1882 Hybrid Cal?

GMan · May 10, 2011 8:38AM

I recently picked this token up and I can't seem to find much info on it. I looked on the calgoldonline site and this wasn't pictured in the hybrid cals guide though it appears to be one. It appears to have a 4/2 in the fraction as well. Any help would be great.

PerryHall · May 10, 2011 9:06AM

Great looking token and it looks real. I like the "ghosting" of the Indian on the reverse which is typical of these due to the extremely thin planchets.

GMan · May 10, 2011 9:22AM

Thanks! I bought this in a lot with what appears to be a BG-102 and an HC-1038 but I can't find this one anywhere. It is a great looking piece and the 4/2 is really distinct in hand. My quick camera shot doesn't show it very well at all. The HC-1038 is just as nice as this piece but the BG-102 has a cracked planchet (I think not sure what it is). I"ll post an image of the HC-1038 in a few minutes.

GMan · May 10, 2011 9:39AM

Here is the HC-1038. It's much nicer in hand. I wasn't happy with these pics at all but I don't have it here with me to try again.

DorkGirl · May 10, 2011 11:54PM

Your pics make those look like they were just struck. Very cool.

GMan · May 11, 2011 12:20AM

Thanks for the kind words! I was very pleased with the 1882 photos but the 1876 doesn't look right at all. The 1876 is proof like also with nice mirrors but my shot just doesn't show it well at all. I also wish I could get a decent pic of the 4/2 on the 1882 as it is really distinct in hand. It is amazing the condition of these for their size and age.

LanLord · May 11, 2011 12:51AM

I like those, they have kind of a funky look (artistically) but still kinda cool. I certainly don't need anything else to get interested in, but to have a couple in the old type set would certainly add some ooohs and aaaahs.

Thanks for posting those pics.

oreville · May 11, 2011 2:04PM

I think I have one of those 1882 1 over 4/2 also!

I had it on the back burner to follow up. I will pull it out to verify if it is the same one.

Finding at least two or more of these will help legitimize them as a separate BG!

But don't get excited just yet!

PerryHall · May 11, 2011 5:26PM

<< <i>I think I have one of those 1882 1 over 4/2 also!

I had it on the back burner to follow up. I will pull it out to verify if it is the same one.

Finding at least two or more of these will help legitimize them as a separate BG!

But don't get excited just yet! >>

Is this a coin or a token? I don't see a denomination so it would probably be considered a token and wouldn't be eligible for a BG (for those that don't know, Breen-Gillio wrote the book on small denomination California gold coins and assigned each design type a BG number).

oreville · May 11, 2011 8:47PM

Perry stated:

<< <i> Is this a coin or a token? I don't see a denomination so it would probably be considered a token and wouldn't be eligible for a BG (for those that don't know, Breen-Gillio wrote the book on small denomination California gold coins and assigned each design type a BG number). >>

Perry: Your comment is quite on target and thanks for bringing it up.. My previous posting sounded much more optimistic than I intended it to be. First of all, as you correctly pointed out for the Cal Fractional Gold (jewelers striking) pocket piece to obtain a BG number it would have to be dated 1882 or prior (period 1 or period 2) and secondly indicate DOLLAR underneath the 1/4 1/2 or 1.

The period 1 and period 2 pieces are not coins either even though they are referenced with BG attribution. All of them are a separate class of their own, considered as "California Fractional gold pocket pieces," technically considered much more as a token than as a coin.

This piece is most assuredly a period 3 pocket piece, meaning that it was most likely struck AFTER 1882, when the Feds shut down the Cal Fractional denominational Gold striking by jewelers, thus ending the period 2 era where jewelers could no longer reference the gold pocket pieces with "DOLLAR."

What I was referencing was the small possibility that this 1882 dated piece might have been struck in 1882 with the over-date 4/2 and "CAL GOLD" as the denominator to avoid confiscation by the Feds. If that is so, there is a small possibility that such piece might sneak in as a period 2, but unlikely.

Probability? 1 in 200. That is why I said not to get excited just yet.

That was why it was in the back burner in my list of things to do for so long.

GMan · May 12, 2011 3:36AM

Well that would be exciting but I'm not holding my breath. Let me know if they match when you get a chance to look at yours. I'd be happy to see another one.

GMan · May 16, 2011 1:45PM

Sorry to dig this thread up from the grave, but I got curious and started looking at BG fractionals. I found the BG-788 Indian obverse which seems to match. I also had the camera out and was able to get a better pic of the 4/2.

BG-788:

Repost of original image:

Reverse 4/2 better pic. It's through the flip but shows the 4/2 pretty well:

Interesting thing. Am I correct that our host does not slab these?

1882 Hybrid Cal?

Comments

Leave a Comment