REAL or not 1700s hibernia copper

chark21798 · Feb 16, 2010

REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

Hey all no detecting with snow but was getting the itch. So i was going thru some items and found this Hibernia didnt know i had. I could not find this one anywhere . George 111 with harp on back 17-- is this a counterfit or real Thanks I havent cleaned or anything yet has great detail

hogge · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

You would really have to weigh it to find out. I believe Regal range for G-II and G-III is about 132- to as much as 160+ g., With the actual average being 153. I actually have one dated 1775, that I posted on the C-4 website I found 2 years ago that weighs 133. Everyone on there thinks it's Regal. I thought it might be CFT. because of the low weight and wear. CFT's were actually made to look worn as circulated. :dontknow:

P.S.-- Yours looks like mine with the exact coloring patina. I believe Regal Irish 1/2 pennies are more rare to be found here than the CFT's. Nice Find. Here's mine for comparison. Looks more brown now than green. Can't read the date in the scan but it is 1775. Hogge

mainer · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

Nice coin, looks like its got good detail left. Hey Hogge were the cfts still made of copper like the originals? Or were they a different metal?

hogge · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

mainer said:
Nice coin, looks like its got good detail left. Hey Hogge were the cfts still made of copper like the originals? Or were they a different metal?

Older CFT's as in the William III series were made from commercial copper but lighter in weight. (Remember this, even in colonial days, the prices of metals, including copper, fluctuated). Alot were made from the melting of Regal Coppers and casting lighter weight coins, as much as 50%. Usually cast cft's in the GII and III series were made with small amounts of copper and alloyed with either zinc, tin, or lead. These metals were easier to work with and still created a weight comparable to the Regal coins. There are many different specifics counterfeiters used. Some cast coins were filed down on the edges as molten metal created "burrs" , so to speak, on the outer edges. Some also buried coins after casting as to look more circulated. Don and IP (and others) can add stuff I missed, but in a nutshell that's the basic tutorial.

mainer · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

Thanks for the info Hogge. Probably some of the fake ones didnt hold up real well, if they had zinc or tin in them. I figured they would be a little easier to tell apart for that reason? Not too mention the weight. Thanks for the insight.

Mainer

hogge · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

mainer said:
Thanks for the info Hogge. Probably some of the fake ones didnt hold up real well, if they had zinc or tin in them. I figured they would be a little easier to tell apart for that reason? Not too mention the weight. Thanks for the insight.

Mainer

Sold a CFT. G-III (1783), for $3,750 last Jan. in a Stacks auction. It's in my personal stuff at the bottom of my post. It actually held up quite nicely. All depends on soil, protection from elements etc. Found 2 nice coins protected in between rocks. A Vermont RR-6 and CFT G-III. Sold the Vermont for $760 last March on EBAY. Just luck of the draw mostly.

Iron Patch · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

Being off center like that tends to point at it being counterfeit. If under weight too then I think you're 99% there.

If you can confirm the last digit it will date it for you.

Iron Patch · Feb 16, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

mainer said:
Thanks for the info Hogge. Probably some of the fake ones didnt hold up real well, if they had zinc or tin in them. I figured they would be a little easier to tell apart for that reason? Not too mention the weight. Thanks for the insight.

Mainer

It only makes it easier if they had something like a lot of Tin content because they come out looking white/gray like pewter. The reason condition isn't a real tell-tale sign is even the genuine ones can be so bad! I think we both know that all too well. $:-\$

dfx willy · Feb 17, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

chark! look at my avatar! im pretty sure mine is real. 1723. willy

mainer · Feb 17, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

It only makes it easier if they had something like a lot of Tin content because they come out looking white/gray like pewter. The reason condition isn't a real tell-tale sign is even the genuine ones can be so bad! I think we both know that all too well.

I would have thought that a lot of zinc or tin would make them eat away more then original copper. Just what I had in mind. I got a few KG's I always wondered if any were fake, but as you just mentioned and know, they are not in very good shape at all. Thanks for the lesson guys, appreciate it.

Iron Patch · Feb 17, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

dfx willy said:
chark! look at my avatar! im pretty sure mine is real. 1723. willy

Almost all Woods Hibernia halfpennies are genuine, but you'd be much happier with a good counterfeit because it would be worth way more. (I've never seen one)

Iron Patch · Feb 17, 2010

Re: REAL or not 1700's hibernia copper

mainer said:
It only makes it easier if they had something like a lot of Tin content because they come out looking white/gray like pewter. The reason condition isn't a real tell-tale sign is even the genuine ones can be so bad! I think we both know that all too well.

I would have thought that a lot of zinc or tin would make them eat away more then original copper. Just what I had in mind. I got a few KG's I always wondered if any were fake, but as you just mentioned and know, they are not in very good shape at all. Thanks for the lesson guys, appreciate it.

As long as there's a good amount of detail you should be able to figure out. George II counterfeits aren't as common as George III so usually are better... and often easier to spot.