A really nice piece of copper

[MikeKing]

To those of you who don't consider colonial coinage US coins ---

But to those of you who like copper, I just picked this one up from a STACKS/ANR auction, it's raw, and these are scans at 200dpi, but real nice hard glossy surfaces!!! I'm very excited about this one.

 

 

1785 Connecticut copper. M.6.4-I. Rarity-2. Mailed Bust Right

[dooly]

Nice rare coin May find one detecting in the UK one day

[MBA101]

Nice pick-up, Mike.

 

And good luck tonite

[Zoins]

If it's 1785 and pioneer gold are considered coins, then this would also be a coin, though technically pre-Federal and pre-Constitutional, not Colonial. Is this coin an official Connecticut state authorized issue?

 

Neat coin. Will you be posting larger and lighter photos?

[Conder101]

Well it was issued by a governmental authority (under contract) and issued with the intention that it circulate as money. I'd say that it would qualify as a coin.

[Zoins]

It's a coin, but is it a "US coin" or a "Connecticut coin?" In 1785, did the US federal government have the ability to and did they authorize Connecticut to issue coins? Or were the states issuing coins under their own authority in 1785 under the Articles of Confederation?

 

If the authority to issue these coins came from the federal government, then I would classify them as US coins, however if the federal government did not authorize the coins and the authority came from the states themselves, then would these be better classified as Connecticut coins?

 

Of course, if "US coins" simply means coins for use in the borders of the US, then these would qualify even if the US federal government did not authorize these. If this is the case, it would seem that US pioneer gold would also be classified as "US coins."

[bsshog40]

Nice coin there Mike!!

[1798CentCollector-migratio]

Nice Connecticut, Mike, and a very interesting piece of Early American history.

[MikeKing]

It's a coin, but is it a "US coin" or a "Connecticut coin?" In 1785, did the US federal government have the ability to and did they authorize Connecticut to issue coins? Or were the states issuing coins under their own authority in 1785 under the Articles of Confederation?

 

If the authority to issue these coins came from the federal government, then I would classify them as US coins, however if the federal government did not authorize the coins and the authority came from the states themselves, then would these be better classified as Connecticut coins?

 

Of course, if "US coins" simply means coins for use in the borders of the US, then these would qualify even if the US federal government did not authorize these. If this is the case, it would seem that US pioneer gold would also be classified as "US coins."

 

I'm sure there are others, Conder for one, who know more about this than I do, but they were authorized by the CT legislature and were meant to facilitate commerce and not payable by demand. So it is a state copper. The first Federally authorized coinage, I believe, was the Fugio.

 

These are the STACKS photos, which will show more detail and are lighter. My scans actually better depict the color of the coin with normal lighting.

 

[Zoins]

Thanks for the reply Mike. The early years of the US are pretty interesting and something I'd like to look into sometime. Thanks for posting this

[physics-fan3.14]

are those diagonal streaks planchet defects? Nice coin.

[Bruceswar]

are those diagonal streaks planchet defects? Nice coin.

 

Correct they are! Sweet coin mike!!

[SkyMan]

Nice pickup Mike!

[rrantique]

Very nice coin Mike

[JRocco]

Hey Mike. Great addition to your collection my friend.

Early coppers are true American history. I still get "that feeling" every time I thumb through the beginning pages of the Redbook and see our early coinage.

These are just sooo hard to find in anything near collectible condition for a price that you can afford, but when you find a piece that you can buy without crippling the budget---you just have to buy it.

Nice coin Mike

[WinstonWare]

Nice pickup Mike

[IGWT]

That's the epitome of cool.

[michael]

choice and superb

 

extremely histroical

 

and more american than many

 

so called crappy ike and sac dollars which never really circulated much if at all mostly sold to collectors as non circulating legal tender

 

and really served no purpose to be minted as i would say 99.999% of the paper one dollar bills circulated more than an ike or sac or washington dollar

[rbrown4]

I picked this up at an auction yesterday and had it in the recent acquisition Postings but I wanted to make sure that some of you out there that know Early American/Post Colonial coinage can confirm the type of coin for me.

 

With great assistance from Wayne (Dooley) it appears to be an 1786 Connecticut. Are the reverses on these coins fairly consistent or are there minor differences from coin to coin? In other words should I go solely on the pictures in the Red Book on this? I wish the date and or legend on the Obverse were legible.

 

Is there anything safe and non-destructive that I could use to clear it up a little?

 

Rey

 

 

[MikeKing]

I'm far far from any expert in old copper, and I'm using Breen, mostly, to try to decipher this. I also tried to augment your photos, but, I don't think I produced anything significant. Maybe someone else on this board could do that.

 

Basically, there are Bust Left and Bust Right, and they could be Draped busts or Mailed busts, and there are variations in the face and/or hairstyle, within them. Nevermind the placement of the cinqefoils.

 

I think this is a Connecticut Copper.

The Vermont coppers on the obverse have: Vermont Auctori *, where the word 'Vermont' comes first. Except for a rare 1786 coin where the Auctori comes first, but in this case, the bust is facing Right and not Left. Since you can see, in your coin, the "A" in "Auctori" on the left, I don't think it's a Vermont.

 

The pony tail or the ends of whatever ribbon he has in his hair (I could never figure out if it's hair or a ribbon), is the giveaway, because the lack of a 'kink' at the end of it, narrows it down a bit by excluding a lot of possibilities.

 

The nose, may also a be bit of a giveaway.

 

The shallow forehead, the big round blunt nose and the un-kinked tails combined, makes me think it's not a Machin's Mills coin,

 

But I can't figure out if it's a 1775,6 or 7, or 8 for that matter.

 

You can see the "c" in "Connec", on your coin and also a remnant after it.

 

edited to add: you can use acetone to remove what looks like some PVC on both sides but I don't know if I would otherwise touch it. If someone with more experience than I have with copper could look at it, it probably would be better to listen to their advice.

 

There are differences in the reverse however, particularly (from the parts that are visible in your photo), the laurel she is holding and the ribbons that go out right, past the pole she is holding. This bears quite a bit of similarity to the 1786 M. 5.8-F. which is listed as 'rare' in Breen.

 

But I'm still uncertain about the date. If Dooley could help me out here...

 

also, check out web page

 

The author's first three sentences says it all (re the difficulty in identifyication):

 

"Connecticut coppers have the most complex minting history of all colonial issues. There were more that 355 die combinations, with at least 126 type varieties having 26 distinct bust styles made by at least six different mints. Yet, the basic design of the Connecticut Coppers never changed"

[rbrown4]

Thank you for the info. Mike and appreciate your help, as well as the link to that page, great information.

 

Rey

[MikeInFL]

Great coin and post. Thanks for sharing...Mike

[rrantique]

Here is a 1786 M. 5.8-F Rey.

 

[rbrown4]

Thank you Irvin,

 

That reverse definitely matches the one on my coin.

 

Aegis, Dooley and Mike were spot on it seems, thanks guys.

 

Rey

[bsshog40]

That's what it is!