Is the 1818 14 star large cent a contemporary counterfeit?
notwilight
Posts: 12,864 ✭✭✭
Browsing the latest Goldberg flier over breakfast this morning at Carl's I see that in the latest Dan Holmes Middle date cent set scheduled to sell in May there is an 1818 Variety listed with 14 stars on the obverse and a very unusual wreath on the reverse as well as other differences. At F12, his is the finest known of 3. My first thought was that this was a pattern that was accidentally put into circulation but the photo makes the coin look crude at the rims and frankly unlike most mint products. It could all be PMD but the photo is too small to tell. My thought is that it is a contemporary counterfeit.
The auction isn't online yet so there is no photo on their site and a quick search of references makes no mention of it. Wright doesn't mention it in his book and coinfacts doesn't list it.
Anybody have any insight?
--Jerry
The auction isn't online yet so there is no photo on their site and a quick search of references makes no mention of it. Wright doesn't mention it in his book and coinfacts doesn't list it.
Anybody have any insight?
--Jerry
0
Comments
Refer to Lot 76 Goldberg Sale 51...
1818 Struck Counterfeit from Handmade Dies. 14 Stars with Continuous Wreath Reverse Design. Double Struck Obverse. About Good-3. Slightly sharper on the reverse but this piece has fine hairline scratches on the obverse and several dull dents on the reverse, the largest of these down from just below the E in CENT. The date and reverse legends are complete and clear except for the second S in STATES, which was obliterated by the strong reverse dent. Glossy dark chocolate brown with corrosion-free surfaces. Struck from crudely-made dies that approximate the normal Matron Head design, but there are 14 stars on the obverse, the portrait of Ms Liberty is crude and cut in very shallow relief, the wreath is continuous, and there is no fraction at the bottom of the reverse. The legend UNITED STATES OF AMERICA begins at 1:00.
That places the U in UNITED is where one would expect to find the O in OF on a "normal" large cent. The obverse was double struck with a rotation of about 2 millimeters between the two strikes leaving an extra 8 clearly visible to the right of the "normal" date. The reverse is not double struck and is much sharper than the obverse, as usual, as the obverse is bulged outward on the few examples known. The dies are aligned head-to-foot, similar to the regular Federal cents, with only a slightly clockwise rotation. A strong die crack extends from the rim into the field between stars 11 & 12, and this crack has been observed on the three examples known to this cataloger (although it is strongest on this piece). It should also be noted that all three of the examples studied by this cataloger have a double struck obverse, but all show a different rotation or shift between impressions (so we know the die itself was not doubled). None of the known examples shows evidence of being double struck on the reverse.
Comparable to the famous 1848 Small Date struck counterfeit cents, although far fewer of these 1818 cents are known (three known). Weight 171.1 grains, which makes this example the heaviest of the known examples. Diameter is 29.0 millimeters (See page 360 of the November 2000 issue of Penny-Wise for a discussion of this interesting and extremely rare oddity.) The variety has been known for well over 100 years. The first appearance was of a low grade example offered in the Maris collection auctioned by H. P. Smith 6/21/1886:284, and a more recent offering of a nicer example was made in a Stack's sale 1/20/2004:2112. This example was discovered in a junk box circa 1988 and was the subject of an article in Coin World written by Michael Hodder (article included in the Naftzger envelope, and this coin is plated in the article).
I don't know how likely/unlikely this is to be true or not, as I have certainly not read up on all the literature about this coin, but I feel that this coin, both the obverse and reverse, are of such a unique design, that to me doesn't seem consistent with a mint-made product. The weights of known pieces vary substancially - in upwards of 25% difference in planchet weights of known Jefferson Head pieces. I just think it's a REALLY strange issue, that's all.
As for the Jefferson Head, IIRC, Sheldon thought them likely to be a "mint experiment" or something like that which seems like an unofficial pattern to me. I think he also speculated that they might be contemporary counterfeits but they are too high quality for me to buy that. It isn't like you could get on the internet and buy a coin press in 1795. The exception to this logic would be if the counterfeits were made by someone associated with the mint or providing equipment to the mint in 1793-5. --Jerry
If you don't mind notwilight, I'd like to continue this thread by stating that I feel that the Jefferson Head Large Cents are contemporary counterfeits.
I don't know how likely/unlikely this is to be true or not, as I have certainly not read up on all the literature about this coin, but I feel that this coin, both the obverse and reverse, are of such a unique design, that to me doesn't seem consistent with a mint-made product. The weights of known pieces vary substancially - in upwards of 25% difference in planchet weights of known Jefferson Head pieces. I just think it's a REALLY strange issue, that's all.
There are some documents (from the Archives) which bear on the so-called Jefferson cents:
“Sir:
I propose to engage with you, or any other gentlemen, on the following terms—that is to say—to receive sheet copper of
the right size and coin the same into Cents complete for circulation at the rate of eighty dollars per ton and to return the
same in Cents and shruf [clippings] deducting twenty-five pounds in each ton for waste. I will also forge and harden all
the dies, beds, and punches for the same.
Philadelphia, November 4, 1795.
John Harper”
In early 1796 Harper petitioned Congress for payment in connection with the early 1795 coinage. Mint Director Boudinot
was asked to prepare a report on the matter and sent the following message to Congress:
“The Director of the Mint in obedience to the order of the House of Representatives of the United States, of the 3rd instant
[February 3, 1796], has carefully examined the memorial of John Harper of the City of Philadelphia, and begs leave to make
the following report thereon.
“That in the beginning of the year 1795, a committee of the House of Representatives was appointed to inquire into and
report on the state of the Mint of the United States—when being informed that the said memorialist was able to give them
some useful information respecting the management and machinery of mints, the committee sent for him and put a number
of important questions to him. The memorialist, with great candor and freedom, communicated his knowledge to the committee,
who thought it worth forwarding to the Secretary of State and to grant him an interview with the memorialist, as the committee
did not consider the improvement of the machinery as coming within their appointment.
“Some days after, the memorialist complained to the members of the committee that he had not been well treated, as on his
going to the mint, and pointing out the improvements which he thought necessary, he was treated with neglect, and as a person
knowing but little of the business—but to convince the committee he had said nothing but what was true, he would make a press
and cutting machine at his own expense. The committee dissuaded him from it, as it was not in their power to reimburse him the
expenses he would necessarily be at. In a few weeks the said memorialist again called on the committee on his own accord, and
informed them that his press was ready, that he had made the dies also, and would prove by actual experiment what he had asserted
as theory. The committee attended, and were greatly pleased with the simplicity of the machine, and the expedition with which it
struck the coins. The committee from their own pockets reimbursed the memorialist for the copper he had used in the experiment,
and recommended him to the Secretary of State for further attention, but the memorialist did not receive any other compensation.
“The same simple mode of coining is now practiced at the Mint of the United States with great advantage. The present director
on coming into office found the dies used by the said memorialist still in his possession and conceiving this to be very improper,
took them into the mint with the design of paying the memorialist for them. The director finding that he could not legally reimburse
him for his services, offered him the second appointment in the coining department, which was refused, he being engaged
in a more lucrative employment.
“The director, therefore, on the whole of the memorialist’s case (although he does not think he suffered much by the making of the
presses, it being in the way of his business) yet considers him in equity entitled to a reasonable recompense for the candid and
useful information given to the committee, the dies taken into the mint, and the loss of time attending for that purpose.”
Denga
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Denga - That's very cool! Thanks! Now, how about the 1848 Small Dates? I know they're old, but my suspicion is that they were made for the numismatic trade, not for circulation. I say that because a high percentage of the survivors are major errors.
Again, from the Archives –
F.C. Treadwell was a friend of the Mint Treasurer in 1849, James Ross Snowden, and the following letters
speak for themselves:
“New York
November 12, 1849
[Addressed to;] Mr. [F.C.] Treadwell
Dear Sir:
Yours came duly to hand and I have taken some pains and believe I have succeeded in finding the location of
our New York Mints. I am certain that large quantities of cents are made here and put into circulation. We have
now hundreds of thousands of dollars [worth of cents] and the stock daily increasing. The cent makers are in
companies . . . who get them into circulation amongst their brethren, the pawnbrokers. Some of these pawnbrokers
use from $200 to $500 worth of cents weekly and pay them out at 96 to the dollar to people who are necessitated to
come within their grasp.
I have applied to the pawnbrokers to sell my cents and have offered 103 for the dollar. The pawnbrokers have
said they could do better by getting them from the Mint. Besides being new and clean, I suppose their hands
are too clean to handle dirty pennies. For nearly 12 months I have not been able to sell scarcely any to pawnbrokers
which proves they must be getting them on better terms than I offer them. About a month since a man hired a room
in the Congress Mills, 172 Forsythe street, from John Coull, for the purpose, as he stated, to manufacture cents for
the Mint.
Instead of commencing to manufacture, he brought in about 30 kegs of planchets which he said that the Mint had
refused to stamp on account of their being tarnished. He brightened them up by a chemical process which took him
nearly a month to do and when finished put them up into kegs again and sent them out to one of our Mints. This was
last week. I have no doubt but that they are in the act of being stamped at this time.
Mr. Coull had the curiosity to follow them to the supposed Mint and was admitted through the front premises with the
exception of one room, which was kept private. There are those other places in the same neighborhood where the
business is transacted but perhaps the same commission. There are others out of this state, but not far from New York.
I have the houses and locations of these manufacturers and can furnish them to any officer who may call on me if the
United States Mint thinks my statements sufficient to warrant proceedings against the parties.
On Friday evening last a girl called at a grocery in the Bowery for … [illegible] …and paid 18 cents in new bright cents
of 1849. She was asked where she got so many new pennies. She said “I got them out of the keg.”
“Well, where did the keg come from?”
“Oh, why we make them.”
“Who makes them?”
She tells the name of the parties and leaves her own name and address. One of the parties named has been selling
cents for a long time at from 2 1/2 to 15 per cent off the price [face value]. I have more information but consider this
enough to trouble you as the US Mint … [illegible]… I have sent a few specimens. The five bright ones are what the
girl paid at the grocery, which you may exhibit if you think proper.
77 Mott Street
I am, dear sir, yours
James Paar
The five specimens sent were stamped here and sold to me amongst the others and a great many unstamped ones
are mixed in also.
J.P”
Once the coins were examined officially at the Mint and found to be the product of private enterprise. the director of
the Mint lost little time in writing to Washington:
“Mint of the United States
November 17, 1849
Sir:
I have the honor to send the enclosed letters from James Parr of New York and F. C. Treadwell of this city in
reference to the making and passing of spurious copper coins by certain persons in the city of New York. About
12 years ago similar manufacturers were in operation also in New York and no less than 22 varieties of copper
coins were sent to me. The existence of this unlawful coinage was made known to the Treasury department and
was thence referred to the attorney general, through whose action the evil was readily corrected.
This, as I believe, was done by merely calling public attention to the penalties to which those are subjected who
offer or receive these spurious coins in payment.
It is probable that the manufacturers and distributors of these coins may not have known that the business was
illegal as the spurious cents were not direct imitations of the true ones. But the provision of the second section
of the Act of May 8, 1792, and the 20th and 21st sections of the Act of March 3, 1825, are conclusive in this case.
I am sir, your obedient servant
R. M. Patterson
[Addressed to:] W. M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury”
Denga
I ask becasue of Hard Time Tokens and Civil War Tokens
being found in heavily circulated states
and circulating coinage from other countries still being accepted by many businesses
Jefferson was not President until 1801 - admittedly his work on Declaration was big but was it as big in 1795 as today or after his term?
The 22 varieties - is there information refering to them somewhere - I agree that it supports rogue strikes but ....
Maybe I do noit know all the details.
The first time I looked at Jefferson heads I thought - "not mint", the head is just too different for me. In fact, is it really a Jefferson head????
Are ther articles in PW?
<< <i>"memorial" - how do we know what it is a memorial to?
Jefferson was not President until 1801 - admittedly his work on Declaration was big but was it as big in 1795 as today or after his term?
The 22 varieties - is there information refering to them somewhere - I agree that it supports rogue strikes but ....
Maybe I do noit know all the details.
The first time I looked at Jefferson heads I thought - "not mint", the head is just too different for me. In fact, is it really a Jefferson head????
Are ther articles in PW? >>
The variety was named Jefferson by a dealer in the mid 19th century only because he thought the profile looked like Jefferson. It has nothing to do with Jefferson in concept. --Jerry
"memorial" - how do we know what it is a memorial to?
The word "memorial" was another way of saying "petition" in the 1790s.
Denga
The 1849 correspondence is fascinating, but I would not assume that the 1848 small dates are from the same New York mint. First, it seems obvious that they're talking about "cent-like" tokens, not counterfeit cents. And second, if they were also faking coins, their product would have been, like the tokens of the era, of much higher quality than the 1848 small dates.
Finally, I move to strike the following report from the record, on the grounds that she may have thought she was responding to a question about the source of the keg itself, not the coins/tokens.
She was asked where she got so many new pennies. She said “I got them out of the keg.”
“Well, where did the keg come from?”
“Oh, why we make them.”
“Who makes them?”
She tells the name of the parties
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It makes you wonder if the reference is to the Jefferson Head Cents or not....I'm more convinced now that such is the case, but that is definitely not a definitive answer!
TD
Denga -
The 1849 correspondence is fascinating, but I would not assume that the 1848 small dates are from the same New York mint. First, it seems obvious that they're talking about "cent-like" tokens, not counterfeit cents. And second, if they were also faking coins, their product would have been, like the tokens of the era, of much higher quality than the 1848 small dates.
Actually the letters do not prove that the 1848 small date cents are from this New York Mint. However,
Patterson quotes the 1825 law for this illegal coinage and this means that the pieces are direct
counterfeits, not like the Hard Times Tokens of the 1830s.
The pieces in question were carefully examined by Chief Coiner Franklin Peale and declared to be
false. Had they been store cards of some kind his examination would have not been necessary.
Denga
It is probable that the manufacturers and distributors of these coins may not have known that the business was illegal as the spurious cents were not direct imitations of the true ones.
What am I missing? Granted, I haven't seen the 1825 law to which he refers...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Patterson's letter states: It is probable that the manufacturers and distributors of these coins may not have known that the business was illegal as the spurious cents were not direct imitations of the true ones. What am I missing? Granted, I haven't seen the 1825 law to which he refers...
Patterson’s point was that the 1830s were a different situation but that the 1849 counterfeiting
directly contravened the 1825 law. The 1838 matter was apparently taken care of by merely
warning the issuers and makers. The 1825 law, on the other hand, called for severe penalties.
Patterson was clearly asking the Treasury for criminal prosecutions in 1849.
[Act of March 3, 1825] Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That, if any person, or persons, shall
falsely make, forge, or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be falsely made, forged or counterfeited,
or willingly aid or assist in falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting any coin, in the resemblance
or similitude of any copper coin which has been, or hereafter may be, coined at the Mint of the
United States; or shall pass, utter, publish, or sell, or attempt to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or
bring into the United States, from any foreign place, with intent to pass, utter, publish, or sell,
as true, any such false, forged, or counterfeited coin, with intent to defraud any body politic,
corporate, or any other person, or persons, whatsoever; every person, so offending, shall be
deemed guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine, not exceeding
one thousand dollars, and by imprisonment, and confinement to hard labour, not exceeding
three years.
Denga
Perhaps, but that still doesn't tell us what was being made at the NY mint. Skimming through Rulau, I see no obvious candidates, but I'd sure like to hear from the token guys. What was being made in NY in 1849 (or maybe a bit earlier) that looked anything like a Large Cent?
Again, I just can't believe this was all about true contemporary counterfeits. There would be more of them in existence today if they had been a real problem in 1849. On the other hand, maybe they were so deceptive that they are still fooling expert numismatists today, in which case maybe the fakes are still all over the place.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Patterson was clearly asking the Treasury for criminal prosecutions in 1849.
Perhaps, but that still doesn't tell us what was being made at the NY mint. Skimming through Rulau, I see no obvious candidates, but I'd sure like to hear from the token guys. What was being made in NY in 1849 (or maybe a bit earlier) that looked anything like a Large Cent?
Again, I just can't believe this was all about true contemporary counterfeits. There would be more of them in existence today if they had been a real problem in 1849. On the other hand, maybe they were so deceptive that they are still fooling expert numismatists today, in which case maybe the fakes are still all over the place.
The meaning of the Patterson letter is clear that direct counterfeits were involved. He specifically
indicates that the 1849 issues were direct imitations of the genuine article, not some store cards that
vaguely looked like a cent coin as in 1837–1838. The latter might be found in Rulau but not the former.
Had the 1849 pieces been store cards Patterson would have suggested the same action as had been
taken in 1838; he had been the director in 1838 and had instigated the warnings against the issuers
and users of the store cards at that time.
Denga
<< <i>
Sir:
I have the honor to send the enclosed letters from James Parr of New York and F. C. Treadwell of this city in
reference to the making and passing of spurious copper coins by certain persons in the city of New York. About
12 years ago similar manufacturers were in operation also in New York and no less than 22 varieties of copper
coins were sent to me. The existence of this unlawful coinage was made known to the Treasury department and
was thence referred to the attorney general, through whose action the evil was readily corrected.
This, as I believe, was done by merely calling public attention to the penalties to which those are subjected who
offer or receive these spurious coins in payment.
It is probable that the manufacturers and distributors of these coins may not have known that the business was
illegal as the spurious cents were not direct imitations of the true ones. But the provision of the second section
of the Act of May 8, 1792, and the 20th and 21st sections of the Act of March 3, 1825, are conclusive in this case.
I am sir, your obedient servant
R. M. Patterson
[Addressed to:] W. M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury” >>
Fascinating thread.
About the bolded section above. You don't have any more information about these counterfeits of (roughly) 1837? I would presume from the text they were not tokens, but am not aware of the "New York" counterfeits from this timeframe.
Just wondering...MIke
I have the honor to send the enclosed letters from James Parr of New York and F. C. Treadwell of this city in
reference to the making and passing of spurious copper coins by certain persons in the city of New York. About
12 years ago similar manufacturers were in operation also in New York and no less than 22 varieties of copper
coins were sent to me. The existence of this unlawful coinage was made known to the Treasury department and
was thence referred to the attorney general, through whose action the evil was readily corrected.
Fascinating thread. About the bolded section above. You don't have any more information about these counterfeits of (roughly) 1837? I would presume from the text they were not tokens, but am not aware of the "New York" counterfeits from this timeframe.
Just wondering...MIke
**************************
In this case the director was referring to the 1837-1838 store cards, now known as Hard Times Tokens. These are relatively
common and easily obtained by collectors.
Denga
<< <i>I nominate this thread as "Thread of the year" even though we are only three days into it. >>
Should I change the thread title to make it easier to find? Something like:
"1818 contemporary counterfeit, Jefferson Head cents, and 1848 small date cents"
--Jerry
Thanks for the articles. Very interesting how the last one ties all the 3 coins in this thread together.
It is amazing the knowledge of the coin historians here. Special thanks to denga.
--jerry
by Mat Tavares...
In 1890, Francis Doughty published a collection of David Proskey articles under his own name and entitled the book THE CENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
This study described the Jefferson cent as follows: "The portrait on the piece does not resemble Jefferson, nor did he have aught to do with the issue".
Attempting to explain why the piece is so called, the book states "This so-called Jefferson Head cent was probably named for the same reason as the guinea pigs,
because they are not pigs and do not come from Guinea" - a curious bit of reasoning! Doughty refused to assign this coin a number in this study since he, or
Proskey, considered it to be a counterfeit, easily recognized by anyone open to conviction.
There is going to be a new discovery of the 1818 14 Star Counterfeit in the upcoming Stack's Bowers auction being held in Baltimore this April. I don't think one has been available for auction since the two Dan Holmes specimens were up for sale over ten years ago.
Can you provide images?
This is a really fascinating old thread that is suffering from lost pics, at least on my screen..
.
this thread certainly packs a punch! the post above yours iS quite engaging among several others.
goldberg page link with enlarge photo below
anyone here with good image/photo recall and a good familiarity of copper, if you can help me out; the bust on this coin is really stirring something in my brain that MAY be related, especially in light of some commentary from @MrEureka about a site possibly pumping out large quantities or even if it is just a little but having related hubs/dies leading some similarities of the junk they were making (which is now pretty collectable).
that outline matches or comes very close to matching a coin(s) i've seen before with a rather funky shaped head/face and that item was a very light tan brown similar to coffee with way too much creamer but i can't quite discern the image in my mind as being a counterfeit large cent or something very similar. probably nothing, could be something. sometimes you gotta chase a lot of ghosts to actually catch one. meh
this one's images could come from many sources but i cite a cointalk thread for supplying them.
edited to add: came across these looking for the coin that is similar to the 1814 above but not the same type, i'm pretty sure but nice having these together. from cointalk - conder101
.
ironically the coin i was thinking of came in my VERY next post. yay
the 1818.
i thought it was possibly not a large cent i was trying to think of. well, i guess technically it isn't. smh
Here's a random thought to throw out there, just to see where it goes.
What if the 1848 Small Dates were actually produced in quantity to circulate, then found out and mostly destroyed, and then - perhaps much later - the dies found their way into the hands of a numismatist - Mickley, perhaps? - who proceeded to strike the dramatic errors that have survived to this day?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
that certainly could have happened in more time period that just then and i'm confident MANY of us have pondered that very thing from time to time (or some iteration quite close). i admit your inquiry gave me pause to ponder more and i think if authetnic dies were used, they could match up the diagnostics, even if later die states with pitting/rust or whatnot, even with sub-par flans even and less or more pressure.
the top piece, in very nice state of preserve, even looks off in many respects and i don't know if a planchet test has been done although i'm sure it's been weighed. (although NOW, we have to start looking for overstrikes @burfle23)
my final thought: KNOBBY EAR! with honorable mention, the stars, which scream neener neener neener, i'm a period counterfeit!
The lot previews for all the Signature Auctions should be up in about a week.