1787 Connecticut Colonial - Any information?

InGodWeTrustCoins

Does anyone know what variety this is? Is the writing an attribution by Hays?

lcutler

I don't know who's attribution it is, but it is correct. 33.2-Z.12 Nice detail, shame about the corrosion.

logger7

Neat design. Barter was the thing in those days, the 1780s where hyperinflation was a stark reality. "Not worth a Continental" was coined then.

ricko

Nice old piece, even with the corrosion, an historical treasure. Cheers, RickO

PerryHall

General question---what effect does the old printing of code numbers or letters have on the value of old coins? I've seen this practice before on old coins so I assume it was standard practice at one time especially for coins recovered from an archeological dig. How does NGC and PCGS treat such coins when they are submitted for grading?

LanceNewmanOCC

@PerryHall said:
General question---what effect does the old printing of code numbers or letters have on the value of old coins? I've seen this practice before on old coins so I assume it was standard practice at one time especially for coins recovered from an archeological dig. How does NGC and PCGS treat such coins when they are submitted for grading?

.
fwiw, obviously i'm not answering your inquiry but i have seen this on more recent items from either university or museum items being cataloged not necessarily attributed. i HOPE they use inert materials but even if, can't say i'm a fan. i'm not sure if it was Mr. Kraft's images that was posted or just someone in a similar/same position. curator/cataloger?

LanceNewmanOCC

@InGodWeTrustCoins said:
Does anyone know what variety this is? Is the writing an attribution by Hays?

.
nice colonial. i hope you know about mineral oil soaks or some other EAC super secret soak as a recent article that was posted here stated, the green NEVER stops growing.

also, if you were ever inclined to show/explain your image setup, i certainly won't stop ya.

it looks like a nice dslr with a macro lens with very good lighting type/position. reminds me of my images from my d90!

CaptHenway

One of the few times when graffiti on a coin enhances its desirability, imho.

JesseKraft

That coin likely came from the Frederick A. Canfield collection, who passed away in 1926. This practice was painting the die variety on a coin (now known as a "painted die variety"...not too clever) was prominent amongst private numismatists in the 1910s-1930s. This was not a museum practice. Museums will paint their accession number on a coin, but not the die variety. The ANS has never used this practice (neither die variety nor accession number). Any coin in the collection that exhibits this had it before we obtained the coin.

Much of the Canfield collection came to the American Numismatic Society in 1930/31, originally as a longterm loan by the New Jersey Historical Society, but is now a part of our permanent collection. Given that the Miller numbering system of Connecticuts was first published in the American Journal of Numismatics in 1919, and he passed away in 1926, there's only a few year period when this was added to the coin.

Some people find this attractive, others don't. Nowadays, if the thought crosses one's mind that painting the die variety on a coin is a good idea and will increase value, please get rid of that thought.

Here is one of many similar coins that is in the ANS collection:
1785 Connecticut copper; Miller 3.4-F.2 (as noted on the coin), Whitman 2345.
American Numismatic Society, 1931.58.417

Click here to view a bunch of others!

BillJones

@CaptHenway said:
One of the few times when graffiti on a coin enhances its desirability, imho.

I think that the white ink would probably wash off, not that you would want to do that. I have seen a number of Connecticut coppers that had this with variety information on the piece.

It beats what was done to this Henry II (ruled 1154 to 1189) British penny. There is a tiny counterstamp (H II) at the upper left. In person's defense who did this, Henry's sons, Richard I (the Lion Heart) and John continued to issue pennies with Henry name on them during their reigns. Attributions to those kings take an expert's touch.

PerryHall

@BillJones Are you sure that's a counterstamp? It looks like it was engraved onto the coin.

LanceNewmanOCC

@JesseKraft said:

just on the off chance you do, i'll ask.

i've watched a number of historic painting restorations (a rather cumbersome/satisfying process these days) to not only remove former, less tactful repairs/touch-ups etc and we seemingly have the knowledge now to be able to put down a buffer layer between what is determined to be the original work and touch ups that will be removable w/o damage to the original piece as well as removing former preservation/repair efforts

surely people won't be a fan of this for coins but have you heard/seen/done any practice with any materials that COULD be used with modern info/tech that would not harm the coins long-term. similarly to the ubiquitous use of acetone on coins, except that whatever is used to mark the coins, wouldn't evaporate off.

i would like to think there is a myriad of other ways to effectively and accurately catalog coins and other items w/o having to rely on such methods for accuracy/theft prevention or whatever.

just curious on a few more of your thoughts/experiences. t.i.a.

also, thanks for the comments above.

BillJones

@PerryHall said:
@BillJones Are you sure that's a counterstamp? It looks like it was engraved onto the coin.

Maybe. Whatever it is, it's post mint damage according to most people, but I found it interesting because of the issues surrounding the attribution of these pennies.

Here's one attributed to Richard I

And here's one that is attributed to John.

The differences have to do with the style of the crown.

LanceNewmanOCC

@BillJones said:

.
did you see the thread/video for those working on a computer-aided die study, especially for this old stuff, to assist in recognizing subtle variances?

do you know if the one with the PMD has fish scales/beaded border that goes all the way around? i presume one would have to see a few different pieces to know for sure.

jesbroken

I would recommend the owner of this piece to place it in cheap EVOO for 6 months, changing the oil each month. Do not know what it might do to the painted attribution writing.
Jim