Found a copper today: Need help IDing. Im thinking Draped Bust LC, but very worn?

[testing123]

Found a copper today: Need help IDing. I'm thinking Draped Bust LC, but very worn?

I got this today, but can't quite determine what it is. There is just the
slighest of details left on what looks like the obverse. My initial thoughts
were it could be a Draped Bust Large cent, but I'm not 100% sure if the details
are in the right spot. Reverse is blank. Total weight is 6.5 grams.
I compared its size to a DBLC, and it's the ever so slightest
bit smaller, but could just be due to the wear. Any thoughts would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks!

 

[WildDigger]

Nice no matter what it turns out to be.

 

[testing123]

Calling ironpatch!

 

[oldsalty19]

 

[baspinall]

Looks like a draped bust to me.

 

[cudamark]

Ditto

 

[Iron Patch]

Calling ironpatch!

Can't even make a guess on that one, and almost looks like the bust has a bone through the head. The stupid part is you never know for sure because I once had a George II Farthing that had a sword through his neck... and it was in great condition, and crystal clear. I've also seen a halfpenny with Britannia holding a certain something in her hand, but I'll let you guess what. That coin sold for over a grand.

I think draped bust is as good a guess as any.

 

[Don in SJ]

Your coin is a tough one, but somehow it leans more to being a Type 3 William III copper than a Draped Bust LC


The wear pattern matches how most William coppers wear, the area where ribbons are on a Type 3 William are much closer to be that I think that the Draped Bust bun area. I put together a quick William/Your Unk/Draped Bust together for a better look.
The William I used in the photo is a very crude counterfeit(1700), so take being exact with a big grain of salt.
Don

 

[testing123]

Thanks Don and IP!

Don, the lower weight seems to confirm your suspicion of it being a pre U.S. mint coin. Based on your image, it doesn't really look like a DB LC, but does somewhat resemble the William coin. The area it was found "only" dates to the 1760s, so it would have had to been in circulation for a while if it one of those coins. A quick check online shows the date range would be about 1695-1701?

It's a shame it's so worn...this could be my oldest coin to date.

 

[testing123]

I've taken another shot with the coin rotated to show the outline of the head more. Also used my wonderful Paint skills to make an outline of what it looks like. Maybe this helps?

 

[70monte68]

Your coin is a tough one, but somehow it leans more to being a Type 3 William III copper than a Draped Bust LC


The wear pattern matches how most William coppers wear, the area where ribbons are on a Type 3 William are much closer to be that I think that the Draped Bust bun area. I put together a quick William/Your Unk/Draped Bust together for a better look.
The William I used in the photo is a very crude counterfeit(1700), so take being exact with a big grain of salt.
Don

I am by no means an expert, but, I agree with Don's thought. Reguardless of what it is, love the old coppers.

 

[JanThorCro]

Very Cool.

 

[Don in SJ]

Thanks Don and IP!

Don, the lower weight seems to confirm your suspicion of it being a pre U.S. mint coin. Based on your image, it doesn't really look like a DB LC, but does somewhat resemble the William coin. The area it was found "only" dates to the 1760s, so it would have had to been in circulation for a while if it one of those coins. A quick check online shows the date range would be about 1695-1701?

It's a shame it's so worn...this could be my oldest coin to date.

Well, I think you have found your oldest coin Where's is IP for a comeback on this?

I have found over 20 of the William III coppers and most have been found in mid to very late and even into early 1800 sites. They stayed in circulation longer than any of the other British Coppers in my opinion. Thus most are worn down, and usually smooth on the back, or nearly so and almost always on the Obverse (Bust side) the strongest details left will be the left side of the bust and especially the ribbons. Your coin fits that perfectly. The reason I said a Type 3 William, is because I believe the ribbons on the Type 3 do not point down as much as they do on earlier years, thus a Type 3 which dates 1699-1701. Hard to say for certain which type from your photo but I am fairly certain it is a William Halfpenny

Don

 

[Iron Patch]

Well, I think you have found your oldest coin Where's is IP for a comeback on this?

I have found over 20 of the William III coppers and most have been found in mid to very late and even into early 1800 sites. They stayed in circulation longer than any of the other British Coppers in my opinion. Thus most are worn down, and usually smooth on the back, or nearly so and almost always on the Obverse (Bust side) the strongest details left will be the left side of the bust and especially the ribbons. Your coin fits that perfectly. The reason I said a Type 3 William, is because I believe the ribbons on the Type 3 do not point down as much as they do on earlier years, thus a Type 3 which dates 1699-1701. Hard to say for certain which type from your photo but I am fairly certain it is a William Halfpenny

Don

yep, have little doubt that's a William III. Had I not got carried away with my stories, and actually paid more attention (and rotated the coin) I would have said the same thing.

 

[testing123]

Well, I think you have found your oldest coin Where's is IP for a comeback on this?

I have found over 20 of the William III coppers and most have been found in mid to very late and even into early 1800 sites. They stayed in circulation longer than any of the other British Coppers in my opinion. Thus most are worn down, and usually smooth on the back, or nearly so and almost always on the Obverse (Bust side) the strongest details left will be the left side of the bust and especially the ribbons. Your coin fits that perfectly. The reason I said a Type 3 William, is because I believe the ribbons on the Type 3 do not point down as much as they do on earlier years, thus a Type 3 which dates 1699-1701. Hard to say for certain which type from your photo but I am fairly certain it is a William Halfpenny

Don

yep, have little doubt that's a William III. Had I not got carried away with my stories, and actually paid more attention (and rotated the coin) I would have said the same thing.

Alright!! This is pretty exciting! Don, you must have quite the collection. Thank you for taking the time to look at my worn-out piece.
IP, you certainly painted some good visuals with coin designs/alterations you've seen and it was certainly worthy of a post.

Could I be a pain one more time? Trying to find any design elements on the reverse, it almost looks like something can be outlined. I've attached an image showing my superior MS Paint skills again. Now, do you guys know if this should have a coin or a medal orientation? I flipped it over as a coin orientation to get this... If what if looks like is what it is... it looks like the hand may be raised?? Or is it just so worn it could be anything? That would make it a "type 1" or a "type 2" though, which wasn't quite what you two were thinking. Any input you could provide would be greatly appreciated!

I know it's not a big deal, but since we got a coin this old, it would be absolutely awesome to determine if it's an actually 1600s coin - something that's on my top 10 wish list

 

[Iron Patch]

Alright!! This is pretty exciting! Don, you must have quite the collection. Thank you for taking the time to look at my worn-out piece.
IP, you certainly painted some good visuals with coin designs/alterations you've seen and it was certainly worthy of a post.

Could I be a pain one more time? Trying to find any design elements on the reverse, it almost looks like something can be outlined. I've attached an image showing my superior MS Paint skills again. Now, do you guys know if this should have a coin or a medal orientation? I flipped it over as a coin orientation to get this... If what if looks like is what it is... it looks like the hand may be raised?? Or is it just so worn it could be anything? That would make it a "type 1" or a "type 2" though, which wasn't quite what you two were thinking. Any input you could provide would be greatly appreciated!

I know it's not a big deal, but since we got a coin this old, it would be absolutely awesome to determine if it's an actually 1600s coin - something that's on my top 10 wish list

I don't even to need to see your outline, it's clear it's a 1st or 2nd issue William III and a 1600s coin.

PS: The issue two would be far less common to dig so you most likely have a 1st issue. I don't recall ever seeing anyone on this side finding a William III with the date in the legend.