therefore, this can’t be the case. Then the authors go a step further to claim the Congress was closely monitoring the need for currency and the real reason for the gap was that they judged that no dollar notes were needed in these years. These two explanations by the authors are directly at odds.

Further, if no notes were needed, that would have been the perfect time to experiment with a coinage, because there would be no reason to try to strike a million pieces. It could also have been done as a sample coinage presented to the Congress by an engraver. Perhaps the June 26, 1776 and December 26^th, 1776 newspaper descriptions of a base-medal, dollar-sized coin are evidence that some experimentation; official or otherwise; was underway (even if it never made full, large scale production), and these first-hand accounts were not merely a rumor that "adds nothing to our pursuit.”

The paper currency was worth very little, and so too would a pewter dollar have been. I cannot imagine it would have been a popular coin and I have never understood how it could have been accepted as money at a time when merchants cared how much copper was in their halfpennies. The idea of it being used to replace 12-14 coppers is interesting, but probably unwieldy. This could explain its lack of wide production and circulation, if it really was made for the Congress. Further, the Robert Morris prototype of 1783 could have been a Continental dollar, with further trials struck in brass copper and pewter. Copies could also have been made by others.

A general problem I have is that the E.G. designer’s initials don’t appear on all dies, and I think too much emphasis is placed on finding a single manufacturer. The Continental dollar issue is eerily reminiscent of 18^th century patriotic medals produced by multiple die sinkers of limited engraving talent. Often a popular medal was produced to celebrate an occasion, and then copy cats made their own versions. Some engravers signed their work, others did not. This happened a good bit with Vernon medals, for instance. There are some very crudely made Continental dollars, and there are some nicer ones, and some with initials, some without. They could have been made in 1776 and again in 1783.

Overall, however, I find the Continental dollars, even the nicest ones in existence, to be extremely low quality in engraving. If these were sold as medals, the quality was extremely bad. It is also unusual to see a milled edge on something not intended as money. They certainly do not compare to the work of Gauldet. Based on his featured 1767 medal, he had actual engraving talent, none of which is seen on the Continental dollars. They could just as easily be private patterns of a coinage that went nowhere; either in 1776 or 1783; and then copycats could have made more to fill popular demand from collectors.

Overall, the bulk of information presented is equality as circumstantial as the information covered by past authors. Personally, I doubt the Continental dollars were widely known or well distributed, if they were official issues, and I think it likely that they could have been either patterns or medals, and that multiple manufacturers were involved. They were a failed experiment or a crudely produced medal. Yet, they were definitely produced between 1776 and 1783, and I still find them quite fascinating; but clearly, more research needs to be done, on at least two continents.

[LINCOLNMAN]

A very sensible summary coinman. One thing that I would bet money on (not a lot) at this juncture is that these pieces are not historically significant, which we all thought they were back in the day. They might make for a good story, perhaps already do. 

[mar0was]

How about this one?

Real or fake?

[DWLange]

Fake

[physics-fan3.14]

I read the January article with great interest (I haven't read the July article yet). 

I thought the author's arguments in the January article were quite convincing. I still think these pieces are interesting artifacts, but nowhere near as important as we've been led to believe. 

[coinman1794]

Jason, I tend to agree, but I would love to see more research to solidify something on these.