🔎 UNIDENTIFIED Colonial Copper Conundrum

[EnvoyToTheMolePeople]

I posted my first 1700s coin last week, but now I need some help identifying it. Based on what little text remains, the face is definitely George I and definitely not George II or III. The date can't be read easily from a picture, but it's definitely 1757 or 1759. So I'm reasonably certain this coin is a King George I 1757 half penny, but George I had been dead for 30 years in 1757 and any coin minted then should have been a George II. The coin is also 6.4 grams, as opposed to 10.8 that it should be. The diameter is correct, at 27.1 mm compared to a typical 28 mm. Based on testing, the coin is 96% Copper. Does anybody know why George I is on a much later coin?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[grasshopper]

Interesting...

You're pretty certain of the date? I think I see the "R" and "G" of GEORGIVS in the right orientation for a KGI, in KGIII's they would have been more at the 9 o'clock position rather than 11 o'clock as yours shows.

Some better pics with some side lighting from a flashlight might help narrow it down.

So I think either you're reading the date wrong or this is something out of my (very limited) expertise. I hope you don't think that I'm trying to question the date you see, obviously you would know better than anyone can tell from the pictures. Sometimes I've misread dates on older coins due to the fact that the "fonts" used for numbers back then are quite a bit different than what we're used to.

 

[EnvoyToTheMolePeople]

Interesting...

You're pretty certain of the date? I think I see the "R" and "G" of GEORGIVS in the right orientation for a KGI, in KGIII's they would have been more at the 9 o'clock position rather than 11 o'clock as yours shows.

Some better pics with some side lighting from a flashlight might help narrow it down.

So I think either you're reading the date wrong or this is something out of my (very limited) expertise. I hope you don't think that I'm trying to question the date you see, obviously you would know better than anyone can tell from the pictures. Sometimes I've misread dates on older coins due to the fact that the "fonts" used for numbers back then are quite a bit different than what we're used to.

I don't think I can get a more clear picture of the date. We do have an electronic magnifying glass at work I could take a screenshot of maybe. For the date to make sense with George I, the 3rd number has to be a 1 or a 2 and it definitely isn't either. I'm certain it is a 5 or maybe an 8. There is clear curvature toward the bottom left of the 3rd number in a way that would only be on one of the two.

 

[EnvoyToTheMolePeople]

Interesting...

You're pretty certain of the date? I think I see the "R" and "G" of GEORGIVS in the right orientation for a KGI, in KGIII's they would have been more at the 9 o'clock position rather than 11 o'clock as yours shows.

Some better pics with some side lighting from a flashlight might help narrow it down.

So I think either you're reading the date wrong or this is something out of my (very limited) expertise. I hope you don't think that I'm trying to question the date you see, obviously you would know better than anyone can tell from the pictures. Sometimes I've misread dates on older coins due to the fact that the "fonts" used for numbers back then are quite a bit different than what we're used to.

Here's a marginally better picture of the date.

 

[pepperj]

I posted my first 1700s coin last week, but now I need some help identifying it. Based on what little text remains, the face is definitely George I and definitely not George II or III. The date can't be read easily from a picture, but it's definitely 1757 or 1759. So I'm reasonably certain this coin is a King George I 1757 half penny, but George I had been dead for 30 years in 1757 and any coin minted then should have been a George II. The coin is also 6.4 grams, as opposed to 10.8 that it should be. The diameter is correct, at 27.1 mm compared to a typical 28 mm. Based on testing, the coin is 96% Copper. Does anybody know why George I is on a much later coin?

Just basing on the weight and the size of your coin I have a thought it might fall into this category.
You might want to explore the contemporary counterfeits types.

Comments​

The reign of King George III (1760–1820) the first issue of halfpennies did not come until 10 years after the king's accession, in 1770. Counterfeiting was rampant, and in 1771 the issuance of counterfeit copper coin became a felony; this however had little effect and for the next twenty years or so the majority of copper so-called coins in circulation were forgeries. In March 1782 a female counterfeiter was hanged, then fixed to a stake and burned before the debtor's door at Newgate prison in London. In a letter to Lord Hawkesbury of 14 April 1789, Matthew Boulton commented "In the course of my journeys, I observe that I receive upon an average two-thirds counterfeit halfpence for change at toll-gates, etc., and I believe the evil is daily increasing, as the spurious money is carried into circulation by the lowest class of manufacturers, who pay with it the principal part of the wages of the poor people they employ".

 

[EnvoyToTheMolePeople]

Just basing on the weight and the size of your coin I have a thought it might fall into this category.
You might want to explore the contemporary counterfeits types.
View attachment 2085640

Comments​

The reign of King George III (1760–1820) the first issue of halfpennies did not come until 10 years after the king's accession, in 1770. Counterfeiting was rampant, and in 1771 the issuance of counterfeit copper coin became a felony; this however had little effect and for the next twenty years or so the majority of copper so-called coins in circulation were forgeries. In March 1782 a female counterfeiter was hanged, then fixed to a stake and burned before the debtor's door at Newgate prison in London. In a letter to Lord Hawkesbury of 14 April 1789, Matthew Boulton commented "In the course of my journeys, I observe that I receive upon an average two-thirds counterfeit halfpence for change at toll-gates, etc., and I believe the evil is daily increasing, as the spurious money is carried into circulation by the lowest class of manufacturers, who pay with it the principal part of the wages of the poor people they employ".

Yeah, that does make sense. Maybe the maker just didn't know how to count and thought George I came before George III

 

[EnvoyToTheMolePeople]

Just basing on the weight and the size of your coin I have a thought it might fall into this category.
You might want to explore the contemporary counterfeits types.
View attachment 2085640

Comments​

The reign of King George III (1760–1820) the first issue of halfpennies did not come until 10 years after the king's accession, in 1770. Counterfeiting was rampant, and in 1771 the issuance of counterfeit copper coin became a felony; this however had little effect and for the next twenty years or so the majority of copper so-called coins in circulation were forgeries. In March 1782 a female counterfeiter was hanged, then fixed to a stake and burned before the debtor's door at Newgate prison in London. In a letter to Lord Hawkesbury of 14 April 1789, Matthew Boulton commented "In the course of my journeys, I observe that I receive upon an average two-thirds counterfeit halfpence for change at toll-gates, etc., and I believe the evil is daily increasing, as the spurious money is carried into circulation by the lowest class of manufacturers, who pay with it the principal part of the wages of the poor people they employ".

Maybe an evasion copper?

Evasion halfpennies c. 1672 - 1806 - Wikiversity

en.wikiversity.org

 

[Bramblefind]

It does look like George I and is probably dated 1720, 1722, 1723. Great find!!

Looking at the date image again it could even be 1719. The date numbers can wear down in deceptive ways.

 

[EnvoyToTheMolePeople]

It does look like George I and is probably dated 1720, 1722, 1723. Great find!!

Looking at the date image again it could even be 1719. The date numbers can wear down in deceptive ways.

I'm not so sure. When I look at the date, I'm positive the 3rd number isn't a 1. I think the most logical date based on what it looks like is 1727. However, I'm pretty sure the number is a 5 or maybe an 8.