New Jersey and Fugio newps -- how did I do?
jonathanb
Posts: 3,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
I don't really know much about Colonials, but I've always thought they're neat. The tokens and medals areas are really slow over the summer, so I spent a little in an area that I know less about.
If I'm not mistaken, both of these pieces are interesting and worth comment, although for different reasons. Would anyone like to share their thoughts before I post my opinions (and pictures) tomorrow?
New Jersey
Fugio
If I'm not mistaken, both of these pieces are interesting and worth comment, although for different reasons. Would anyone like to share their thoughts before I post my opinions (and pictures) tomorrow?
New Jersey
Fugio
0
Comments
Ed. S.
(EJS)
The real unique piece is in VF condition (actually as an interesting side note, I believe the WM NJ was the first colonial slabbed by PCGS though I could be mistaken) and is in a very late die state with a very large die break like this piece shows. It is hard to believe that many coins more than one or two were ever struck as the die would have broken in two before many coins could have even been struck and the Morristown mint was known for making very nicely struck coinage on large planchets with a seemingly high demand for quality.
With all that said, it is quite interesting there is not a copy stamp on the coin. I have seen two other reproductions of the WM NJ without the copy stamp both being Chinese counterfeits. Both of those pieces were artificially aged and were in much lower grade with all sorts of corrosion and scratches. Yours seems to be in a much better state of preservation than the other examples I have seen.
<< <i>Any comments on the Fugio? >>
It is a bit hard to judge the Fugio based on the picture. The obverse surface looks a bit interesting to me, but that again could be the picture. It does look to be in a higher grade but without seeing it in person it is hard to judge the coin as to being an authentic example just based on the picture.
<< <i>Is the New Jersey copy silvered copper? >>
Sort of looks like it, huh? No, just wacky lighting.
<< <i>That New Jersey is gorgeous! I know nothing about either coin except I'm officially jealous. >>
Ex - Auctions by Bowers and Merena, Inc. "Rarities Sale", August 12, 1996, Lot 2, sold for $143,000.00
It appears to me to be the same dies. How could you copy the die and have a higher grade? Is there a chance it is genuine?
<< <i>
<< <i>That New Jersey is gorgeous! I know nothing about either coin except I'm officially jealous. >>
Hey now it was late when I posted. Afterwards I thought the coin looked too good and felt a bit stupid but that isn't the first time. It is a nice copy though?
If it is a copy made directly, like an electrotype, it would be the same grade or less.
If it is indeed a fake or fairly recent origin, then perhaps the unique discovery coin is also a fake from the same dies. Artificially circulated and fed to a duck.
They did make copies of that unique NJ colonial, and they did a decent job of it.
That replica does have some value as a novelty.
And no, Rick -- the unique "genuine" one is in fact authentic.
Coin Rarities Online
The stars on the genuine coin are smaller.
The mane on the horse is different.
The initials WM on the reproduction are more squat.
The horizontal rope (or whatever it is) below the horse head has more twists on the genuine coin.
The horse's left ear points between the C and Æ on the genuine coin, but at the C on the reproduction.
I'm sure I'd find more after a while. Is there a GMM logo on the edge of the repro?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I know even less about counterfeits than I do about Colonials, but my impression is that this has a strange mix of production quality.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that it's die struck. It gives a great 'ring test' and has the heft of a regular coin. It is 31.1 mm in diameter, 10.0 grams, coin alignment. Those are all plausible numbers for a real New Jersey piece. I don't know what the GMM logo looks like, but the edge sure seems plain to me.
The die work is pretty good, with a very nice looking horse and lettering. The lettering, on the other hand, is riddled with lots of tiny raised pimples on both sides of the coin. The pimples are most common along the edges of the devices, although there are some in the field as well.
I know that there is a type of die production method called "spark erosion", where a coin is placed near a blank steel die-to-be, and a heavy current is passed between them, causing sparks between the parts of the coin closest to the steel (the highest parts of the coin) and the die-to-be. Eventually the sparks eat into the steel, transferring the design. Or something like that. Maybe someone else can fill in the details. In any case, these raised pimples are what I would imagine a die like that would end up looking like, if it wasn't cleaned up properly afterwards.
NewEnglandRarities picked up on the other thing that caught my attention. This is nominally the second specimen of a currently-unique variety, Maris 62.5-r, which is the only New Jersey variety with the WM initials under the horse. However, as he points out, this is a significantly higher grade than the only known legitimate specimen. More to the point, if I squint at the (small) picture of the legitimate specimen, shown on page 166 of the Whitman Encyclopedia of Colonial and Early American Coins, I'm pretty sure that the real specimen is also a later die state than this one. The cud by the date on the real specimen appears to cover three full denticles, while it covers only two denticles on this piece. I may be reading the picture wrong. If not, that means that someone didn't just make a copy of the known specimen, but invented the details that might be on a different piece. That's a weird thing to do.
(Admittedly, it worked -- I bought this piece, and I found it interesting enough to post here. It still seems strange that someone would go through the effort to produce something that doesn't match what it should look like.)
The Fugio, on the other hand, I'm pretty sure is real. It is 28.8 mm, 10.8 grams, medal alignment -- again, plausible numbers if a bit on the heavy side.
I spent a while looking at the seller's pictures, trying to figure out what was going on with the obverse. I decided that either it was some strange type of corrosion, or it covered with old lacquer that was starting to peel. My money was on the lacquer -- and even before a quick acetone bath I could see that's what it was.
More significantly, if I don't miss my mark this is Newman 19-SS (19-S.2). Stacks sold a 19-SS four years ago, with a writeup that said in part, "Condition Census data compiled by our late friend Rob Retz and David Palmer lists a single AU and five EFs to lead the surviving specimens from this die marriage." That would put this specimen way up in the Condition Census. Anyone want to tell me that I'm wrong?
This does have some light verdigris on the surface, most obviously on the lower left quadrant of the reverse. As someone who doesn't collect Colonials, I really wish it wasn't there. It wouldn't surprise me if Colonial collectors were happy to see it as a mark of originality or something. Maybe I'll send it to NCS and see if they can at least stabilize things and make sure that nothing is active.
...and if you want a laugh, I paid more than 3x as much for the New Jersey as I did for the Fugio. Go figure.
jonathan
<< <i>the unique "genuine" one is in fact authentic. >>
Who authenticated it? We don't have photographs from back then and even expert authenticators have been known to make 6 figure mistakes for more than what that piece sold for.
Additionally, if we don't know definitively what the initials stand for, how can there be such confidence in the authenticity of a currently unique piece?
<< <i>
<< <i>the unique "genuine" one is in fact authentic. >>
Who authenticated it? We don't have photographs from back then and even expert authenticators have been known to make 6 figure mistakes for more than what that piece sold for.
Additionally, if we don't know definitively what the initials stand for, how can there be such confidence in the authenticity of a currently unique piece? >>
I thought it was fake as well when it first surfaced about 15+ years ago.
I was still suspicious of it when it sold at auction in 1996 (no -- CRO was not the buyer. We have never owned this coin).
It is however, several years after it sold numismatists discovered traces of the WM initials on the obverse of Maris 62 -- a known variety that is actually pretty common. So either this counterfeiter was incredibly clever and brilliant and knew things about this die that were unknown to any other numismatist at the time the unique specimen surfaced (which is possible, but really not likely at all), or it is a legit new discovery. I vote for the latter. So I (among others) deem it authentic.
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the unique "genuine" one is in fact authentic. >>
Who authenticated it? We don't have photographs from back then and even expert authenticators have been known to make 6 figure mistakes for more than what that piece sold for.
Additionally, if we don't know definitively what the initials stand for, how can there be such confidence in the authenticity of a currently unique piece? >>
I thought it was fake as well when it first surfaced about 15+ years ago.
I was still suspicious of it when it sold at auction in 1996 (no -- CRO was not the buyer. We have never owned this coin).
It is however, several years after it sold numismatists discovered traces of the WM initials on the obverse of Maris 62 -- a known variety that is actually pretty common. So either this counterfeiter was incredibly clever and brilliant and knew things about this die that were unknown to any other numismatist at the time the unique specimen surfaced (which is possible, but really not likely at all), or it is a legit new discovery. I vote for the latter. So I (among others) deem it authentic. >>
That's very cool you scan see traces of the initials on a fairly common variety. It makes this piece much more interesting. Thanks for sharing!
So it appears someone took two Galley Mint pieces one with the COPY on the reverse and another with a COPY on the obverse and made transfer dies from them.
<< <i>Here's my Gallery Mint example >>
Does it have the pimples?
<< <i>So it appears someone took two Galley Mint pieces one with the COPY on the reverse and another with a COPY on the obverse and made transfer dies from them. >>
I'll agree with that. I think I have a GMM NJ somewhere. I'll have to check where the COPY stamp is.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The discovery coin was authenticated by NGC.
A counterfeit from a Gallery Mint copy sounds very plausible.