(URLs with a ? in them often don't work for posting an image. I used "View page source" in Chrome to find the image URL above.)
and from the google cache May 21:
<< <i>24368 1809-17 FAIR-CH.AU American Counterstamps BRUNK#1030 A NEAT 4 PIECE LOT OF BUST HALVES ALL WITH THE COUNTERSTAMP "RF" IN A INCUSE RECTANGLE.THE DATES & GRADES ARE 2}1817 AU50 & CH.AU,ONE PEDIGREED TO THE GARRETT COLLECTION,1810 F/VF,& 1809 FAIR."RF"MOST LIKELY STANDS FOR REPUBLIC FRANCAISE,A COUNTERSTAMP FOR THE ISLAND OF GUADELOUPE.CARIBBEAN COUNTERSTAMPS ON U.S.HOSTS ARE VERY RARE.SOLD AS A LOT ONLY,TO SOMEONE WHO LIKES POTENTIAL. $ 2850.00 >>
<< <i>First off, the dealer was incorrect when he said one of them was pedigreed to the Garrett Collection as none of these are the Garrett coins, I have all 5 Garrett catalogs and there are no counterstamped bust halves in it, I wish there was one but there are none unfortunately. >>
Just because a coin wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs doesn't mean it wasn't owned at one time by Garrett. So ... the dealer may actually be right and you may be inadvertently severing the Garrett provenance.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Cool - thanks for sharing your research. I knew the RF in large circle counterstamp didn't look very similar to this one, so I wasn't sure the auction description was right.
<< <i>First off, the dealer was incorrect when he said one of them was pedigreed to the Garrett Collection as none of these are the Garrett coins, I have all 5 Garrett catalogs and there are no counterstamped bust halves in it, I wish there was one but there are none unfortunately. >>
Just because a coin wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs doesn't mean it wasn't owned at one time by Garrett. So ... the dealer may actually be right and you may be inadvertently severing the Garrett provenance. >>
Thanks, I don't know how I am severing the provenance, I am not doing anything to the coin other than reporting that the dealer has no paperwork proving its provenance, he remembered having a lot receipt but that is about it. Unfortunately in this day and age the grading companies what a photo from the catalog to prove provenance. And if you have a lot receipt in this day and age it typically isn't enough for them to attribute it because they don't trust the submitters like they did in the past. So I agree with you that it could have been a Garrett but he can't even tell me which sale it is from let alone show the lot receipt. Am I missing something in pedigree attribution that I should be aware of? >>
Back around 2006 when I hit the wall trying to confirm Garrett provenance it was mentioned that not all of the collection was sold at auction as some pieces had been sold via private treaty across the counter at Stack's. That being said without a storage envelope or a bill of sale the provenance trail dies as you can only speculate.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>Thanks, I don't know how I am severing the provenance, ... >>
Simple ... you claim there is no connection because the dealer was "wrong" and it wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs. Therefore, for you, there is no provenance.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Thanks, I don't know how I am severing the provenance, ... >>
Simple ... you claim there is no connection because the dealer was "wrong" and it wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs. Therefore, for you, there is no provenance. >>
All I am saying is that the dealer has no proof and it is just his word so even though he may be correct I can't do anything with his word alone. I don't understand what else I can say. Would you rather me say that the ch au 1817 is an Ex: Garrett ( because the dealer says it is) rather than telling the full story that it is just his word that makes it a Garrett? If I were to sell it (and I am not) but do I give hope to the new buyer telling him it is an Ex: Garrett because to me that is deceiving him. Now could it possibly be an Ex:Garrett , why certainly but we all know people tell stories and we also know actual material proof is needed to 100% confirm pedigree, right. >>
Gosh ... what could one do? Well ... how about some research to answer the question? It's numismatically lazy to just stop with such a significant lead to a well-known collector. For someone who salivates over a provenance as much as you do, I would have thought you would have been all over it. Of course ... do whatever you want ... it's your coin.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Thanks for the detailed sources linking the RF counterstamp to Rufus Farnam. Pretty solid, as it implies some of his silver creations had this exact countermark.
I found a 2010 discussion on another forum on this RF countermark. One of the contributors has extensive citations from Brunk. There were at least 3 interesting points in my view: 1. coins dated up to the 1840s have this countermark 2. coins were usually not circulated after receiving the countermark 3. someone may have used a RF counterstamp to sell specimens to collectors of french colonial coins Regarding the 1840s, **if** all these countermarks were made by one person, that would eliminate Rufus Farnam, since he apparently died in 1833 (see later posts, though - he actually died in 1863). However, it's possible he marked some, and then his stamp was used later by a second person. Below are quotes from the 2010 posts by cwtokenman: ----------------- I looked this counterstamp up in my book of counterstamps by Brunk (2003), and this counterstamp is listed. The very interesting thing about this one is that Brunk lists it as a fantasy counterstamp. He has traced many specimens, and has found this stamp on coins as late as the 1840s. No American or British silversmith is known to have used such a mark during the 1840s. There are hundreds of coins, and even cast counterfeits with this R F hallmark. Known coins include US large cents, quarters, halves, English halfpennies and shillings, Spanish American silver, and other sorts of coins which would NOT have circulated side by side.
Brunk states that while the countermarked coins are old, the stamps are not genuine. He mentions the first known listing in E. Zay's Histoire monetaire des Colonies Francais (Paris, 1892: 200), where the R F counterstamp was interpreted as "Republique Francaise". Zay attributed the c'stamp to the island of Guadeloupe, whose government did countermark coins with initials in the 1790s and early 1800s. Brunk indicates that large numbers of R F fantasies were produced both in Europe and America since the 1880s, or even earlier. These items were produced for sale to collectors of French colonial and West Indies countermarked coins.
Of the many pieces that Brunk had examined, none of them appear to have circulated after stamping. All of them had XF to Uncirculated countermarks. Most genuine countermarks are quite worn, but these worn out coins with little to no wear showing on the countermarks on virtually all known examples is a sure indication that they were not made as the hallmark of a silversmith who would have placed them into circulation for advertising. ----------------- The vast majority of genuine counterstamps were made by merchants (usually with custom made one piece stamps, & were used for advertising) as well as a considerable number by individuals. I can't say for absolute certain, but I believe I have seen merchant counterstamped pieces also in slabs. ----------------- A few tidbits from Brunk's book: He estimates that perhaps as high as 5 percent of the coins circulating in some parts of the U.S. were countermarked with advertising 150 years ago. The British Isles had an even higher percentage in circulation. There were so many in England that a passing reference to the coins stamped by Pear's Soap was used conversationally when one wanted to describe something of uncountable size.
Some merchants stamped large numbers of coins. Richard Devins (Devins & Bolton Montreal) told the American Numismatic Society that he had stamped more than 180,000 coins. To use that as a benchmark for comparing proportions, Pear's Soap stamped over 250,000, and Lloyd's Newspaper may have stamped even more.
Thanks for your fast and clear observations on this. I can see how the two rather different RF counterstamps could be easily confused in a text discussion. I will look for more examples, and see if I can find some from the 1840s. The theory is that the 1840s examples will be the RF in circle (french colonies).
[Edit to add:] I didn't see any RF counterstamps of this style on 1840s dated coins, but the 1838 is close to that. Given the above observed date distribution, with the most common dates 1817 and 1818, and two later (1819, 1838), perhaps almost all the counterpunching happened in 1818. (This is also consistent with Rufus Farnam's lifespan, as he apparently died in 1863 - see my post below).
9 Mar 1766 born: Canterbury, CT 1798 first marriage, to Lois Cady Reese 1800 son Thomas born 1805 first wife Lois died 1810 Census: Rufus Farnam, Boston, MA 1811 second marriage, to Elizabeth Kelly 1814 second wife Elizabeth died 21 Jun 1815 (3rd) marriage to Priscilla Longley or Langley, Norwich, CT 1820 Census: Rufus Farnum, Boston, MA 1830 Census: Rufus Farnum, Boston, MA 1850 Census: Rufus Farnam, Hanover, MA 1855 Census: Rufus Farnham, Hanover, MA 1860 Census: Rufus Farnham, Hanover, MA; Priscilla still alive 24 Sep 1863 death: Acushnet, MA (age 97) His son Thomas died in 1845 and his grandson Albert died in 1863 and is buried in the Richmond National Cemetary. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~silversmiths/makers/silversmiths/52276.htm http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65279796
There is a rich history kept on coins, and I'm happy to say WE the People preserve that history and those coin's authenticity, by any means necessary, even if just to say " they are genuine" by doing whatever we want to them.
And that patina (tarnish)/ darkness in the recesses, that come with "age" is difficult to counterfeit. So historically ? My thoughts of counter struck/stamped coins is generally "meh", but that's not to say "history" isn't rich and some counter stamped coins are not more collectible than any other, especially when their history has a history.
I could point to many examples … but you specified "THESE". You know me "Genuine" is my thought. And I think mostly because my eyes were trained to always search for the needle in the haystack, and not concern myself with how others "damaged" goods intended for commerce. Ultimately then, my research in numismatics wasn't broad enough and as much as a guy loves learning, there is a place where the plate is full enough. So on a "flip side " of this tale, I think they're cool because they're collectible to someone.
But for me personally…. they are out of my sights /view /area of expertise in the field of numismatics, generally speaking.
I am late to this discussion and have only just now joined the forum. I am the creator of the Freepage web site on American Silversmiths and Related Craftsmen cited above. The OP was good enough to leave a note in my guest book about this topic. It is an interesting question that has been posed to me before. I responded personally and reiterate my thoughts here:
As to the RF countermark and its possible attribution to Rufus Farnum. I need to point out that documentation of the RF mark exists, as far as can now be determined, only in the drawing from Green's and Ensko's books, the former having simply copied the latter (Fredyma can be ignored entirely). Belden's note was based on her correspondence with Ensko, not on any actual example observed; Winterthur, whose collection Belden's book is based on, no longer supports the suggested alternate mark. To my knowledge, there are no examples of silver work bearing an RF in a cut-corner cartouche known that can be documented to Farnum. His work is not particularly uncommon and even on a small piece (salt spoon, mote spoon, needle case, chatelaine hook, etc) where you would expect to see a diminutive form used, he always used one of his various initial/surname punches, sometimes to the distress of the form. That said, I certainly have not seen every piece or searched every public or private collection personally, but I have seen and researched enough work in two decades to have serious doubts of a Farnum attribution.
It was I who posted on the guestbook on your site. Thanks for sharing your extensive research on this subject!
Thanks for sharing your views on the possible attribution of this RF counterstamp to Rufus Farnam. I agree, it would be best to have observed an example of it on silverware. And since you have not seen one, even on smaller pieces, that is certainly informative (though not conclusive, as you noted).
There is still the drawing in the Ensko book. I assume it is not accompanied by a description of the item on which it was found. I found this on the web: However, it is a login/subscription site, so I don't see further details/sources. http://www.kovels.com/marks/american-silver-other-metals/silversmiths-f.html?eid=23847 Does this match the drawing in the Ensko book? If so, it has periods, and the RF counterstamp on the coins does not.
1. What are your thoughts on Realone's observation in the post immediately above yours, describing the incised stars on the same pieces as a R.FARNAM countermark? This matches the pattern on one of the 1817 half dollars in this thread. detail of 1817 half dollar, from image with 4 half dollars
2. Realone observed that the R and F punches in one of the R.FARNAM countermarks are close in shape the R and F punches in the plain RF mark. Might this lend some secondary support? (25c 1807 - worn) (50c 1817) [edited after finding an example on the web which matches the R F punches better] http://www.rubylane.com/item/694606-f1451/Sheaf-Wheat-Teaspoon-Federal-Coin
• Kovel makes a better door stop than a reference. • There is no reference in Ensko to the origin of the drawn RF mark shown and all subsequent citations of it are referring to this attribution alone. For all I (or anyone) knows, he may have been looking at a counter marked coin, as shown here. Keep in mind that Ensko did not enjoy the vast boom in information available to us today. He was dealing with a pool of makers that numbered in the hundreds; today the numbers known are in the thousands, with hundreds more that have still not been identified. Presented with an RF mark, he had, in his day, but one likely choice, Farnam. I doubt he would be so quick to make the attribution today. • Stars were quite commonly used on coin silver wares, sometimes as a secondary journeyman's mark, sometimes for decorative purposes. Here is the only published example, from Flynt & Fales (a poor picture, I'm afraid) and a better image of the same name mark it uses I would be interested to see a better image of the coin in question, as the stars on what has been posted appear quite different. Their placement also strikes me as haphazard. • Adding to the pot, there is another maker who might bear investigation, Richard Flower of Philadelphia. He is known to have left the trade in the mid-1780s to take over an inherited grist mill, but left it in 1789 to return to Philadelphia. It has been posited (as yet unconfirmed) that he returned to his trade, as there as marked pieces that appear to date after 1790. His surname mark is the only one I have seen, but its letterforms are actually a better match to the RF than Farnam's. I am making no case here, just pointing out that there is still a vast amount of unknown surrounding 18th and 19th century silversmiths and their work.
The only point I was attempting to make is that we have no way of establishing the veracity of Ensko's attribution. Except for this single citation and its reiterations, no example of the mark has ever been published in American silver references. You are a coin collector and have more than half a dozen (I have no idea the exact number) examples on coins. I, on the other hand, research and collect (in a small way) silver smiths and their wares. In the last decade I would guess I have seen more than a hundred examples of goods produced by Rufus Farnam spanning his entire career; all were marked with his various surname marks. I just find it hard to believe that he would go to the expense of making or having made a punch to use exclusively for such a rarfied purpose and then not use it on regular goods where it would be better suited than his normal mark at length. But who knows? He certainly may have, but I do not believe it can be attributed except on faith alone.
Thanks for the R.FARNAM example with one star on each side. I can see how adding stars could be helpful to distinguish work by a journeyman (vs. the master). (Not sure how the stars might help for advertising on a coin; could be for practice, but why not melt that later.)
These are the current best matches for the R and F punches. triple punched/rotated spoon on Berry site (missing top parts of letters) 25c 1807 - worn 50c 1817
The R on the R FLOWER countermark does not have the curly tail, and the F does not have the triangular middle serif. However, it is a pretty good match to the R.FARNAM countermark in your post (except for the top serif in the F):
<< <i> In the last decade I would guess I have seen more than a hundred examples of goods produced by Rufus Farnam spanning his entire career; all were marked with his various surname marks. >>
This is relevant to the observed population size, but I think the full size for the rate denominator is really the count of all the pieces you have seen in the past 1-2 decades. And the absence of a piece with the same style RF countermark puts a zero in the rate numerator. Since pieces with R.FARNAM (and R&H FARNAM) are the only ones currently linked to Rufus Farnam, the count of those is just one part of the full population.
I wonder if pieces with this RF style countermark may have existed at some point, but were subject to a higher rate of melting, since they were not attributed to a known silversmith?
Even if a piece of silverware with this RF style countermark was discovered, it might still be difficult to link it to Rufus Farnam at this point. I presume the type and style of the piece would be a primary factor. And location / date (if known) would be another factor.
Pardon me if this is common knowledge to the community, but I meant to add previously that a book that may be of interest to countermark collectors is John McGrew's Manufacturers' Marks on American Coin Silver, published and sold by Argyros Publications of Hanover PA. It is heavily illustrated and adequately arranged given the complexity and variability of such marks. It does contain errors (I have been in correspondence with the author since its publication in 2004) and some tenuous conclusions and attributions, but on the whole it is a book well worth having in the library.
Realone
Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
R.I.P. Bear
(URLs with a ? in them often don't work for posting an image.
I used "View page source" in Chrome to find the image URL above.)
and from the google cache May 21:
<< <i>24368 1809-17 FAIR-CH.AU American Counterstamps BRUNK#1030 A NEAT 4 PIECE LOT OF BUST HALVES ALL WITH THE COUNTERSTAMP "RF" IN A INCUSE RECTANGLE.THE DATES & GRADES ARE 2}1817 AU50 & CH.AU,ONE PEDIGREED TO THE GARRETT COLLECTION,1810 F/VF,& 1809 FAIR."RF"MOST LIKELY STANDS FOR REPUBLIC FRANCAISE,A COUNTERSTAMP FOR THE ISLAND OF GUADELOUPE.CARIBBEAN COUNTERSTAMPS ON U.S.HOSTS ARE VERY RARE.SOLD AS A LOT ONLY,TO SOMEONE WHO LIKES POTENTIAL.
$ 2850.00 >>
If so, welcome!
Lance.
Seriously, those are really neat, It'd be great to find one on a 17/3 !
I'd love to add those to my CBH's.
BHNC #203
<< <i>First off, the dealer was incorrect when he said one of them was pedigreed to the Garrett Collection as none of these are the Garrett coins, I have all 5 Garrett catalogs and there are no counterstamped bust halves in it, I wish there was one but there are none unfortunately. >>
Just because a coin wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs doesn't mean it wasn't owned at one time by Garrett. So ... the dealer may actually be right and you may be inadvertently severing the Garrett provenance.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I knew the RF in large circle counterstamp didn't look very similar to this one,
so I wasn't sure the auction description was right.
Rufus Farnam is a non-generic name which makes it easy to search for on google.
So I found the R FARNAM counterstamps you described at:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/today-s-finds/259689-1789-half-reale-update-third-known-specimen-5.html
along with
Could you say what the source is which more definitely links this RF counterstamp to Rufus Farnam?
I also wonder why an American silversmith might counterstamp a US silver coin.
Were there many fakes circulating?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>First off, the dealer was incorrect when he said one of them was pedigreed to the Garrett Collection as none of these are the Garrett coins, I have all 5 Garrett catalogs and there are no counterstamped bust halves in it, I wish there was one but there are none unfortunately. >>
Just because a coin wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs doesn't mean it wasn't owned at one time by Garrett. So ... the dealer may actually be right and you may be inadvertently severing the Garrett provenance. >>
Thanks, I don't know how I am severing the provenance, I am not doing anything to the coin other than reporting that the dealer has no paperwork proving its provenance, he remembered having a lot receipt but that is about it. Unfortunately in this day and age the grading companies what a photo from the catalog to prove provenance. And if you have a lot receipt in this day and age it typically isn't enough for them to attribute it because they don't trust the submitters like they did in the past. So I agree with you that it could have been a Garrett but he can't even tell me which sale it is from let alone show the lot receipt. Am I missing something in pedigree attribution that I should be aware of? >>
Back around 2006 when I hit the wall trying to confirm Garrett provenance it was mentioned that not all of the collection was sold at auction as some pieces had been sold via private treaty across the counter at Stack's. That being said without a storage envelope or a bill of sale the provenance trail dies as you can only speculate.
<< <i>Thanks, I don't know how I am severing the provenance, ... >>
Simple ... you claim there is no connection because the dealer was "wrong" and it wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs. Therefore, for you, there is no provenance.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Thanks
BHNC #203
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks, I don't know how I am severing the provenance, ... >>
Simple ... you claim there is no connection because the dealer was "wrong" and it wasn't in one of the Garrett catalogs. Therefore, for you, there is no provenance. >>
All I am saying is that the dealer has no proof and it is just his word so even though he may be correct I can't do anything with his word alone. I don't understand what else I can say. Would you rather me say that the ch au 1817 is an Ex: Garrett ( because the dealer says it is) rather than telling the full story that it is just his word that makes it a Garrett? If I were to sell it (and I am not) but do I give hope to the new buyer telling him it is an Ex: Garrett because to me that is deceiving him. Now could it possibly be an Ex:Garrett , why certainly but we all know people tell stories and we also know actual material proof is needed to 100% confirm pedigree, right. >>
Gosh ... what could one do? Well ... how about some research to answer the question? It's numismatically lazy to just stop with such a significant lead to a well-known collector. For someone who salivates over a provenance as much as you do, I would have thought you would have been all over it. Of course ... do whatever you want ... it's your coin.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Pretty solid, as it implies some of his silver creations had this exact countermark.
One of the contributors has extensive citations from Brunk.
There were at least 3 interesting points in my view:
1. coins dated up to the 1840s have this countermark
2. coins were usually not circulated after receiving the countermark
3. someone may have used a RF counterstamp to sell specimens to collectors of french colonial coins
Regarding the 1840s, **if** all these countermarks were made by one person, that would eliminate Rufus Farnam, since he apparently died in 1833 (see later posts, though - he actually died in 1863).
However, it's possible he marked some, and then his stamp was used later by a second person.
Below are quotes from the 2010 posts by cwtokenman:
-----------------
I looked this counterstamp up in my book of counterstamps by Brunk (2003), and this counterstamp is listed. The very interesting thing about this one is that Brunk lists it as a fantasy counterstamp. He has traced many specimens, and has found this stamp on coins as late as the 1840s. No American or British silversmith is known to have used such a mark during the 1840s. There are hundreds of coins, and even cast counterfeits with this R F hallmark. Known coins include US large cents, quarters, halves, English halfpennies and shillings, Spanish American silver, and other sorts of coins which would NOT have circulated side by side.
Brunk states that while the countermarked coins are old, the stamps are not genuine. He mentions the first known listing in E. Zay's Histoire monetaire des Colonies Francais (Paris, 1892: 200), where the R F counterstamp was interpreted as "Republique Francaise". Zay attributed the c'stamp to the island of Guadeloupe, whose government did countermark coins with initials in the 1790s and early 1800s. Brunk indicates that large numbers of R F fantasies were produced both in Europe and America since the 1880s, or even earlier. These items were produced for sale to collectors of French colonial and West Indies countermarked coins.
Of the many pieces that Brunk had examined, none of them appear to have circulated after stamping. All of them had XF to Uncirculated countermarks. Most genuine countermarks are quite worn, but these worn out coins with little to no wear showing on the countermarks on virtually all known examples is a sure indication that they were not made as the hallmark of a silversmith who would have placed them into circulation for advertising.
-----------------
The vast majority of genuine counterstamps were made by merchants (usually with custom made one piece stamps, & were used for advertising) as well as a considerable number by individuals. I can't say for absolute certain, but I believe I have seen merchant counterstamped pieces also in slabs.
-----------------
A few tidbits from Brunk's book: He estimates that perhaps as high as 5 percent of the coins circulating in some parts of the U.S. were countermarked with advertising 150 years ago. The British Isles had an even higher percentage in circulation. There were so many in England that a passing reference to the coins stamped by Pear's Soap was used conversationally when one wanted to describe something of uncountable size.
Some merchants stamped large numbers of coins. Richard Devins (Devins & Bolton Montreal) told the American Numismatic Society that he had stamped more than 180,000 coins. To use that as a benchmark for comparing proportions, Pear's Soap stamped over 250,000, and Lloyd's Newspaper may have stamped even more.
Simple initial countermarks are also listed in his book, but at least two examples of the same stamp must be known [to be listed].
-----------------
http://www.cointalk.com/threads/counterstamped-1807-draped-bust-quarter.106265/
1800 large cent
enlarged example on 1807 quarter
What do you think?
I can see how the two rather different RF counterstamps could be easily confused in a text discussion.
I will look for more examples, and see if I can find some from the 1840s.
The theory is that the 1840s examples will be the RF in circle (french colonies).
I found the following coins with this RF counterstamp by web searching this afternoon (I can post images for most of them):
[edited 5/30 to add more large cents and reals]
1c 1793 wreath ebay 5/30/2014
1c 1796 ebay 2011
1c draped latest 1814 Roehrs collection 2010
1c 1800 Heritage
1c 1800 ioffer, image posted above
1c 1802 ebay 2014
1c 1803 worthpoint 2013
1c 1810 Roehrs 2010
1c 1810 Heritage 2013
1c 1810 numismatics.org
1c 1817 Roehrs 2010
1c 1817 Roehrs 2011
1c 1817 treasurequestxlt 2005
1c 1818 Roehrs 2011
1c 1818 Roehrs 2011
1c 1819 Heritage 2011
1c matron 1816+ ebay 5/11/2014
1c 1838 ebay 6/8/2014
half real latest 1798 Roehrs 2010
half real latest 1798 coincommunity 2009
half real latest 1808 worthpoint 2013
1real Roehrs 2010
1real 1700s treasurenet
2reals 1787 Roehrs 2010
10c 1814 Stacks 2010
25c 1806 ebay 2010
25c 1807 cointalk 2010, and Heritage 2000 (same coin)
25c 1818 ebay 5/1/2014
50c 1806 Roehrs 2010
50c 1807 O-102 Heritage 2010
50c 1809 this thread
50c 1810 this thread
50c 1812 O-103 Heritage 2010 (owned by Realone)
50c 1812 O-107 Stacks 2010
50c 1812 treasurenet 2010, might be the same as Stacks above (not same as Heritage above) - edited
50c 1815 O-101a Stacks 2010
50c 1817 with punched stars this thread
50c 1817 without stars this thread
50c 1817 owned by Realone (prior to the above 2)
50c 1818 Roehrs 2011
Here is the URL for the Roehrs 2010 collection:
http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/special-collections/results.php?specialcollection_id=136&specialcollectionpart_id=240&offset=336&limit=24
[Edit to add:]
I didn't see any RF counterstamps of this style on 1840s dated coins, but the 1838 is close to that.
Given the above observed date distribution, with the most common dates 1817 and 1818, and two later (1819, 1838),
perhaps almost all the counterpunching happened in 1818.
(This is also consistent with Rufus Farnam's lifespan, as he apparently died in 1863 - see my post below).
The punch location is a little different - in the field instead of centered on the bust as in the other examples.
(It's active on ebay):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/French-Guadeloupe-Caribbean-Island-RF-counterstamp-on-US-1838-large-cent-/161318007993?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item258f4d74b9
This would not be in his lifespan, if he only lived to 1833. But he actually lived to 1863.
On the genealogy records side, I found:
9 Mar 1766 born: Canterbury, CT
1798 first marriage, to Lois Cady Reese
1800 son Thomas born
1805 first wife Lois died
1810 Census: Rufus Farnam, Boston, MA
1811 second marriage, to Elizabeth Kelly
1814 second wife Elizabeth died
21 Jun 1815 (3rd) marriage to Priscilla Longley or Langley, Norwich, CT
1820 Census: Rufus Farnum, Boston, MA
1830 Census: Rufus Farnum, Boston, MA
1850 Census: Rufus Farnam, Hanover, MA
1855 Census: Rufus Farnham, Hanover, MA
1860 Census: Rufus Farnham, Hanover, MA; Priscilla still alive
24 Sep 1863 death: Acushnet, MA (age 97)
His son Thomas died in 1845 and his grandson Albert died in 1863 and is buried in the Richmond National Cemetary.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~silversmiths/makers/silversmiths/52276.htm
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65279796
And that patina (tarnish)/ darkness in the recesses, that come with "age" is difficult to counterfeit. So historically ? My thoughts of counter struck/stamped coins is generally "meh", but that's not to say "history" isn't rich and some counter stamped coins are not more collectible than any other, especially when their history has a history.
I could point to many examples … but you specified "THESE". You know me
But for me personally…. they are out of my sights /view /area of expertise in the field of numismatics, generally speaking.
BHNC #203
As to the RF countermark and its possible attribution to Rufus Farnum. I need to point out that documentation of the RF mark exists, as far as can now be determined, only in the drawing from Green's and Ensko's books, the former having simply copied the latter (Fredyma can be ignored entirely). Belden's note was based on her correspondence with Ensko, not on any actual example observed; Winterthur, whose collection Belden's book is based on, no longer supports the suggested alternate mark. To my knowledge, there are no examples of silver work bearing an RF in a cut-corner cartouche known that can be documented to Farnum. His work is not particularly uncommon and even on a small piece (salt spoon, mote spoon, needle case, chatelaine hook, etc) where you would expect to see a diminutive form used, he always used one of his various initial/surname punches, sometimes to the distress of the form. That said, I certainly have not seen every piece or searched every public or private collection personally, but I have seen and researched enough work in two decades to have serious doubts of a Farnum attribution.
wev
It was I who posted on the guestbook on your site. Thanks for sharing your extensive research on this subject!
Thanks for sharing your views on the possible attribution of this RF counterstamp to Rufus Farnam.
I agree, it would be best to have observed an example of it on silverware.
And since you have not seen one, even on smaller pieces, that is certainly informative (though not conclusive, as you noted).
There is still the drawing in the Ensko book. I assume it is not accompanied by a description of the item on which it was found.
I found this on the web:
However, it is a login/subscription site, so I don't see further details/sources.
http://www.kovels.com/marks/american-silver-other-metals/silversmiths-f.html?eid=23847
Does this match the drawing in the Ensko book?
If so, it has periods, and the RF counterstamp on the coins does not.
1. What are your thoughts on Realone's observation in the post immediately above yours,
describing the incised stars on the same pieces as a R.FARNAM countermark?
This matches the pattern on one of the 1817 half dollars in this thread.
detail of 1817 half dollar, from image with 4 half dollars
2. Realone observed that the R and F punches in one of the R.FARNAM countermarks
are close in shape the R and F punches in the plain RF mark. Might this lend some secondary support?
[edited after finding an example on the web which matches the R F punches better]
http://www.rubylane.com/item/694606-f1451/Sheaf-Wheat-Teaspoon-Federal-Coin
• Kovel makes a better door stop than a reference.
• There is no reference in Ensko to the origin of the drawn RF mark shown and all subsequent citations of it are referring to this attribution alone. For all I (or anyone) knows, he may have been looking at a counter marked coin, as shown here. Keep in mind that Ensko did not enjoy the vast boom in information available to us today. He was dealing with a pool of makers that numbered in the hundreds; today the numbers known are in the thousands, with hundreds more that have still not been identified. Presented with an RF mark, he had, in his day, but one likely choice, Farnam. I doubt he would be so quick to make the attribution today.
• Stars were quite commonly used on coin silver wares, sometimes as a secondary journeyman's mark, sometimes for decorative purposes. Here is the only published example, from Flynt & Fales (a poor picture, I'm afraid)
and a better image of the same name mark it uses
I would be interested to see a better image of the coin in question, as the stars on what has been posted appear quite different. Their placement also strikes me as haphazard.
• Adding to the pot, there is another maker who might bear investigation, Richard Flower of Philadelphia. He is known to have left the trade in the mid-1780s to take over an inherited grist mill, but left it in 1789 to return to Philadelphia. It has been posited (as yet unconfirmed) that he returned to his trade, as there as marked pieces that appear to date after 1790. His surname mark is the only one I have seen, but its letterforms are actually a better match to the RF than Farnam's.
I am making no case here, just pointing out that there is still a vast amount of unknown surrounding 18th and 19th century silversmiths and their work.
Thanks for the R.FARNAM example with one star on each side.
I can see how adding stars could be helpful to distinguish work by a journeyman (vs. the master).
(Not sure how the stars might help for advertising on a coin; could be for practice, but why not melt that later.)
These are the current best matches for the R and F punches.
The R on the R FLOWER countermark does not have the curly tail, and the F does not have the triangular middle serif.
However, it is a pretty good match to the R.FARNAM countermark in your post (except for the top serif in the F):
<< <i> In the last decade I would guess I have seen more than a hundred examples of goods produced by Rufus Farnam spanning his entire career; all were marked with his various surname marks. >>
This is relevant to the observed population size, but I think the full size for the rate denominator is really the count of all the pieces you have seen in the past 1-2 decades.
And the absence of a piece with the same style RF countermark puts a zero in the rate numerator.
Since pieces with R.FARNAM (and R&H FARNAM) are the only ones currently linked to Rufus Farnam, the count of those is just one part of the full population.
I wonder if pieces with this RF style countermark may have existed at some point,
but were subject to a higher rate of melting, since they were not attributed to a known silversmith?
Even if a piece of silverware with this RF style countermark was discovered,
it might still be difficult to link it to Rufus Farnam at this point.
I presume the type and style of the piece would be a primary factor.
And location / date (if known) would be another factor.
Wouldn't R.FARNAM be better for advertising?
I am just wondering about the economics of counterstamping coins for advertising.
I have not researched the subject or read the books.