do i have a 1792 Wright Quarter Trial Piece?

coachleonard · November 23, 2008 8:03AM

Ok I finally have to throw this out there. Have had this piece for about four years now--another one of those pieces with just enough visible to drive me crazy. Diameter and thickness-wise, it seems to be the size of a 1793 Flowing Hair Half Cent (those are 22 mm in diameter, just a tad larger than a U.S nickel-- and my piece is just a tad larger than a U.S nickel). What I continually see on one side, is a buzzard-looking eagle, head craned to the left, wings starting to unfold, and its standing on a mound-- in other words, the reverse design of the 1792 Wright Quarter. This piece also has a thickness to the edge, enough for an edge inscription, though there is none. It's a machine-made planchet, not hammered. Also I think MAYBE I sense a trace of a beaded border instead of denticles..

On the other side is a punched-in round indention-- at one time I thought it might be some kind of design or maybe a countermark, but now I think it may just be damage, i.e, no design on that side. Now clearly, the 1792 Wright Quarter trial pieces were much larger than 22mm. But the 1792 Wright Quarter trials were definitely trial pieces (only a handful made and some uniface) so could he have experimented with different sizes? And...Wright is also responsible FOR the 1793 Half Cent. Could there be a connection? Ok, that's my wild wild conspiracy theory-- that this piece is a uniface "Wright Quarter" design for perhaps a smaller denomination! Just curious if anyone else sees the Wright Quarter eagle, or some semblance thereof, on the obverse.

Warning: those of you whose eyes can only handle "problem-free Very Fine" at the minimum, will be driven mad by these pics.

Quarternut · November 23, 2008 8:37AM

First of all, Wright was the engraver not the coiner. Henry Voigt was the person responsible for striking the coinage including the 1792 Quarter patterns in all metals. Wright would more than likely have had nothing to do with the actual striking.

The diameter of your example probably precludes it being a 1792 Quarter pattern and due to the poor condition, it is impossible to tell anything from your pictures. I would have to see it in hand to try and determine what it might be.

There was a beaded border used on the 1793 Half Cents and at 22mm, your piece matches that diameter.

Neither the "Redbook" nor the newest edition of "United States Pattern Coins" lists a diameter for the 1792 Quarter patterns. I did list the diameter of the two known 1792 Quarter patters in copper in my new book on Quarters and both have a diameter of 1.150" or 29.21mm, much larger than your example. The two white metal examples in the NY Historical Society are also 29mm.

My initial opinion is that your example is not an 1792 Quarter pattern , but more than likely a 1793 Half Cent if any of the features can be confirmed by an in hand examination.

QN

pheh · November 23, 2008 8:56AM

Just inlining the images for you... I have no opinion to render on em :-( Sorry.

STONE · November 23, 2008 10:08AM

The first image, or the image on the left (below), looks like a face looking to the left.
I really can't make out anything on the reverse, and have no idea what it could be.

coachleonard · November 23, 2008 10:41AM

the "eagle" is on the right image, not the first one --- its shadowy but not too hard to see the head craned left, the two legs, he's on a mound. But yes, i do know wrong size for Wright Quarter. Thus my theory is ......a Wright Something Else..some other denomination.

firstmint · November 23, 2008 11:25AM

With all of the world's coinage, it is extremely doubtful, to the point of me saying "NO" that you have anything metallic that has a direct connection to Joseph Wright, when he was in Britian, France, or the United States.

JRocco · November 23, 2008 11:30AM

Looks like a Machin's Mills Copper Halfpenny. 1774 to be exact.

numisma · November 23, 2008 12:04PM

<< <i>Looks like a Machin's Mills Copper Halfpenny. 1774 to be exact. >>

The OP stated that the planchet was thick enough for edge lettering, so that information alone eliminates the possibility of any Machins Mills copper, or really even any regal halfpence, imho.

Based on what I am seeing, you have a piece of petrified pepperoni from Joseph Wright's Philadelphia pizza shop. I am just kidding, of course, but I do not think that you have anything of value. Perhaps you could provide us with images at various angles and different lighting conditions.

coachleonard · November 23, 2008 1:03PM

obviously i can't say 'this is clearly a Wright Quarter pattern reverse design'-- what I can say, is that i have examined this piece for years from every possible angle, and can see absolutely nothing that squares it, design-wise or planchet-wise, with any British, French, American Colonial, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, etc. copper that I can think of. Size and thickness wise, I would swear it's a 1793 flowing hair half cent. Only other thing it somewhat resembles, size-wise, is a British farthing, but it's still too thick, and I see nothing on either side that says 'british farthing' of any time period. I see absolutely nothing on either side that resembles a bust, a wreath, a seated Brittania. What I DO keep seeing...is that darned eagle, his head craned to the left, and his two legs, standing on a mound.

I rotate it, and and all semblance of a coherent design vanishes.

firstmint · November 24, 2008 2:34AM

There's also the 1860s Dickeson restrikes that had the eagle image you are referring to.

Otherwise, it looks like a curved "dent" that is being misinterpreted as the Wright design.

mgoodm3 · November 24, 2008 2:59AM

The left hand pic looks like (Mr.) Kazoo

ambro51 · November 24, 2008 4:11AM

To Compare

coachleonard · November 24, 2008 6:34AM

I did see Breen's pics of the Dickenson restrikes-- and those would be closer to the right size. But on those pics, the eagle's head is turned to the right, not to the left

Quarternut · November 24, 2008 7:24AM

The pieces created by Dickeson were made utilizing a discarded embossing die for stamping revenue paper and had an eagle with wings folded sitting on a rock looking to the right as you have stated, not to the left as the Wright pattern.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the 1792 Wright Quarter patterns other than Dickeson believed it was from a discarded 1792 pattern die for a cent and had a die created saying as much and used it to strike many different fantasy pieces.

Again, there are no diameters listed for any of these pieces except for one that is muled with the discarded 1805 B-2 obverse die, which is 1.066" or 27.076mm. Again, this is larger than your piece.

Honestly I can't see any indication of what design is on your example, but I hope you can figure it out!

QN

do i have a 1792 Wright Quarter Trial Piece?

Comments

Leave a Comment