A message from David Proskey about counterfeit shield nickels.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Checked your shield nickel collection lately? Any comments from forum authenticators regarding these nickels? Other correspondence, independent of Proskey, also refers to a series of counterfeit shield nickels, and the method used to make false dies and strike coins of good metal.
"67 Courtland St.
New York City
May 26, 1875
Hon. James Pollock, Superintendent
U.S. Mint
Philadelphia, Pa
Sir,
Enclosed please find one of the new counterfeit 5-cent pieces; it is one of a series that has been in circulation for several years. I, as a numismatist, have in my collector similar pieces all evidently made by the same parties, dated 1867-’68, ’69-’70, the issue dated with 1874 and a few months ago found an 1875. I notice that each year they were improved in appearance and quality of the metals. As you will observe, the enclosed piece is a very fine imitation and a very dangerous one. So well is it executed that I daresay, not one person in ten thousand would reject it of offered for genuine or even notice the difference – it is very well “struck up” and has a good color – its ring is a trifle sharper than the genuine coins. I have never met with a person yet, even an expert numismatist, that was aware of the fact that there existed any counterfeit 5-cent pieces except the lead ones.
Now Sir, s the public are in danger of being imposed upon to a greater extent than ever, in this respect, I will ask, would it not be better to alter the design upon these pieces, and in stead of the shield, if a head similar to the 3-cent nickel pieces (which are seldom counterfeited) of bust of Washington, similar to the “patterns” of 1866, be substituted, it is my opinion that less counterfeiting would be done (in that line). If the people had something to guide them in distinguishing good from bad money – as the lineaments of some great man, or those of an imaginary goddess – it would answer to the purpose better: because there are but few who possess that artistic sense of discernment (pardon the egotism) sufficient to discover a good counterfeiter.
Hoping you will not think I am interfering with your profession or making rude suggestions, I remain
Truly yours,
David Proskey"
Comments
dang, I saw one of those in another thread
FWIW, I've seen more non-lead contemporary counterfeit Shield Nickels in London than in the USA. Strange but true.
Maybe also worth noting that 1885 and 1886 nickels also turn up more frequently than expected in Europe. Not sure if any of this is relevant, but there has to be a story or two remaining to be told about these coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The Mint decided that nickel counterfeit dies were made using a large drop press and then manually retouching the die. This was fairly easy to do and all of the work could be accomplished by any competent blacksmith or furrier. Retouching was a much simpler matter given the design of shield nickels -- this is why Proskey suggested a portrait. The Washington design was actually preferred by many at the Mint and Treasury, but dropped when its associated motto "God our trust" was not adopted.
The answer from Pollock is interesting. Perhaps the most telling point is
the comment (in answer to Proskey suggesting a portrait) that “the old rule
comes in play, which one man can do another may do.” The following is from
Record Group 104, Entry 6, a press copy of the letter sent to Proskey.
Very interesting letters....The proposed change from a shield to an image to hinder the counterfeit operation seemed strange. I agree with the response... it would not have helped. Did they ever catch this particular counterfeiter? Cheers, RickO
now, if they had only taken pictures
BHNC #203
A shield nickel obverse is a wonderfully intricate design. I do not see how changing it to a relatively simpler Liberty Head, such as on the 1883 coin, would have made counterfeiting more difficult.
That said, a question to the collectors of contemporary counterfeiters: Are not counterfeit shield nickels more common than counterfeit Liberty nickels? I cannot recall off the top of my head seeing a die-struck counterfeit Liberty nickel.
Perhaps the Secret Service busted the counterfeit rings before the Liberty's came out, and it did not become common again until the Buffalo nickels came out. There sure are plenty of counterfeits of them!
Excellent letter posted by Denga! Nice to have both ends of the communication! Here's a quick transcription ---
"May 28, 1875
Mr. David Proskey
67 Courtland St.
New York
Sir,
So far from “interfering” you are doing good service to the public, and obliging me as a public officer by brining to my notice the specimen coin enclosed in your letter of the 26th inst. A few similar coins (of 1875) have been sent to me and are in proper hands.
Being, as you say, better executed that the counterfeit dated 1874, and weighing within ¼ grain of the right weight, they are not easily detected; but a careful inspection shows defective lettering, and some other points of non-agreement.
A change from the shield to a head on the obverse would not avoid trouble, or prevent counterfeiting, for the old rule comes in play: “What one man can do, another may do,” and therefore the best security is to find out where these pieces are made, and arrest the business.
In the meantime I would request you not to detail this matter in the public press, which would have the effect of notice to the offenders, and enable them to avoid arrest.
Very Respectfully
James Pollock, Superintendent"
The first shield nickel counterfeits turned up in 1867 according to Treasury documents. The earliest were thin lead pieces dated 1866 and 1867, but higher quality pieces soon appeared. It is likely most dates in the series were counterfeited with improved quality over time. Reports of fake nickels after 1883's new design drop significantly, although this might also be a matter of missing reports or letters. (The proportion of extant documents/letters vs those actually received seems to vary considerably. There are large gaps followed by very dense correspondence covering a few weeks.)
A contemporary cft shield 5c recently purchased.
Excellent information @RogerB and @denga!
As will be fairly extensively discussed in an upcoming book, this counterfeiting group began planning and building their counterfeiting scheme as early as 1873, and first struck nickels by late 1874. Their first major distribution of counterfeit Shield nickels was in March of 1875. Interestingly, until now I had no information on these counterfeiters, or related correspondence between March and July 1875, so these two letters fill some interesting holes in my research and documentation related to these counterfeiters. And these letters are especially interesting from a collector/numismatic side of things given that David Proskey may be the first to actively collect these counterfeits, at least by date.
@MrEureka - I'd love to know more about which pieces you are seeing in London. This is most intriguing!
A broadly-trained furrier perhaps Roger. Or were you just horsing around?
I think he meant farrier, and autocorrect struck.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
... and it is one that clearly saw much acceptance (and wear) during its circulating lifetime!
I was politely ignoring the typo, assuming that he was refurring to a "Furrier & Hives" print!
Of course. Or ferrier.
I will see if I can find you some of the Mint correspondence about "drop dies" for inclusion in the book.
Drop me an email so I don't forget.
TD
"Auto correct" is your fiend - except when it isn't.
Yes, farrier was intended, that's just plain horse cents....
For Mint comments about drop dies, vacuum die process and related see NARA RG104 E-1 boxes 91-94 (1873) and E-1 boxes 95-98 (1874).
As similar correct-alloy counterfeits date back to 1866/1867, Koinicker might want to revisit the specific gang of counterfeiters mentioned in his book draft. The Ingersol gang was very active but not until later. See RG87 E-29 Secret Service for many counterfeiting and forgery gangs and investigations.
Here's a happy group of Indiana counterfeiters - 1882 - just before entering a "work study program" at a local prison.
The net profit per coin must have been small. How many would they have to pass to keep 20 men gainfully employed?
For shield nickels, the profit was about 4-cents per coin according the Mint letters, or $800 per $1,000 issued.
The 1874-1875 Lewinski-Loughery gang, for which the OPs letter is associated, made anywhere from 35 to 60 cents on the dollar after all costs. These ranges depended on whether they were sold to middle-men (shovers/pushers), or were distributed directly by the gang themselves.
Will send you a PM @CaptHenway
@RogerB - I was not aware of the Ingersol gang! That's a most impressive photo array though, and I look forward to investigating these guys further.
That's not the Ingersol gang -- it's just in the same file jacket. Here's the Ingersol party:
Secret Service officers assembled case profiles and photos of perpetrators. The files cover many decades and include all sorts of interesting information. Much of this was never publicized.
Koinicker - This might be of interest.
Can't speak for what is coming out of China now, but I do not recall seeing a contemporary counterfeit two cent piece or a three cents nickel. Come to think of it, I do not recall seeing a contemporary counterfeit 1864-1872 bronze cent. Either the Treasury Dept. caught them all and removed them from circulation (and future collections), or they were being overly paranoid in calling coins counterfeits.
That most of these were found during cleaning might suggest that a defective alloy was the means of detection. (Cleaning involved tumbling in water with soap and a little sulfuric acid, then a rinse in water.)
The percentages for each denomination are:
1-cent 4.95%
2-cent 3.03%
3-cent 5.82%
5-cent 2.76%
If defective alloy was a primary detection attribute, and the CuNi coins were, as reported elsewhere, generally of good alloy, then the percentages for 3- and 5-cent counterfeits were greater than the table suggests.