1765 King George Copper

[PA Sleuth]

Hit a spot for two hours yesterday that I have hunted many times before, but it has done me well. After digging about $3.00 in late 60s early 70s clad, I headed to the car. On the way out I got a deep mid tone. Hoping it was a button, I dug down about 8 inches and this popped out, a complete surprise. It must have been on it's side or there was something else in the hole I never found that was throwing off the numbers. Either way, I'll take it for my first significant find of the new year, or the last of a great season, however you look at it. The date is clear... 1765, the obverse seems to have some doubling, especially near the II.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[gwdigger]

Gotta be 35 unless its an old CFT. Great find!

 

[PA Sleuth]

Gotta be 35 unless its an old CFT. Great find!

Maybe that would explain why rang up weird

 

[gwdigger]

Maybe that would explain why rang up weird

Could be. A 1765 GII young head would be a very desirable collectible. But its hard for me to see clearly.

 

[PA Sleuth]

So are you suggesting that this might be a Machin Mill copper?

 

[Iron Patch]

Could be. A 1765 GII young head would be a very desirable collectible. But its hard for me to see clearly.

Quite sure no such coin exists, and everything points in the direction that isn't the first one.

 

[Iron Patch]

Maybe that would explain why rang up weird

Ringing in weird would suggest it's a cast counterfeit. A cast counterfeit being one that is a match for a genuine coin (which yours appears to be - at least nothing stands out to suggest otherwise) but has a different lower quality metal content.

 

[Z.K.]

Production of King George II farthings and halfpennies stopped in 1754, well before his death in 1760, so that's why the 65 date wouldn't work for legit or counterfeit. Machin produced imitation KGIIIs, with right facing busts on the obverse.

I'm seeing some denticles on the obverse at 11 oclock and reverse from 8-10, which along with its seemingly smaller size suggests it might be a farthing, which would change the tone at least a bit. Don't know how frequently farthings ended up as cast counterfeits.

Good find no matter how you slice it!

 

[Iron Patch]

Production of King George II farthings and halfpennies stopped in 1754, well before his death in 1760, so that's why the 65 date wouldn't work for legit or counterfeit.

Then how would you explain this George II 1762?

 

[gwdigger]

Quite sure no such coin exists, and everything points in the direction that isn't the first one.

I def have little to no knowledge of the known dates but knew I had seen some real oddballs. Like the 1762 you posted above.

 

[Iron Patch]

I def have little to no knowledge of the known dates but knew I had seen some real oddballs. Like the 1762 you posted above.

The general rule is if it's an impossible date chances are it's not going to be a very good match for a genuine coin. Of course this gets much more obvious the more time and interest someone has in these. That 1762 is a pretty rare coin so unless you seen this very one, probably from the website I got it, I would think it's unlikely you seen one anywhere else. All British non regal year counterfeits are pretty rare in general and of course much rarer to dig. I found a 1773 Hibernia over a decade ago, but only about five years ago before I realized it was special in the sense that it it's an impossible date. Common enough that all the main collectors have one, but it's definitely one of my favorite coppers.

 

[gwdigger]

The general rule is if it's an impossible date chances are it's not going to be a very good match for a genuine coin. Of course this gets much more obvious the more time and interest someone has in these. That 1762 is a pretty rare coin so unless you seen this very one, probably from the website I got it, I would think it's unlikely you seen one anywhere else. All British non regal year counterfeits are pretty rare in general and of course much rarer to dig. I found a 1773 Hibernia over a decade ago, but only about five years ago before I realized it was special in the sense that it it's an impossible date. Common enough that all the main collectors have one, but it's definitely one of my favorite coppers.

Maybe it was in a book or the web that i saw that same coin then. It is very familiar. The oddballs I have personally found are a 1783 hibernia and a 1784 gIII which looked more like mr magoo than KGIII.

 

[Professor of Engineering]

Cool old copper! Congratualtions.

 

[Iron Patch]

Maybe it was in a book or the web that i saw that same coin then. It is very familiar. The oddballs I have personally found are a 1783 hibernia and a 1784 gIII which looked more like mr magoo than KGIII.

1783 Hibernia is pretty common for year, but I have always liked that 84 a lot!

 

[baspinall]

Nice find. And good detail for PA soil.

 

[Z.K.]

The general rule is if it's an impossible date chances are it's not going to be a very good match for a genuine coin. Of course this gets much more obvious the more time and interest someone has in these. That 1762 is a pretty rare coin so unless you seen this very one, probably from the website I got it, I would think it's unlikely you seen one anywhere else. All British non regal year counterfeits are pretty rare in general and of course much rarer to dig. I found a 1773 Hibernia over a decade ago, but only about five years ago before I realized it was special in the sense that it it's an impossible date. Common enough that all the main collectors have one, but it's definitely one of my favorite coppers.

hmmm, explanation, explanation...I should have made quitting glue sniffing a new year resolution?

I'm learning! I didn't know about impossible date counterfeits. Would that allow people to claim it isn't counterfeit?

 

[Iron Patch]

hmmm, explanation, explanation...I should have made quitting glue sniffing a new year resolution?

I'm learning! I didn't know about impossible date counterfeits. Would that allow people to claim it isn't counterfeit?

No, at least not the ones made up to 1775 because they would be a lot more common, where as all impossible date counterfeits are on the rare side, some incredibly rare... and quite valuable too. So the date was probably nothing more than an error, and there's many other crazy errors that make collecting them very interesting. That said, about 1782 until the late 1700s more counterfeits began to be struck, and these ones were created to evade the laws, hence the name they were given, "evasion" Halfpennies/Farthings. If you're not familiar do a few google searches and you'll see how far they went to make the coins different than the genuine issues.

 

[Z.K.]

Mind expanded...new rabbit hole to dive into and learn. Thanks for taking the time, ip

 

[PA Sleuth]

Soo.... I am thoroughly confused, and clearly out of my league in this discussion. What is the consensus then on the coin? I have examined the coin again and again, it clearly reads 1765. Is that actually doubling on the obverse or does it read III?

 

[Rick (Nova Scotia)]

Soo.... I am thoroughly confused, and clearly out of my league in this discussion. What is the consensus then on the coin? I have examined the coin again and again, it clearly reads 1765. Is that actually doubling on the obverse or does it read III?

At least what it looks like to me..

I'd describe that as, the first "I" was re-punched".

I'll be honest I'm not sure what I'm seeing for date, don't like sideways pics. but you are looking at in hand so...

As far as lower readings I have found, and proved that the more build up on a coin the lower it's reading. My reasoning for it is it's like an electrical insulation. I took a non dug coin , and a "green" coin of the exact same type, the green coin had a substantially lower VDI. If you got any clean non-dug LG cents, and some green ones (or otherwise "coated" try it.