Traded for 13 Colonials , care to attribute.? Or just take a look.

Smittys · June 19, 2007 11:17PM

Grade them too if you like, I'm no good on early copper.
Traded a bunch of Slabbed Morgans.

eyoung429 · June 19, 2007 11:23PM

OH FREAKIN' DRROOOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!!

TwoSides2aCoin · June 19, 2007 11:25PM

You guys that find this stuff must live east of the mississippi.
All I can find out this way are cow chips

jmski52 · June 19, 2007 11:30PM

Smittys, you really shouldn't have taken advantage of him like that! Nice Stuff!

Connecticoin · June 19, 2007 11:41PM

Those Conn. coppers should return home. Send them to me immediately!!

seemyauction · June 20, 2007 12:22AM

Nice looking collection of early copper.........

AL

Julian · June 20, 2007 12:23AM

How much were the Morgan's worth?

STONE · June 20, 2007 1:05AM

You picked up some neat coins there Smitty.

I especially like the "Talbot Allum & Lee" coin the best.

numisma · June 20, 2007 1:26AM

I don't have time to attribute all of these today, but the 1787 NJ is easily recognizable by the reverse die break as Maris 6-D (common). The 1788 looks like 67-v, which is also common. Remind me next week via pm and I will attribute the others.

shadargroup · June 20, 2007 7:04AM

shadargroup · June 20, 2007 7:05AM

Wow.. wow!!! I wish someone would grade them so I could learn how to grade these NICE pieces!

numisma · July 13, 2007 11:56PM

I promised Smitty that I would provide attributions for the lot of Colonial coins below once I returned from vacation.

Below is a list of attributions from top to bottom. Regarding grade, I will throw out some opinions, but nearly every piece is a problem coin so the grades, whether stated or not, are net grades. A lot of times, Colonials are graded by price since they can be difficult to grade and the aesthetic qualities account for much of the value.

1787 New Jersey, M.39-a, R.2 -- F-VF, Net Good due to obv damage

1787 New Jersey, M.39-a, R.2 -- VG or so

1787 New Jersey, M.6-D, R.1 (I think) --Net VG (corroded)

1786 New Jersey, M.14-J, R.1 -- Net AG

1788 New Jersey, M.67-v, R.1 -- AG-G

1794 Talbot, Allum & Lee. This is actually a Conder token (struck in England), but it is included in the Red Book. Not really a Colonial. It is a neat LDS (late die state). You should check the edge, as there are edge varieties. I would say it is VG.

1783 Washington & Independence, Large Military Bust -- Good

(ND) 1787 Connecticut, Miller 35-b, R.3 -- Fine'ish

(ND) 17897 Vermont, Ryder 13, R.1. This is the Britannia variety (muled with a Machin's reverse intended for counterfeits). -- Net AG (corr.), reverse is always weak

1787 Connecticut, M.33.36-T.2, R.2 -- Good

1781 North American Token -- bad shape, Net F-2

1781 North American Token -- Good

1773 Virginia Half Pence -- AG

Writersblock · July 14, 2007 2:18AM

<< <i>1794 Talbot, Allum & Lee. This is actually a Conder token (struck in England), but it is included in the Red Book. Not really a Colonial. >>

Actually this is one case where the Redbook actually got it right. Yes they were struck in England but they are NOT Conder tokens. It was designed by and struck by a maker of Conder tokens, and it shares a die with the Conder token series (The Liberty & Commerce die), but it was specificly struck for an American company with the intent that it should circulate here not in England. The few pieces with the Cambridge Bedford and Huntingdon edge, or the ornamented edge are the result of planchets intended for a different issue being struck in error. (Most manufacturers of Conders did so for many customers most of which had different edge inscriptions. Keeping all of the different planchets separated could be a problem. Also sometimes a coiner would buy of the dies equipment and PLANCHETS of a competitor who was getting out of the business and just use those planchets as an economy move.)

numisma · July 14, 2007 5:25AM

<< <i>

<< <i>1794 Talbot, Allum & Lee. This is actually a Conder token (struck in England), but it is included in the Red Book. Not really a Colonial. >>

Actually this is one case where the Redbook actually got it right. Yes they were struck in England but they are NOT Conder tokens. It was designed by and struck by a maker of Conder tokens, and it shares a die with the Conder token series (The Liberty & Commerce die), but it was specificly struck for an American company with the intent that it should circulate here not in England. The few pieces with the Cambridge Bedford and Huntingdon edge, or the ornamented edge are the result of planchets intended for a different issue being struck in error. (Most manufacturers of Conders did so for many customers most of which had different edge inscriptions. Keeping all of the different planchets separated could be a problem. Also sometimes a coiner would buy of the dies equipment and PLANCHETS of a competitor who was getting out of the business and just use those planchets as an economy move.) >>

I stand corrected! You are right. I checked my D&H and it is not listed. I always assumed that they were because I have owned Conder tokens with, as you stated, the same design and there are varieties with edge lettering stating that they are payable in English cities. Plus they are of the same era as Conders. The Kentucky token and the Franklin Press are, however, technically Conder tokens. Thanks for the clarification.