Help ID these Conder Half pennies, ALL SOLVED, THANKS!

prooflike

Please help me identify by D&H number and anything else about my Conder tokens... THANKS A LOT!

solved tokens are in bold

If I need to read something on the rim, please let me know.. possibly give me some choices, I have a hard time reading the little writing on the rims...

#1> 1795 Jestyn Gwrgan
Glamorganshire DH 3 edge - GLAMORGAN HALFPENNY with 2 leaves after


#2> 1794 John of Gaunt
Lancashire Lancaster DH 39b plain edge


#3> 1790 John Wilkinson
counterfeit


#4> N.D. John of Gaunt
Middlesex National Series DH 957


#5> 1793 Druid Head 29 acorns (cosmicdebris ID'ed this as a D&H #1D thanks!) but a pic anyways


thanks again for the help!

Jeff

kryptonitecomics

Sorry wrong guess

Aethelred

I am a novice, you'll want someone like Farthing or Conder101 to confirm this for you, but here goes:

1-Galmorganshire-1 (listed as RR)

2-Lancashire-39

farthing

Coin 1 - Glamorganshire DH 3 with 4 edge options
#3 - GLAMORGAN HALFPENNY with 2 leaves after
#3a - Same as above but with 3 leaves after
#3b - Same as above but with 4 leaves after
#3c - Plain (no edge lettering)

3c is R, the others fairly common

farthing

Coin #3 has me stumped! Maybe Conder101 can figure it out - cause I can't

farthing

Coin #2 - Lancashire Lancaster DH 39 with 3 edge choices
#39 - PAYABLE IN LANCASTER LONDON OR BRISTOL
#39a - MASONIC HALFPENNY TOKEN MDCCXCIV . X . X .
#39b - Plain, rounded (small flan)

39a - RR, the others common

farthing

Coin #4 - Middlesex National Series DH 957

prooflike

thanks so far, still have #3 to ID...

Aethelred

The bust on #3 doesn't quite match anything I see in D&H!

Conder101

#3 is a modern counterfeit from the 1950's.

It's quite common. I have two of them and I've seen a couple dozen more. It shows up with some frequency on ebay and there is no convincing the sellers that it is a modern copy.

If you compare it side by side to a real Conder you quickly know something is wrong. It is thinner than most Conders except for some of the contempoary fakes, the material doesn't seem right, probably a broze alloy rather than pure copper, but the real key is the rims. The reverse has a plain square sharp edged rim that is totally unlike that used on any of the Wilkinson Conders, and that is combined with the odd rounded over rim seen on the obverse side. The edge is plain with a sharp square edge where it meets the reverse side and rounded where it meets the obverse side. The coin shows no sign of having had an upset edge by being run through a castaining machine. Finally the design is bad. The broad flat head of John Wilkinson is unlike any of the contemprary pieces (Even the known fakes from back then do a better job and have more releif.) and on the reverse none of the vulcan and anvil tokens have the ships masts so badly squished between the anvil and the rim.

Frankly I'm not sure how this fake was produced because I can't figure out how you can get a good enough strike to give you that square edge without filling out the edge on the other side. The only possibility that I can come up with is that the pieces were struck and punched out of the strip with the same blow of the press.

A type I blank before upsetting has that same rounded on one side sharp on the other type appearance. If you used adie instead of a punch and spaced it so that at the bottom end of it's stroke it caught the newly punched blank between the dies and below the strip you might get something that looked like these fakes do.

prooflike

thanks for everybodys help!

farthing

Interesting! I have not seen one of the John Wilkinson contemporary counterfeits before. The placement of the design elements were all wrong from the descriptions in Dalton & Hamer. I made sure to save your photo for further reference.

Conder101

<< <i>Interesting! I have not seen one of the John Wilkinson contemporary counterfeits before. >>


Whoa, this is a MODERN fake, not a contemporary counterfeit.

farthing

I agree, a bad choice of words.

I was refering to a contemporary to my lifetime fake as opposed to a contemporary to the 1790's conterfeit.

Askari

Bill McKivor asked me to pass along his concurrence with Conder101 that the "#3> 1790 John Wilkinson
counterfeit" really is a modern counterfeit. As he notes,

<< <i>The bane of my life, there seems to be one in every collection, some purchased for big money “because it is not listed in D&H”---- which it is not. You can buy one at the Ironbridge Gorge museum for a couple pounds. I usually put a value of $3 on them. I have a small box full of the suckers.
Just got in a collection last week with two of them in it. Some folks find it hard to believe me when I tell them they are modern copies, but when I offer to return theirs, and sell them another one for $3, they begin to see the light----- >>