Question about the 1797 Fugio restrike on the Coin Rarities' website

Longacre · February 27, 2006 1:44AM

Please see the link below to the coin I am asking about. I don't know much about these early pieces, but I find them interesting. Does anyone know how to tell that this coin is a restrike? Also, how is it determined that the coin was restruck in New Haven? Are there any particular markers that you look for? I grew up in the ghettoes of New Haven, so I have a personal interest in learning more about this piece. How common were restrikes made in New Haven? Also, what does KN 104-FF variety mean?

Coin Link

Cladiator · February 27, 2006 1:48AM

They have ghettos in Connecticut?

CaptHenway · February 27, 2006 1:58AM

Easiest design differences are the narrow rings on the reverse and the weird, skull-like sunface.
TD

Baley · February 27, 2006 1:58AM

i think the rule of thumb is, narrow rings = restrike

they're better looking and higher quality "coins" but not quite as historic, imo

Cladiator · February 27, 2006 2:00AM

When was the restrike struck?

Longacre · February 27, 2006 2:01AM

Does anyone know whether a restrike has to use some element of the original die? For example, is it proper to call a coin a restrike if a totally new die was engraved?

ColonialCoinUnion · February 27, 2006 2:05AM

Hey, I posted that coin to the Coin Rarities website this weekend, so I may be reasonably well qualified to answer the question.

Fugio restrikes were believed to have been struck from copy dies sometime around the 1860s. They were originally believed to have been struck in New Haven, though that almost certainly wasn't the case. In any event, the 'New Haven' association remains and is still used in references including the Guide Book.

They are distinguishable from original strikings in some of the details including the pointed chin of the sun, the broken tip to the second 7 in 1787 and, the most obvious difference, the thinner and more refined rings on the reverse.

KN 104-FF refers to the Kessler-Newman attribution number for this die variety.

kranky · February 27, 2006 2:05AM

That's a good question. Most references I've seen say the restrikes were made from copy dies, but both sides have differences from the originals. The narrow rings are the most obvious, but the numerals in the date look different to me as well. I wouldn't call them restrikes if new dies were used.

I've read the restrikes were from the 1850's or 1860's.

PerryHall · February 27, 2006 3:25AM

Restrike = coin struck from original dies at a later date.
Replica, counterfeit = coin struck from new dies imitating the original design.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 27, 2006 4:03AM

<< <i>Restrike = coin struck from original dies at a later date.
Replica, counterfeit = coin struck from new dies imitating the original design. >>

From a terchnical and logical standpoint I won't argue.

I did want to point out, however, that the coin which is the subject of this thread is listed in the 2006 Guide Book on page 84 as a 'New Haven restrike' despite the fact that it likely was not produced in New Haven and that is was struck from copy dies. Thats simply what they are called.

Some numismatic conventions continue to remain in common usage even after their original basis has been disproven or discredited.

Additionally, the term 'restrike' has been used in the colonial realm to describe all of the highly collectible and valuable 19th century copies of the 18th century ultra-rarities. The term 'copy' is relegated to describing modern replicas having no numismatic value.

kranky · February 27, 2006 4:09AM

<< <i>despite the fact that it likely was not produced in New Haven and that is was struck from copy dies. >>

I don't understand why they would look so different if they were made from copy dies.

Conder101 · February 27, 2006 7:26AM

Because the DESIGN was copied, they were not transfer dies created from originals like the Confederate cent restrike dies were.

earlycoins1com · February 27, 2006 10:20AM

Exactly, Condor101.

There is an excellent discussion of the New Haven Fugio so-called restrikes in (of all places) Dave Bowers' book on coin hoards.

When these were struck circa 1860, the person selling them said they found some old, unused Fugio dies in New Haven. In reality, they had some replica dies made up that bore a passing resemblence to a genuine fugio copper, and struck off some pieces in copper, with a few in silver and a VERY few in gold.

Very collectible today and listed in the colonial section of the Redbook, but they really had absolutely nothing to do with a true "pre-Federal" circulating coinage.

Rgds,
Dave W.

kranky · February 27, 2006 10:52AM

<< <i>Because the DESIGN was copied, they were not transfer dies created from originals like the Confederate cent restrike dies were. >>

Ah, that was a distinction I wasn't familiar with (difference between copy dies and transfer dies). Thanks for the clarification. So indeed, these aren't "restrikes" in any accepted sense of the word, but the name has stuck.

kryptonitecomics · March 20, 2006 2:10AM

I originally saw this on their site when Goose posted that his Uncle bought the low grade Pine tree shilling from them......needless to say I have never seen a better restike/copy whatever you want to call it so I just agreed to purchase this coin.......I can't wait to get it in hand as it looks like a real beauty

Longacre · March 20, 2006 2:19AM

I looked at it at the Baltimore show. It is really nice. Congrats!

Question about the 1797 Fugio restrike on the Coin Rarities' website

Comments

Leave a Comment