My first Connecticut copper!

[MikeKing]

I've always admired them, and once, I almost bought a mint state example that would have cost me more than any Bustie I might have, and I wish I had done so, but I didn't. I haven't forgotten that example, it was really great, and I haven't seen one quite like it since. I've only seen a lot of ugly 'mint state' examples otherwise.

 

This one might be considered ugly by some, but I just love it. It has a black patination that offers relief for the devices (which maybe were brushed off at some point, I don't know), but the effect...to me...is phenomenal. You can clearly see the date. Would you believe this coin is over 200 yr old???!!!!

 

I'm going to use the ANR photo because my own photos just can't penetrate the scratches on the old green PCGS holder it sits in. I know James would tell me to just crack it out!! So here it is:

 

 

Would you believe this coin is dated 1787???!!!

 

Just a note on CT coppers (and please excuse any inaccuracies):

The basic design imitated the British halfpenny.

The obverse is of a man wearing a laurel, here, drapped and facing Left, but there are other dies and other mints and different variations on this leading to a whole collectable ensemble that almost defies normal variety collecting.

 

The obverse legend is Latin for 'by the authority of Connecticut', abbreviated.

The reverse is a figure of Liberty

 

On October 18, 1785 the partnership of Samuel Bishop, James Hillhouse, John Goodrich and Joseph Hopkins petitioned the state legislature for the privilege of coining coppers because counterfeits were being produced of inferior quality and therefore undermining financial transactions.

 

A law was subsequently passed making it illegal to coin coppers without the permission of the General Court, and Bishop and his friends were permitted to make the coppers (with a 5% commision to the assembly) that were to be used in financial transaction but weren't given the legal aspect of binding people to accept them.

 

These guys had to get other people involved, like a die maker Abel Buell and a whole bunch of others. Complicated business maneuvers over time which included names such as Ingersoll and Goodrich, both of which we are familiar with (I don't know if this are the same family names of the modern contemporaries ... just more history to get involved in). The initial company they formed was called the Company for Coining Coppers but that was eventually dissolved into James Jarvis and Company.

 

The Mint was set up in 1785 in New Haven under the initial ownership.

 

Initially the Bust was facing Right (after George III) but in later 1785, they made the Bust face left.

 

Buell invented what is referred to as a 'common hub' where all the elements are included in a single piece of metal. The images had to be stregnthened on the dies, and the punctuation and legends were added by hand. However, in 1787 they resorted to the standard die techniques where seperate punches were used for lettering and the devices.

 

Most of the 1787 coppers were drapped Bust Left with few of the armored Bust left being made at that point. The drapped Bust left varieties were closer to the mandated weight of about 144 grains, and are divided into two categories; large letter and small letter. The large letter attributed to the Company for Coining Coppers and the small letter attributed to the Jarvis company which eventually made the Fugios.

 

The coin pictured here I believe was made by the Jarvis company. It's among the most common type with 48 different die varieties forming over 109 different combinations. I believe it is within this series that the weight dropped to 134.6 grains because Jarvis' father in law, Samuel Broome had been left in charge of the mint while Jarvis went to Europe searching for copper for the Fugios, and Broome wanted to make money off the copper and tried to get away with decreasing its weight.

 

Jarvis' contract was voided in 1788 and there was a State inquiry in 1789, and this leads to a whole lot of other history that I haven't had time yet to digest, so that about all I'll bore you with at this point, inaccuracies and all.

[TomB]

These are interesting coins and I always feel like we see more of them in-hand than the average person would because we live in the area.

[Amanda]

That's really cool!

 

I used to live just across the border from CT in RI.

 

New Englander and proud!

 

Thanks for sharing the history, too, that was really informative.

 

The coin looks great! I agree with you about the crusty toning!

 

-Amanda

[TJ'S Coins]

Congratulations Mike, that is a wonderful, appealing coin with history and character Your whole post is quite informative, thanks!

[SkyMan]

Mike, that's a fun coin! I particularly like the stars.

 

Also, it's great that you included the history of the coin. It's always nice to learn something new.

[Hoot]

Tremendous post Mike! Thanks for taking the time. Add more when you have a chance. I simply love the coin you posted. If you ever want to sell it, I know someone who's just waiting!

 

I bought my first colonial this year (a 1788 Mass. cent). I've been slow to enter that arena due the the extraordinary complications of discerning counterfeit coins. It's complicated enough with large cents and half cents, but with colonials, the dies were so poor on the originals, the quality of the copper so bad, and their preservation was bad enough that discerning counterfeits from originals is quite a task. Die-hard colonial collectors collect the counterfeits as readily as the originals too!

 

I just recently joined C4 and the colonials section of the ANS. Much to learn!

 

Hoot

[MikeKing]

Thanks everyone for your kind input. Hoot, I'm glad to see you're appreciation of colonials. I think they're great, and I've watched them and read a little bit here and there over the years, until finally, it was clear to me what I'd want and wished to look for. Amazing coins and a collectible of real value.