Civil War Token or Reproduction
Windycity
Posts: 3,524 ✭✭✭✭✭
Is this a Civil War token or a later reproduction. While I have handled many, I have not seen this one before. Any help appreciated,
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.mullencoins.com">Mullen Coins Website - Windycity Coin website
0
Comments
I can't tell you, but I noticed it only has 12 stars instead of 13.
13 is a big one in the center.
I don't think I've ever seen a CWT-Esque piece like that - looks rudimentary and completely hand-done. Does it appear to be die-struck? It's different, that's for sure.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Appears die struck and not cast... has reeded edges.
Is it normal size?
Larger than normal CWT's. Slightly smaller than a US quarter.
Duh! If it had been a snake....it would have bit me!!
The art reminds me a cake decorating!!
Fascinating. I have no idea what this is.
One point of semantics: I think the options are authentic CWT or fantasy. If a real one does not exist then it can't be a counterfeit, IMO,
Nonsense. If it was made to defraud, it is a counterfeit even if there is no such genuine piece. As one of many examples, the 1944 no Mint mark nickel.
Interesting take on the subject you have there. Since you are so adamant on the subject please help me through the thought process....
What, then, is a fantasy piece? I have seen "fantasy" used in the exonumia world to describe a piece that never actually existed but which was presented as a period item.
In the case of the Henning nickels, they are a copy of the original, except for an inadvertent oversight in the case of the 1944-dated versions. And, they were spent as counterfeit coins. There is no disputing that one, either in form or intent.
In the case of the OP's token, we don't know when it was made or for what purpose. Was it a period CWT? Was it a copy of one? Was it a modern tribute to the Civil War? Was it a total fabrication? How do we know that it was made to defraud if we don't even know what it is, who made it, or when it was made? Does our ignorance of it's origin serve to justify labeling its creator a counterfeiter?
Your definition of "counterfeit" seems to be that if it looks like it could be a vintage coin or token but actually is not, then it is a counterfeit. Does that mean that every one of Daniel Carr's overstrike "coins" are potential counterfeits, earning that designation once they find themselves in the possession of someone who does not know their history? (That is where we are with the OP's token right now, after all).
Just wondering...
BTW - I like the token - crude and original. I wish we knew the history. The size bothers me a bit, though, as a CWT might not be expected to use more copper than the coins it was replacing/mimicking.
It's cool for sure.
Not finding much searching yet - found some references to hammered coppers (usually cents or other CWTs) to expand them to about large cent size - is this one particularly thin? Do you have it's weight by chance? And... in-hand at various angles, can you spot any sort of hint that there might be a host coin/token hiding below?
Any story at all to the origin, or possible origin?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
@JBK said: "BTW - I like the token - crude and original. I wish we knew the history. The size bothers me a bit, though, as a CWT might not be expected to use more copper than the coins it was replacing/mimicking."
If you really like this one, you can have a bunch of tokens made like it. Just send a photo of this token to one of the Chinese coin factories and they will make some as this one for you. You can probably get it done in the states but our guys tend to produce sharper, less artful, and modern looking stuff.
But if I did that, they would be counterfeits...
Please re-read what I said. I did not call the piece a counterfeit. I said that the lack of an original piece does not prevent THIS piece from being a counterfeit.
Looks like a contemporary counterfeit made to circulate along side of real CWT's.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I looks like someone experimenting with making a die using an electric spark tool. I think very modern.
I think you
are making a joke. What your copies would be are modern made tokens. You could also call them a replica of an imitation. They can be called all kinds of things! This thread will get very interesting! 
I'm going to dig out my numismatic dictionary.
Questions. What is a counterfeit, fantasy, replica, imitation? What do we call a copy of either of these items. Does it matter if the copy is made to deceive?
One thing about Civil War tokens is that the makers were very careful when it came to placing values on their pieces. “NOT One Cent” was frequently seen, and more clever phases like “Good for a Scent” when a dog’s face on the piece were used. Valuing a CWT at “One Cent” was asking for trouble with the Union Government. Sometimes you will see a piece with the “NOT” scratched out above the “One Cent.”
The only CWT that I know of which has “One Cent” on it was issued on the reverse of a McClellan variety. The guy who issued this piece was skating on thin legal ice. In this case he said "Price One Cent," but the word "Price" was on the obverse.
This is one of the reasons why I think that the piece in op is a modern fantasy.
"Your definition of "counterfeit" seems to be that if it looks like it could be a vintage coin or token but actually is not, then it is a counterfeit. Does that mean that every one of Daniel Carr's overstrike "coins" are potential counterfeits, earning that designation once they find themselves in the possession of someone who does not know their history? (That is where we are with the OP's token right now, after all)."
Yes, I consider the Daniel Carr overstrike's to be counterfeit. And always will.
Well it looks crude compared to these
I had read what you said, and I re-read it again. I am afraid that you have me totally confused now.
I suspect that we are speaking slightly different languages, with subtle interpretations that would take too much effort to reconcile. I am not interested in seeing this thread devolve into a urinating contest, so we can call it a counterfeit without calling it a counterfeit, or not call it a counterfeit while calling it a counterfeit, etc.
I am more interested in @Insider2 's terms and definitions.
And along these lines....please correct me if I am wrong (no need to declare it "nonsense"), but I believe that the Hobby Protection Act requires that copies of actual coins, tokens, medals, etc. be marked "copy", and that without that text they would be considered illegal counterfeits. But I am not aware that any other exonumia - regardless of any date that might appear on the item - must be marked "copy" to avoid being labeled a counterfeit. That would imply to me that unless an item is a copy of an actual coin/medal/token, it does not need to be marked "copy" to avoid being deemed a counterfeit.
Also, intent plays a role. Novelty banknotes ($200 dollar bills, etc.) are not illegal, but if you try to spend one as real money (and people have) then THAT is illegal. It is a counterfeit only if you try to pass it.
I think I agree here.
Here are a couple additional photos to demonstrate size of token and show the reeded edge.
Weight is 4.4 grams
When it comes to a crude look, the op piece is in some ways too bad to be good. Here are a couple of crude pieces that are genuine.
A sutler token issued by Massachusetts sutler E. Pearl
And here is another variation on how to put a value on your piece without saying "one cent." How about "Our Cent"?
Thx for the additional details.
Reeded edge? That seems to seal it for me.
I should have seen that coming, as I know it is a touchy subject. Please let's not go down that road right now, or we'll never figure out what this token is.
Why does the reeded edge "seal it" for you? There are genuine Civil War tokens that have reeded edges.
But as I posted earlier, this op piece looks modern to me.
Notice I didn't say which way it seals it for me...
But, I was not aware that any CWTs had reeded edges. I have a smattering of the more common ones, and they are all smooth edges.
I guess I should have said that the crude style of the OP's token along with the more sophisticated reeded edge seems incongruous, at least to me.
Is it for sale? Who knows it might get big bucks.
Looks totally modern to me. The style is all wrong to be from the civil war era
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."