Circulating Counterfeit

/
V /
Circulating Counterfeits
of the Americas
EDITED BY
John M. Klee berg
Coinage of the Americas Conference

at the American Numismatic Society, New York
November 7, 1998
Proceedings No. 14
Proceedings
of the
1. America’s Copper Coinage, 1783-1857 (1985), 186 pp., illus. Bound

in cloth. $15.00. ISBN 0-89722-207-5
2. America’s Currency, 1789-1866 (1986), 142 pp., illus. Bound in
cloth. $15.00. ISBN 0-89722-214-8
3. Americas Silver Coinage, 1794-1891 (1987), 210 pp., illus. Bound in
cloth. $15.00. ISBN 0-89722-219-9
4. The Medal in America, Alan M. Stahl, ed. (1988), 247 pp., illus.
Bound in cloth. $15.00. ISBN 0-89722-226-1
5. The Coinage of El Peru, William L. Bischoff, ed. (1989), 250 pp.,
illus. Bound in cloth. $15.00. ISBN 0-89722-234-2
6. America’s Gold Coinage, William E. Metcalf, ed. (1990), 132 pp.,
illus. Bound in cloth."$ 1 5.00. ISBN 0-89722-238-5
7. Money of Pre-Federal America, John M. Kleeberg, ed. (1992), 253

pp., illus. Bound in cloth. $25.00. ISBN 0-89722-248-2
8. Canada's Money, John M. Kleeberg, ed. (1994), 159 pp., illus. Bound
in cloth.$25.00. ISBN 0-89722-252-0
9. America’s Silver Dollars, John M. Kleeberg, ed. (1995), 127 pp., illus.
Bound in cloth. $25.00. ISBN 0-89722-257-1
10. The Token: America’s Other Money, Richard G. Doty, ed. (1995), 224
pp., illus. Bound in cloth. $25-00. ISBN 0-89722-260-1.
1 1 . Coinage ofthe American Confederation Period, Philip L. Mossman, ed.

(1996), 346 pp., illus. Bound in cloth. $25-00. ISBN 0-89722-263-
6.
\2. America’s Large Cent, John M. Kleeberg, ed. (1998), 190 pp., illus.
Bound in cloth.$25.00. ISBN 0-89722-271-7.
13. The Medal in America, Volume 2,Alan M. Stahl, ed. (1999), 294 pp.,
illus. Bound in cloth. $25.00. ISBN 0-89722-276-8.
Circulating Counterfeits
of the Americas
EDITED BY
John M. Kleeberg

November 7, 1998
5
Copyright 2000
The American Numismatic Society
New York
ISSN 8756-6265
ISBN 0-89722-279-2
Illustrations for each article have been supplied by the

authors, supplemented by photographs of ANS specimens
where appropriate. Production assistance has been provided by
Tarnisha Smart.
The American Numismatic Society

tn
Broadway at 1 5 Street
New York, NY 10032

212/234-3130
Printed in the United States of America

Contents
Preface vii
Contributors viii
JOHN M. KLEEBERG
Introduction ix
PHILIP L. MOSSMAN and CHARLES W. SMITH

Imported and Domestic Counterfeit Copper Coins
in Pre-Federal America 1
HORACE FLATT
Counterfeiting of the Bolivian Four Soles Coins
of 1830 39
KEITH DAV1GNON and BRADLEY S. KAROLEFF, NLG

Circulating Counterfeit Capped Bust
Half Dollars, 1807-1839 49
JOHN M. KLEEBERG
Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust Type:
Charles III, Charles IV, Ferdinand VII, 1771-1821
A Survey and Die Study 137
JOHN P. LORENZO
The Counterfeit Spanish Two Reales:
Canadian Blacksmiths or North American Tokens 193
RICHARD G. DOTY
Adding Insult to Injury: Altered Notes of the
Southern Bank of Georgia 225
EMMETT MCDONALD
Nineteenth-Century Counterfeit Detection Devices .... 247
VI Contents
ERIC P. NEWMAN
Appendix 1: A Counterfeiter’s Arrest Proves the
Circulation of Massachusetts Silver Shillings
as Late as 1784 267
JOHN M. KLEEBERG
Appendix 2: Flowing Hair and Draped Bust
Counterfeit Half Dollars in the ANS Collection 271
Preface
Circulating counterfeits of the Western Hemisphere was the subject

of the fourteenth Coinage of the Americas Conference, sponsored
annually by the American Numismatic Society. Since its inception, this
program has enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the Society’s govern-
ing Council as a forum for the dissemination of emerging research in
the coinage and currency of the Americas.
The purpose of these conferences is to facilitate the exchange of
information. Toward this end, experts in the subject are invited to pre-
sent papers, collectors are invited to exhibit, and notice of the confer-
ence is circulated widely to encourage attendance by all who have an
interest in the topic. The Society also mounts an exhibition from its
holdings and invites registrants traveling to the New York area to come
to know the Society’s collections and library better during the days sur-
rounding the conference.
A number of special exhibits were mounted on the theme of COAC
1998 and remained on view at the Society for several months. A dis-
play of counterfeits from the ANS collection was assembled by Curator
John Kleeberg and Curatorial Assistant Elena Stolyarik. The Society
exhibited counterfeit Mexican 8 reales attributed by die variety accord-
ing to J. L. Riddell’s “A Monograph of the Dollar - Good and Bad.”
Some of the counterfeit half dollars listed in the Riddell book were also
on view. Other ANS exhibits included counterfeits made in platinum
and unusual counterfeit halfpence, such as the 1776 piece overstruck
on a counterfeit pistareen. Anthony Terranova put on a dramatic exhib-
it of U.S. coin scales and counterfeit detecting devices. He also dis-
played his collection of evasive halfpence, plus Blacksmith coppers and
Columbia farthings. Mike Ringo put together
related pieces, such as
an impressive exhibit of Bungtown halfpence, including items bor-
rowed specifically for the occasion from the Eric P. Newman
Numismatic Education Society.
Contributors
The Society is grateful to the following contributors who helped

make the 1998 Coinage of the Americas Conference possible:
Michael L. Bates Robert M. Martin

Leslie A. Elam Emmett McDonald
Daniel J. Freidus Donald G. Partrick
F. Gordon Frost Edward J. Rudnicki
Eric M. Hildebrant Anthony J. Terranova
Introduction
Counterfeiting: A Truer Portrait of the Circulation

Until 1857, many, often most, of the coins in circulation in the
United States were not what are popularly considered U.S. coins.
Citizens of the early Republic used dollars and quarter dollars from
Mexico and Peru, French ecus and five franc pieces, Spanish pistareens,
Brazilian joes and half joes, English guineas and counterfeit halfpence
(Schilke and Solomon 1964). They saw the coins listed in A Guide Book
of United States Coins less frequently than one might expect.
To reconstruct the circulation of the early Republic, four types of
evidence give us a truer picture.
1) Hoards, and related numismatic phenomena, such as single
finds, coins found in archaeological excavations, and coins from

shipwrecks.
2) Literary evidence.
3) Counterstamps and countermarks.

4) Counterfeits, because normally counterfeiters will not forge
rare coins. (There are exceptions, such as a remarkable counterfeit
of the 1822 half eagle.) A counterfeiter must seek safety in num-
bers: he will forge a common coin, in the hope it will remain
unnoticed when he tries to pass it.
Three of these types of evidence are familiar to numismatic scholars.

The fourth type of evidence — counterfeits — is comparatively neglect-
ed.
The early Republic regularly experienced monetary turmoil. It was

not until the resumption of specie payments in 1879 that the circula-
tion stabilized. Because the United States had a bimetallic system, the
X Introduction
more valuable of the two metals would be hoarded, and not circulate.
During several periods, all coins were hoarded and replaced by paper
scrip: the 1790s, after the copper panic (Mossman 1993, 239-243,
252); during and after the war of 1812 (Newman 1985b); and during
the Hard Times that followed the Panic of 1837 (Carothers 1930).
Counterfeits give us the following picture of currency circulation in
the United States before the middle of the nineteenth century:
Half cents and farthings were little used. The most common copper
coin was the counterfeit English halfpenny. Along with the English
halfpenny circulated coppers from the Confederation period (Newman
1985a), and copper tokens, many issued in Canada. Circulating coun-
terfeits exist of all of these.
Federal half dimes and dimes circulated to some extent. The work-
horse silver coins were the Spanish American medios (worth 6 \4 cents),
the reales (worth 12V4 cents) and the 2 reales (worth 25 cents). These
were extensively counterfeited. When people of the period before about
1831 referred to a “quarter dollar,” they meant a Spanish-Aanerican 2
reales (Kleeberg 1998b, 1871).
Prior to 1830, the pistareen, a Spanish 2 reales struck to the provin-
cial silver standard, worth twenty cents, circulated to some extent. After
1830 it was rarely seen in the United States (Kleeberg 1998b).

The Federal half dollar was the great success of the early United
States Mint. We know it was a success because the counterfeiters chose
to copy it (Davignon 1996).

No contemporary counterfeits are known of early Federal dollars
(Riddell 1845, p. [11], following no. 5). This shows that the early
Federal dollar was a failure (Kleeberg 1995, 90-99). In coinage, as else-
where, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The silver dollars in use in the early United States were those from
Spain and Latin America. We know this from literary sources, such as
Riddell; we know this from hoards; we know this from counterstamps;
and we know this from the abundance of counterfeits, many well cata-
logued by Riddell (Riddell 1845).
Until 1834, Federal gold did not circulate. The counterfeiters con-
centrated on Brazilian joes and half joes, Spanish eight escudos and
Introduction xi
British guineas. Those were the gold coins commonly encountered in
circulation (Gordon 1987, 91-96).

After 1834, the gold/silver ratio was changed, and gold circulated,
while silver was hoarded. Some gold counterleits do exist. Gold is an
awkward metal to circulate. II a gold coin becomes too worn, it ceases
to be accepted at par. What circulated was not the actual gold coin, but
its substitute, the banknote. Counterfeiters had been imitating paper
money whenever it appeared. Thanks to counterfeiters we know how
some rare issues looked, such as those of the First Bank of the United
States. As more and more paper money was issued, paper counterfeit-
ing spread.
Silver, already scarce in circulation after 1834, disappeared faster
after gold was discovered in California. Gold became more common,
and silver more valuable. The only silver coin that continued to circu-
late was the trime, which had less silver than other coins (Breen 1988,
271); counterfeit trimes confirm this. In 1853 the government reduced
the weight of the quarter and the half dollar, and switched to a fiducia-
ry coinage. The 1853 arrows and rays type is one of the commonest of
all quarter and half dollars (Breen 1988, 349-350, 398-399). This gave
a new lease on life to silver counterfeiting. Many crude, thick lead
counterfeits are known of the arrows and rays quarters and half dollars.
The Panic of 1837 and the falling prices that followed made every
cent more valuable. Merchants issued their own copper tokens.
Counterfeiters too discovered that they could make money by counter-
feiting the Federal cent. Prior to the 1 830s counterfeit cents were rarely
made. English halfpence and Confederation coppers were easier to
copy and required less copper. By the 1 840s the U.S. Mint had begun
producing large cents in quantity, struck on modern steam presses.
Counterfeiters had to keep up with the coins in the circulation. They

produced the 1848 small date cent, the curious cast counterfeits in
brass dated in the 1850s, the 1818 endless wreath cent, and similar del-
icacies (Kleeberg 1998a, 62-66).
To summarize, in the United States before the Civil War one would
frequently encounter in circulation:
1) English halfpence
2) Confederation coppers
xii Introduction
3) U.S. and Canadian tokens

4) large cents increasingly after the mid- 1830s.
5) trimes (after 1851)
6) half dimes
7) medios
8) dimes
10) reales
11) pistareens (until 1830)

12) 2 reales
13) Federal quarter dollars (after 1853)
14) Federal half dollars
15) Spanish and Latin American dollars (until 1851)
16) French ecus and five franc pieces (until 1851)

17) half eagles (after 1834)
18) guineas (before 1834)
19) joes and half joes (before 1834)
20) 8 escudos (before 1834)
21) double eagles (after 1850)
22) paper currency of various denominations, $1 to $100
John M. Kleeberg
Conference Chairman
Reference List
Breen, Walter. 1988. Walter Breens Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins.
New York: Doubleday.
Carothers, Neil. 1 930. Fractional Money. A History of the Small Coins and Fractional
Paper Currency of the United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Davignon, Keith R. 1996. Contemporary Counterfeit Capped Bust Half Dollars. Rocky
River, Ohio: Money Tree Press.
Gordon, Ralph C. 1987. West Indies Countermarked Gold Coins. No place: Erik Press.
Kleeberg, John M. 1995. The Silver Dollar as an Element of International Trade: A

Study in Failure. In America’s Silver Dollars cd. by John M. Kleeberg. Coinage of the
Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York, October 30,
Introduction xiii
1993. New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Kleeberg, John M. 1998a. The Strawberry Leaf Cent. A Reappraisal. In Americas Large
Cent e d. by John M. Kleeberg. Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American
Numismatic Society, November 9, 1996. New York: he American Numismatic
1
Society.
Kleeberg, John M. 1998b. “A Coin Perfectly Familiar to Us All:” The Role of the
Pistareen. The Colonial Newsletter 109: 1857-1877.
Mossman, Money of the American Colonies and Confederation. A

Philip L. 1993.
Numismatic, Economic and Historical Correlation. New York: The American
Numismatic Society.
Newman, Eric P. 1985a. Circulation of Pre-U.S. Mint Copper in Nineteenth Century

America. In America's Copper Coinage 1783-1857. Coinage of the Americas Conference
at The American Numismatic Society, New York, November 30-December 2, 1984.
New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Newman, Eric P. 1985b. New York City Small Change Bills of 1814-1816. In America’s
Currency 1789-1866. Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American
Numismatic Society, New York, October 31-November 2, 1985. New York: The
American Numismatic Society.
Riddell, J. L. 1845. A Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad. New Orleans:
Norman.
Schilke, Oscar G. and Raphael E. Solomon. 1964. America's Foreign Coins. An

Standard Catalogue with Valuations of Foreign Coins with Legal Tender Status
Illustrated
in the United States, 1793-1857. New York: The Coin and Currency Institute, Inc.
Imported and Domestic Counterfeit
Copper Coins in Pre-Federal America
Philip L. Mossman and Charles W. Smith

November 7, 1998
© The American Numismatic Society 2000

2 Philip L. Mossman and Charles W. Smith
Introduction
It is important to consider the pre-Federal period of the United

States in any discussion of counterfeit coinages of the New World. Not
only did counterfeit gold andsilver coins circulate widely in this coun-
but within the small change medium, counterfeit coppers played a

try,
major role. Although this story has been previously told, a brief sum-
mary will serve as an introduction to this paper. The forgeries discussed
here were coins meant to deceive the public as current money and not
as numismatic specimens. It will be seen that only successful coinages
attracted the attention of counterfeiters since would not be worth
it
their while to reproduce unpopular coins for which there was little
demand in the market place.
The early colonists of British North America had no specific cur-
rency allocated for their use by the mother country since the export of
English silver and gold, even to the colonies, was prohibited due to the
sorry condition of the metropolitan monetary supply of that era. As the
colonies grew, there was increasing need to purchase manufactured
goods from abroad and so whatever specie did arrive, legally or other-
wise, was soon remitted across the Atlantic to finance the specific man-
ufactured goods necessary to carve new homes out of the wilderness.
The chief currency available to the colonists was Spanish-American sil-
ver obtained through trade with the West Indies. In fact, the bountiful
Spanish-American silver mines supplied the mints of Europe as well as
the Massachusetts Bay Colony mint which recoined Spanish money
into the various denominations of Massachusetts silver. Due to its con-
sistent quality, the Spanish milled dollar of eight reales became the
world’s currency standard for almost three centuries. Portuguese and
Spanish gold comprised the high denomination currency not only in
the Americas but in Europe as well. The value for this hard money, in
terms of local monies of account, was fixed by the various colonial gov-
ernments and, in fact, even after independence, these specie coins
remained legal 857 (for a review of foreign
tender in this country until 1
legal tender coins, see Schilke and Solomon, 1964). In contrast to gold
and silver, the quantity of English coppers exported to the colonies was
not restricted.
Foreign Counterfeit Coins in America
Colonial records from the earliest times are replete with instances
where persons were apprehended for duplicating and passing
Counterfeit Copper Coins in Pre-Federal America 3
Massachusetts silver, Dutch Lion dollars, Spanish silver, including

pistareens, French ecus, and all denominations of French, Spanish and
Portuguese gold. Counterfeiting of coins and paper currency in
Colonial America is well covered in a series of monographs by Kenneth
Scott (Scott 1953, 1955, 1957a-c, I960; additional references include
Gillingham 1939, and Bowen 1942). It is quite likely that many false
precious metal coins which circulated America were minted abroad,

in
having arrived here in company with the shipments of bogus coppers

which will be subsequently described. These counterfeit specie coins,
either cast from molds impressed from genuine specimens, or struck
from engraved dies, varied widely in quality of workmanship and
propensity for deception. Some were reported in the local press as crude
imitations whereas the excellent doubloons, passed in Philadelphia in
1748 and 1749, were so sophisticated that they actually deceived expe-
rienced goldsmiths. The counterfeiting trade was represented by all
social classes including common laborers, artisans, well-to-do mer-
chants, public officials, professionals, and especially, because of the
technical requirements, blacksmiths and silversmiths. As if there were
an inadequate supply of native-born talent in the counterfeiting trade,
some convicted English counterfeiters, transported to America as pun-
ishment, quickly reestablished themselves in their former business but
in a new market. Since many of these persons were also engaged in forg-
ing paper money, printers were frequently incriminated (Scott 1957a,
6-9). Many of these and paper currencies operat-
counterfeiters of coin
ed in organized rings, such as those reported inNew York and New
England in 1767 and 1768, and were suspected ol counterfeiting and
passing a variety of foreign coins. It was estimated that some 500 indi-
viduals were engaged in this nefarious activity from New Hampshire to
North Carolina during that period (Scott 1953, 196). In western
Massachusetts, where so many illegal Spanish milled dollars were in cir-
culation, it was feared that the Native American population, upon
whom these bogus coins were foisted, might retaliate by stealing cattle
and horses from the whites (Scott 1957a, 219, 222, 225-35). Although
the crime of counterfeiting gold and silver in England was treated as
high treason, the fate of those so convicted in the colonies varied from
a fine in on? province to capital punishment in another. In Virginia
(1714), New York (1745), Rhode Island (1766), and Pennsylvania
(1767), where foreign gold and silver were made legal tender and con-
sidered as “coin of the realm,” counterfeiting these monies was deemed
a treasonable act and conviction carried the same consequence as in
England (Scott 1957a, 54, 210-212; Scott 1960, 54). Two interesting
commentaries describe counterfeit foreign coinages in America in the
year 1787 (McMaster 1883, 1:191, 400-401; these passages are well-
referenced from several contemporaneous newspaper accounts):
One of the favorite tricks of counterfeiters was to turn

French sous into... moidoires .' The sou was a small copper
piece,worth about a cent, closely resembling the gold

moidoire that when it was gilded over it readily passed with
the careless for... thirty-six shillings. Another trick was to
wash coppers with silver and pass them off in a handful of
change as English sixpence. ...
For years past, counterfeiters and clippers had been busy

with the coin, till a good hall-penny or a full-weight pista-
reen could seldom be found in the States. Scarce a month
went by but the Gazettes and Journals all over the country
warned their readers to be on the guard against French sous
that looked like moidoires, and to take no French guineas
till they had carefully examined the hair on the King’s head.
There were bad dollars that bore the date 1782, and could
be distinguished from the good by the ugly nostril and the
long face; and false English guineas of 1764, that could be
told from the true by the downcast eye and the raised brow.
But the copper coinage was in a worse state still, for it had
become a lucrative trade to manufacture abroad great quan-
tities of base metal in imitation of pence and half-pence,
[and] bring them to America ... So many had been thrown

.
into circulation in Rhode Island that the Legislature had

found it necessary to impose a fine of six shillings for every
piece taken. Yet they continued to pass from hand to hand,
and numbers of them were to be seen in the taverns and cof-
fee-houses at New York. There they were freely taken, for
almost every copper in the city was bad.
Whereas in the seventeenth century only coins were falsified, coun-

terfeiters added paper currency to their repertoire when this medium
was introduced in the early eighteenth century. This bogus paper

money was not only printed in North America, but it is known that
large quantities were imported from many European countries where
there was no risk to duplicate American currency; much of the coun-
terfeited colonial paper was imported from sources in England,
Holland, Germany and especially Ireland (Scott 1955, 151). In several

colonies, the counterfeiting of bills of credit was adjudged a crime that
demanded capital punishment although acquittal at the hands of a
sympathetic jury was a common occurrence (Scott 1960, 4). In New

Jersey, those who confessed to their crime could expect to be pardoned
subsequent to a law passed in 1747. Recidivism was extremely common
among this class of criminals and, even if offenders suffered branding,
the pillory, public flogging, or a cropped ear, many returned to their
prior behavior, perhaps in another location or in league with a different
band of associates. Due to repeat offenses many individuals eventually
ran out of ears for the public executioner’s knife! Imprisonment was
also an ineffective deterrent, since due to the notoriously lax security of
colonial jails, escape was not difficult, especially when aided by outside
confederates. On other occasions magistrates, fearful of retribution and
public opinion, were persuaded to dismiss charges. The falsification of
foreign coins, especially Spanish dollars, continued unabated through
the Confederation period.
Counterfeit English and Irish Coppers in America
It is recalled that there was no prohibition against the exportation of

regal copper coins from England, which, in reality, were only tokens of
little intrinsic value. In the early eighteenth century a pound of copper,

costing only 13d., could be minted into 23d. worth of halfpence and
farthings — a sum which not only defrayed the price of the metal plus
production expenses, but with enough remaining to provide a profit of
10% to the monarchy. In England, counterfeiters quickly sprang into
action to falsify this token medium encouraged by both a substantial
profit margin and rhefact that counterfeiting copper was hardly a pun-
ishable offense!Whereas the counterfeiting of gold and silver was a trea-

sonable act, little attention was paid to the counterfeiting of copper
until about 1740. By that time, the practice had become so rampant it
could no longer be tolerated as a misdemeanor. In 1742, conviction
brought a two year prison term followed by two years’ parole (Peck
1970, 205). By the reign of George II, shopkeepers and tradesmen peti-
tioned Parliament for enhanced mint production since, by that time,
the number of counterfeit halfpence and farthings in circulation was
fast approaching the Tower Mint output. These forgeries became more
and more prevalent such that by 1753 it was estimated that in England
from two-fifths to one-half of the coppers were counterfeit! By the
1770s, in the reign of George III, the vast majority of the coppers in
circulation in England was counterfeit. In a letter to George 111, ca.
1805, the Earl of Liverpool wrote (Jenkinson [1805] 1880, 198-200):
It is certain that the quantity of counterfeit copper coins

greatly exceeds the quantity of legal copper coins: the
Officers of the Mint were of the opinion, in the year 1787,
that even then they exceeded the legal coins. Their number
has certainly increased ever since; the quantity of these
counterfeit copper coins is in truth beyond calculation; and
yet I am told that many principal manufacturers are oblig-
ed to make coins or tokens of this description, to enable
them to pay their workmen, and for the convenience of the
poor employed by them, so great is the demand for good
Copper Coins in almost every part of the kingdom.
Very quickly the counterfeit coppers minted in England found their

way to America along with legitimate issues as indicated in a 1698 peti-
tion from the citizens of Philadelphia who complained of the “great
Quantities of leaden and pewter farthings &
half pence” in their com-
munity and the potential damage inflicted on commerce (Scott 1955,
9). A large cache of sand cast William III counterfeit halfpence,
unearthed in Philadelphia in 1975, was thought to have been made in
about 1725 and back-dated (Newman and Caspar 1978, 453-467;
Gaspar and Newman 1978, 127-130). In the 1750s, although there
was agitation recorded in the press about the increasing numbers of
counterfeit coppers in Pennsylvania, Boston, and New York, these false
coppers, both English and Irish, continued to arrive from England and
circulate “without discrimination” in parallel with the legitimate issues.
Following the Revolution, enormous numbers of counterfeit halfpence
flowed again from England into America and by 1789, one estimate
suggested that 95% of the copper medium in New York City was coun-
terfeit English halfpence.
Copper coins, counterfeit or legal, only useful to make change and
for small transactions, were unacceptable for conversion into hard
money or to make foreign purchases. The supply far outpaced the need
for small change and merchants had accumulated volumes more than
they could spend. By 1787, commerce became so overwhelmed by this
excess of copper currency that public confidence began to falter and
coppers were devaluated officially from 4 to 20 to the New York
1
shilling. In other localities, the rate was as high as 30 to the shilling.

Still the copper medium continued

expand with imported bogus
to
halfpence until the point was reached in the summer of 1789 when the
entire medium collapsed. Coppers now passed, if at all, at 64 to the
New York shilling, and in New Haven at 72 to the Connecticut
shilling. Why did this so-called Coppers Panic happen? Commerce was
submerged under such an excess of unspendable counterfeit coppers

that the entire medium lost its value and ceased to circulate. I his fail-
ure coincided with a time when copper was trading on the international
market at an all time low such that even scrap copper —which includ-
ed unwanted coppers coins —had lost most of its commodity value.
This panic, the price extracted for the counterfeiters’ greed, is exten-
sively reviewed elsewhere (Mossman 1993, chapter 9).
Until early in the reign of George II, English counterfeiters of cop-
pers used a sand casting technique (extensively reviewed by Smith and
Mossman 1998, 1775-1803) but as all classes of technology became
more refined during the Industrial Revolution so did the counterfeit-
ing process. By 1752, most coin forgeries were struck from dies on pre-
pared planchets, frequently of a quality comparable to that of the
Tower Mint. Counterfeits of George III coppers made after 1770 were
invariably struck and it is this series that figured so prominently in the
collapse of the copper medium in post-Revolutionary New York and
Philadelphia as just recounted (Smith 1995). Specific counterfeit cop-
commonly employed as prepared planchets for overstriking
pers were
Notably among these were the Irish coppers dated
certain state issues.
1781 and 1782 used as planchets for a number of Vermont issues,
while certain New Jersey coppers, to be described later, were struck
over a wide variety of lighter weight coppers including Irish and
English counterfeits.
Counterfeit English Halfpence in America
Although it would be very difficult to identify specific individual

counterfeit coppers which circulated in America, we were able to
assemble a study collection of 1 50 unselected counterfeit English half-
pence of George which we compared with a group of 50 regal half-
II
pence. The counterfeit group comprised 64% struck and 36% cast
examples, or a 2:1 ratio. But when the study collection was analyzed by
coin type, i.e. young bust (1729 to 1736) vs. old bust (1740 to 1754)
varieties, a different ratio between cast and struck examples emerged.
The young bust specimens are divided 63.5% struck to 36.5% cast,
8 Philip L. Mossman and Charles W Smith
and the old bust are 71% struck to 29% cast. This indicates that as time
progressed, the counterfeiting technology modernized and struck cop-
pers became more common. A similar trend was noted in the 1751
Dunchurch hoard of English coppers where it was observed that 44%
of the younger George II bust issues were cast as compared to 32% of
the older bust varieties (Robinson 1972, 146-58).
The average weight of the entire cast fraction of George II counter-
feits was 130.0 ± 14.5 grains and that for the struck fraction was 134.7
± 13.6 grains, while the average for the regal group of 50 was 149.8 ±
3.0 grains, well in line with the legal requirement of 46 coppers to the
pound, avoirdupois, which translates into an average weight per coin of
152.2 grains. The Tower Mint weight standard for copper coinage
required that so many coins be struck per pound of metal, 46 in this
case. Thus 152.2 grains is the average weight for coins in the batch, not
a required weight for each coin. The Tower Mint was technically capa-
ble of controlling their planchet weights more rigidly than the coun-
terfeit operations as the above data indicate. Their adherence to more
rigid production standards at the Tower Mint resulted in a substantial-
ly narrower range planchet weight variability by a factor of 4 to 5 (i.e.
in
± 3.0 to ± 13.6 grains) when compared to the struck counterfeits.

It is incorrect to conclude, based on the knowledge that approxi-
mately one-third of the counterfeit halfpence are cast, that one-third of

the counterfeiters were using casting technologies. This overlooks the
fact that, once set up, the rate of production of coins by striking is very
much larger than the rate by casting, This improved technology is con-
firmed by a published in The Gentlemans Magazine of November
letter
1752 which spoke of the recent “progress” made in the production of

counterfeits coppers.
... the practice of making counterfeit halfpence was

revived with this improvement, that whereas they were
before cast in sand; they are now made in a stamp or press.
The great dispatch these engines make, the number
employed in this work, and the vast profits arising to the
makers, and the vendors of these goods, must needs occa-
sion a torrent of them to be thrown in upon us, without a
speedy prevention. A common stamp, with two pairs of
hands, is capable of turning out 50 gross [7,200] in a day:
that several of these engines are thus employ’d is evident
from the variety of impressions which have appeared among

Fig. 1. Examples of George II English halfpence: a) A regal halfpenny with the young
head obverse, the, bust used for issues for the eleven year period from 1729 to 1739; b)
Although this copper is dated 1754, the bust on this elegant struck counterfeit more
nearly fits young head motif; c) A counterfeit cast from a legiti-
the appearance of the
mate George young head copper; d) A regal halfpenny with the old head obverse, the
II
bust used for issues dated 1740 to 1754; e) A struck counterfeit bearing the date 1750;
f) A counterfeit cast from a regal 1750 old head halfpenny.
us, all distinguishable for one another, and from the genuine
halfpence, to which the counterfeits are very much inferior.
A conservative estimate of the striking rate as compared to the cast-

ing rate is 10 to 1, but in principle it can be much greater. One strik-
ing operation could, therefore, output twice as many coins as five cast-
ing operations combined, in the same time interval. This would give a
2: 1 struck to cast counterfeit population although the majority of the
counterfeiting operations, 5 out of 6, would be using casting technolo-
gies. If the production rate ratio, instead of being 10 to 1, is actually
closer to 20 would mean that 9 out of every 10 counterfeit
to 1, this
operations could be casting coins and yet the struck to cast population
would still be maintained at 2:1.
The Tower Mint issuance of regal halfpence, by date, is relatively flat
over the period from 1729 to 1754, with weakest production in the
three years, 1729, 1741, and 1742, when each year accounted for about
1% of the total series. Strong production occurred in 1734, 1735,
1739, 1740, 1747, and 1752, each at about 5%. The counterfeit group
does not depart in any meaningful way from the regal group in distri-
bution by date except for the years toward the end of the series which
are slightly more numerous. Back-dating by the counterfeiters after a
regal series has terminated is a common phenomenon. In the period
1754 to 1770 when no regal coppers were minted, it is assumed that
counterfeiters, in keeping with progress, continued to strike more old
head George II coppers. Coins dated beyond the regal series are much
less common, although George II English counterfeit halfpence exam-
ples, dated 1755, 1756, and 1757, are known.
III on July 24, 1770,
Pursuant to a Royal Warrant signed by George
Tower Mint production began for halfpence dated 1770 to 1775 and
for farthings dated 1771, and 1773 to 1775. For the purposes of this
paper, a study group of 50 regal examples and 300 struck counterfeit
examples of George III English halfpence was assembled. The average
weight of the regal group is 151.2 ± 4.8 grains, well within the mint
standard of 46 halfpence to the pound avoirdupois, or an average of
152.2 grains, individually. Of the 300 struck counterfeits, the average
weight is 1 1 1.4 ± 13.3 grains. Again,by comparing the standard devi-
ations of ± 4.8 to ± 13.3 grains for the regal and counterfeit examples,
respectively, we see that the Tower Mint variation in production is sub-
stantially smaller than the counterfeit operations, indicating more care-
ful quality control of planchet production at the royal facility. In con-

trast to the George II study collection, cast copper counterfeits of
Counterfeit Copper Coins in Pre-Fedeml America 1 1
George III are very rare. Out of 600 examined from this
counterfeits
period, only five cast examples were encountered, or less than 1%. We
averaged every George III cast example available to us and obtained a
value of 136.8 ± 23.2 grains, but acknowledge that this is a selected
population.
Fig. 2. Examples of George III English halfpence: a) A 1772 regal George 111 halfpen-
ny; b) A struck counterfeit dated 1772; c) A rare cast copy taken from a regal Tower
Mint halfpenny of 1772.
It should be noted that the heavy side of the counterfeit distribution

[mean plus standard deviation] begins to approach the light side [mean
minus standard deviation] of the regal production. The lesson here
being that, with the exception of very light examples, weight alone is
not a measure as to whether or not any one individual coin is a coun-

terfeit. A study of the stylistic features and characteristics plays a major
role in building a case for authenticity. This concept is well described
by Ernest Bramah (1929).
There are two ready [simple] tests of genuineness: weight

and appearance. The former is far less important, for
although true specimens are of full weight, so, unfortunate-
ly, is a certain proportion of forgeries, though there are far-
things of such flimsy fabric that they will float on water

[surface tension support]. But appearance imposed a harder
task and the various efforts to reproduce the official expres-
sion of George III and the correct pose and visage of the
lady on the reverse, have resulted in a gallery of uninten-
tional caricatures that makes a good collection of these

pieces a very entertaining series.
Tower Mint production for the years 1770 to 1775, based upon
long tons of copper used and counterfeit production for the same date
300 examples, is shown in
range, as reflected by the study collection of
Fig. 3 (Table 66, “Output of English Copper Coins 1762-1775,” in
Challis 1992, 436). Here we see that counterfeit production by date did
not follow Tower Mint production, and that 55.7% of the examples are
dated 1775! However, one must keep in mind that the date on a coun-
terfeit coin represents only the earliest hypothetical date of circulation
and not necessarily its actual earliest date of circulation or its date of
production. Back-dating of George III English halfpence continued at
least to the end of the eighteenth century, if not beyond (Smith 1995).
There are, however, examples struck with dates after 1775; these
include, in order of increasing rarity, 1781, 1776, 1777, 1785, and
1794. A quite scarce group with the obverse legend GEORGE III REX
and which are dated prior to 1770. This
a bust right device exists
patently obvious counterfeit group includes coins dated 1741, 1747,
1751, 1760, and 1761.
ENGLISH GEORGE III HALFPENCE PRODUCTION
TOWER MINT COUNTERFEIT
STUDY COLLECTION
DATE LONG TONS 3 PERCENT PERCENT
1770 9.0 4.5 1.3
1771 55.0 27.4 4.3
1772 50.5 25.1 3.3
1773 39.7 19.7 18.3
1774 24.0 11.9 17.0
1775 22.8 13.4 55.7
(a) C.E. Challis, A New History of the Royal Mint (Cambridge, 1992) p. 436.
Fig. 3. Date distribution of English George III Tower Mint and Contemporary
Counterfeit Halfpence Production.
Irish Counterfeit Halfpence in America
A study collection of 50 regal Irish George II halfpence and 1 50

counterfeit halfpence was assembled for metrological analysis. These
coppers are known to have circulated widely in British North America
and show a pattern of production similar to their English George II
counterfeit colleagues. The fraction of Irish examples that are cast is
37% with an average weight of 110.5 ± 7.0 grains, while the 63%
struck fraction show an average weight of 1 13.8 ± 9.4 grains. The aver-
age weight of the regal group was 127.1 ± 4.6 grains, well in line with
the 52 coppers to the pound avoirdupois, or an average individual
weight of 134.6 grains, slightly lighter than the English standard.
Again, one observes that the adherence to standards at the Tower Mint
resulted in a narrower range in production variability, although not as
dramatic as in the English case. Fig. 4 shows a regal and two counter-
feit George II Irish halfpence.
he Tower Mint issuance by date over the series starts strong for the
I
first four years of the series, with about 10% by weight of total pro-
duction for each year 1737, 1738, 1741, and 1742 and finishes with a
very robust output [19%] for the last date, 1760. The tonnage of cop-
per used by the mint in each of these years does not necessarily reflect
the number of coins dated for a particular year. Similar to what was
'G
M
Fig. 4. George II Irish Halfpence: a) A Tower Mine example of the single year
type
George II 1760 halfpenny; b) A struck counterfeit of a George II Irish halfpenny
bear-
ing the date 1760; c) A cast counterfeit of a regal 1742 Irish halfpenny of the
young
head variety.
0
observed for the George II English counterfeit halfpence, the date cen-
sus of this group of false Irish coppers is essentially flat over its date
range from 1736 to 1760 and does not coincide with the annual fluc-
tuations in mint output of the regal group.
As the demand for small denomination coinage continued to grow,
the Tower Mint commenced production of halfpence under George III.
Halfpence were produced in the years 1766, 1769, 1775, 1776, 1781,
and 1782, but no farthings were minted. Fig. 5 shows the long tons of
copper by year used for halfpence.
For this study, a group of 50 regal George III Irish halfpence and 300
counterfeit examples was assembled. This study group of regal examples
had an average weight of 129.0 ± 5.4 grains, in line with the expected
value of 52 to the pound avoirdupois at 134.6 grains. The counterfeit
study group of 300 examples were 6% cast and 94% struck. The aver-
age weight of the 18 cast examples was 120.2 ± 12.0 grains, while the
average weight of the 282 struck examples was 107.0 ± 13.2 grains.
Because of the subtle variations between the type I and type II bust styles
of the Tower Mint halfpence dated 1769, it was impossible in practice
to distinguish these differences within the counterfeit study collection.
Fherefore, these styles are combined under the date 1769 in fig. 5.
IRISH GEORGE III HALFPENCE PRODUCTION
TOWER MINT COUNTERFEIT

STUDY COLLECTION
DATE LONG TONS 3 PERCENT PERCENT
1766 50.0 25.0 13.7
1769 50.0 25.0 26.1
1775 25.0 12.5 10.6
1776 25. b 12.5 12.0
1781 5.0 b 2.5 22.5
1782 45.0 22.5 15.1
(a) C.E. Challis, A New History of the Royal Mint (Cambridge, 1992) p. 436.
(b) The weight of copper used in each of these years does not necessarily
reflect the number of coins dated for each particular year.
Fig. 5. George III Irish Halfpence; Tower Mint Production by Date.

Counterfeit Copper Coins in Pre- Federal America 15
Fig. 6. George III Irish Halfpence; Type I (1766 and 1769) and Type III (1774 to
1782): An example of a regal Irish halfpenny of 1769, Type I; b) A struck counter-
a)
feit 1769 Irish halfpenny in the style of Type I; c) A cast counterfeit of a 1769 regal
Irish halfpenny, Type I; d) A genuine 1782 Irish halfpenny, Type III; e) A struck coun-
terfeit 1781 Irish halfpenny in the style ofType III; 0 A cast counterfeit of a regal Type
111 1781 Irish Halfpenny.
While the percentage of cast counterfeits was virtually identical for

both George II English and George II Irish halfpence, there was a sig-
nificant difference in the numbers of George III issues from both coun-
tries. With this later monarch, the census of cast Irish halfpence dimin-
ished to 6% of the total examined as compared to less than 1% for

English. 1 his may be indicative of the spread of industrialization, start-

ing in England in the Birmingham and Sheffield areas, and spreading
outward to trading partners. Again, variability in production, as indi-
cated by the standard deviation of the mean, shows the Tower Mint
with less than hall the variability range of the counterfeit operations.
Fig. 6 shows Tower Mint and counterfeit George III Irish halfpence
production by date.
Tower Mint production for the years 1781 and 1782, based upon
examples in the regal study group, is essentially equal, indicating that
some of the copper purchased in 1782 was used to strike coins dated
1781. Taken together, these two dates account for 25% of the Tower
Mint production of George III halfpence. In contrast, these two dates
account for nearly 38% of the counterfeit production. Here again, we
see that the date distribution has been enhanced in the last years of the
seriesby the practice of back-dating.
George III Irish counterfeit halfpence examples exist with
Finally,
non-regal dates, which are in order of rarity, 1783, 1772, and 1773.
The six examples examined dated 1772 and the three examples exam-
ined dated 1773 were each from a single die combination. The 23
examples in the study collection dated 1783 were from at least four die
combinations with an average weight of 107.3 ± 13.1 grains, in line
with the struck counterfeitseries, while the 1772 and 1773 examples,
taken as a group of nine coins, were significantly lighter, weighing an

average of 92.0 ± 10.8 grains. It should be noted that certain counter-
feit Irish halfpence are closely linked to the 1783 Georgivs Triumpho
token suggesting a common manufacturer (Ringo 1995, 1515-20). In
addition, bulk quantities of counterfeits dated 1781 and 1782 were
used by the Vermont coiners as a source of ready-made “blanks" lor
their products as discussed within the next sections.
Counterfeit Halfpence of American Origin
Because importation of false English and Irish coppers was such a

profitable venture, was just a matter of time before enterprising
it
individuals in North America established domestic counterfeiting

operations to produce such coppers for local consumption. A current
taxonomy suggests three categories of struck counterfeit English and
Irish coppers: [1] imported counterfeit coppers, well made and of a
quality indicative of a “Birmingham/Bristol” product; [2] those
domestic coppers linked to America such as “Machin’s Mills" imita-

cions or “Tory” halfpence; and [3] those crude coppers whose origins
have not been proven lor which the term “anonymous has been sug-
gested (Weston 1994, 1463-68; Wierzba 1997, 1739-60). The issue
raised in the third category is that one cannot justify an American
provenance lor every primitive appearing counterfeit copper without
substantiating proof. Until such evidence is gathered, the prudent
course is to acknowledge any uncertain origin with the “anonymous”
designation. This in no way diminishes its historical status and
importance as a coin that participated in our colonial economy only —
its provenance remains to be established.
In his exhaustive research, Scott discussed the impact of the coun-
terleir halfpence imported into New York in the 1750s (Scott 1953,
102-109). Among his many references to false silver and gold coins,
there were no accounts ol locally made halfpence, except a notation
that in Virginia an act was passed in 1729 making the counterfeiting
of coppers a treasonable offense incurring the same penalty as falsify-
ing foreign specie coins (Scott 1957a, 1 5). There is no indication as to
what events may have prompted that legislation or if any convictions
ever resulted.
The copper counterfeiting activity in British North America was
reenactment of what had transpired in Great Britain, first by cast-
just a
ing and then by striking. Without doubt, some of the cast coppers,
which contributed to the glut of counterfeit coppers in America, were
local products but these are difficult to trace since they could have been
made by any metal smith with the capacity to make sand molds and
melt alloys. Eric Newman reported one such operation, conducted by
brass founders, discovered in Philadelphia in 1783 which cast counter-
feit English halfpence (Newman may have
1976, 156). Another source
been North Swansea, Massachusetts, where a report quoted by Lyman
Low implicated the Barney family of that town of having “cast in sand-
molds, facsimiles of the English Halfpence of that period” (Low 1899,
40). Some hand forged counterfeit coppers from Fort Crown Point,
New York, were reported by Gary Trudgen who described the small
scale operation of Private William Gilfoil, an English Army blacksmith,
who 1774 apparently supplemented his military compensation by
in
beating out coppers (Trudgen 1987).

There is a series of struck counterfeit halfpence attributed to the
post-Revolutionary era, not all from the same source, which has attract-
ed much numismatic interest. Our current state of knowledge is skill-
fully and objectively summarized in The Third Annual C-4 Convention
Sale (1997, 15-16) catalogue to which reference is urged. Since clan-

destine mints would leave no paper trail, the actual facts may never be
known and, lacking proof positive, we may have to content ourselves
with several hypotheses, properly acknowledged as just working
hypotheses subject to later modification, validation, or rejection.
Punch-link evidence has been popularly cited but such results must be
interpreted with caution since there may have been a commercial sup-
ply of identical letter punches available to any number of professional
die sinkers.Whereas stylistic similarity of the major devices may help
to identify the work of a particular engraver, unusual planchet fabric
may not necessarily signify illegally made coins. Newspaper accounts
have been notoriously misleading. This all goes to say that evidence
from many sources has to be correlated and interpreted before any par-
ticular clandestine mint or engraver can be positively identified.
Trudgen has described four groups of imitation halfpence attrib-
uted to the engraver, James F. Atlee. The first group, along with the
1786 counterfeit Connecticut coppers to be subsequently described,
was made in New York City, the second group was coined at an
unknown mint in association with Ephraim Brasher and John Bailey,
and the last two groups originated at Newburgh, New York, at the
facility operated by Captain Thomas Machin, whose varied and excit-
ing career has been recounted in previous articles (Trudgen 1983, 831;
1984a, 861; 1984b, 896; 1987, 965; 1989, 1084; 1992, 1317;
Barnsley 1975, 536; and August and Sarrafian 1997 for die and punch
link evidence). The only positive “legal” proof that Machin made coins
is contained in a signed contract to assist the legal Vermont mint with
their production. Other persuasive, but circumstantial evidence, par-
ticularly stylistic similarities and die and punch linking, place him as
the source of certain imitation English halfpence and Connecticut

coppers, among other possible emissions.
The imitation halfpence series, attributed to Atlee, has been accept-
ed as American products but as a technicality, only those are counter-
feits which are dated the same as regal coppers, i.e. 1747 and 1771 to
1775. The others are termed imitations because their imaginative dates
don’t correspond with actual Tower Mint emissions. Whether they are
counterfeits or imitationsof no consequence since they were minted

is
in the 1786 to 1789 period, well after American independence. Any
argument would be with New York officials due to the Act of

December 16, 1737 barring further importation of copper money
(Scott 1953, 102).
The Machin’s Mills imitation halfpence and other early English
counterfeit halfpence struck in America have been classified by Robert

A. Vlack (1974). The rare Vlack 14-84A, included in that census, does
not share the other characteristics of Atlee coppers and Byron Weston
presents evidence why this should be considered an “anonymous piece
as previously defined (Weston 1994, 1456-68). He extends the same
opinion to Vlack 10-77A which shares no similarity with others linked
to James F. Atlee or Captain Machin. Two other crudely made coppers
on the Vlack plates, having nothing in common with the Atlee or
Machin products, 16-86A [Breen #975] (see Breen
are the halfpence
1988) and the Connecticut copper, CT-86A, or 1786 Miller 2.4-U
[Breen #762], which together share a common reverse (see August and
Sarrafian 1997 for details on these points). These are of the same prim-
itive style of workmanship as 1786 Miller 2.3-T [Breen #761] and this
trio of counterfeits is undoubtedly of American origin.
State Coppers: Connecticut
The counterfeit halfpence which inundated the American colonies

continued to pass for many years “without discrimination” as long as
one received full value for one’s money. Although the problem had been
long recognized and certain colonies had taken action to curb the fur-
no decisive action was taken until the
ther importation of false coppers,
problem was well out of hand by 1785. A Congressional Committee
described the situation in May 1785 (Jefferson 1953, 196):
The coinage of copper is a subject that claims our imme-

diate attention. From the small value of the several pieces of
copper coin, this medium of exchange has been too much
neglected. The more valuable metals are daily giving place
to base British half-pence, and no means are used to prevent
this fraud. This disease, which is neglected in the beginning,
because it appears trifling, may finally prove very destructive
to commerce.
The basic remedy adopted by Vermont and Connecticut in 1785,

New Jersey in 1786, and Massachusetts and Congress in 1787 was to
authorize an official full weight copper coinage with the anticipation
that this money would be preferentially accepted by the population
and thus all other lesser quality coins would be summarily rejected and
cease to circulate. This argument was seriously flawed since many, par-
Ocularly the poor and merchants, already had much of rheir wealth
tied up in these base halfpence.To demonetize them could be eco-
nomically injurious to these social classes. A concise review of this
early coinage, presented by Hodder in CNL 91 (Hodder 1992, 1310-
lb), is recommended.
In Connecticut, a group of individuals, combined as The Company
for Coining Coppers, was franchised to undertake this project and
introduce legitimate, full weight, copper currency designed to suppress
rhe circulation of the abundant light weight English counterfeits. A
very skilled engraver, Abel Buell, made the dies for the series. It is
important mention that Buell, as a youth in 1763, was convicted of

to
altering four 2s. 6d. Connecticut notes to 30s. for which he was sen-
tenced to suffer branding, ear cropping, and life imprisonment under
the then current law. The executioner, taking pity on this young silver-
smith, discharged the sentence such that Buell's hair covered his “marks
of shame” and by application to the Colonial Assembly, his incarcera-
tion was commuted after a £100 bond for good behavior was posted
(Scott 1957a, 213-14).
Abel Connecticut coppers were covered in depth at the sev-
Buell’s
enth COAC May 1991 (Mossman 1991). There are many more
in
Connecticut coppers than those from dies engraved by Buell and
minted by the Company for Coining Coppers and its successors in
business, Jarvis and Company. The pertinent and difficult question
here is which of the 357 die combinations can be considered contem-
poraneously struck counterfeits in violation of the authorized state
coinage? At least six different mints participated in this prodigious
output, several of which were definitely illegal operations (Breen 1974,
459). of these coppers are classified as contemporaneous coun-
Some
based solely on conjecture (Rothschild 1998) but one prag-
terfeits
matic solution might be to reject as legitimate any coppers not born

die pairs engraved by Buell.
These non-Buell struck counterfeits are in addition to the large
number of cast copies of legitimate Buell coppers previously described
in CNL 107. In that study, cast copies of some 26 different
Connecticut varieties were enumerated and of these, probably five were
copies of illegal Connecticut coppers imparting them the unusual sta-
tus, “counterfeits of counterfeits.” As with all counterfeits, cast or
struck, their very being was driven by a profit motive, i.e., the duplica-
tion of successful, spendable money. Considering that premise and the
known coexistence of both cast counterfeit regal halfpence and cast
forgeries ol suite coppers, John Kleeberg raises the following rhetorical

question: "Let us assume that state coppers only circulated within their
respective states. Then why would anyone counterfeit state coppers, as
opposed to halfpence, which circulated everywhere? Counterfeiters
were often on the move, and they would prefer a national currency to
a local one”(Kleeberg 1998).
From the 1785 series, the “African" head, Miller 4.1-F.4, has been
traditionally suspect. But since all the mailed bust right obverse dies for
that year were hand engraved, who is to say that this atypical piece was
not an early emission from the mint, or, perhaps the work of an undoc-
umented apprentice? Any other differences notwithstanding, the
planchets of this variety were adequate since their average weight
exceeds the combined average of all other Buell 1785 mailed bust right
coppers (Mossman 1991; see Table 2, p. 110: here the average of 134
1785 MBLs is 1 34.8 ±9.0 grains and eight 4. 1 -F.4s were 1 38.3 grains.)
Another rhetorical question becomes immediately apparent, absent
how great must
other evidence, the stylistic and letter punch variation
become before one pronounces a coin a contemporaneous circulating
counterfeit? The careful response to this question is to acknowledge
only that the “African” head is different.

For the year 1786, there are six issues that certainly are not the work
of Buell (Miller 1-A, 2.1-A 2.1-D.3, 2.2-D.2, 3-D.l, and 3-D.4).
Breen has connected with James F. Atlee and 1786 New
this series
Jersey small date issueson punch link evidence, and Trudgen has asso-
ciated this output with group one of the imitation halfpence series just
described. There is general agreement that these are all contemporane-
ous counterfeits but without clear-cut confirmation as to the mint of
origin (Taylor 1987, 198-99; Breen 1976, 111-13). There has been an
attempt to relate the 3-D. as a prototype of the Vermont Ryder-9, the
1
“baby head,” but this association is vague at best (Breen 1975, 1 12-13;
Carlotto 1998, 103). In May 1786 Lower Connecticut
a bill passed the
House (but failed in the Senate) designed to curb the importation and
circulation of “base and Counterfeit Copper Coin ... in this State”
except for those minted by any other state or under the Authority of
Congress (Crosby 1875, 220-21). Breen proposed that this legislation
was aimed at the prevention of entry into the state of the “Atlee” 1786
bust right counterfeits just discussed. Also as a reaction to this specific
styleof false coppers, Breen asserted that Buell changed the obverse ori-
entation to the mailed bust left motif late in 1785, so that the local peo-
ple could distinguish the new, legal Company for Coining Coppers
products from the bogus bust right 1786-dated coppers by Atlee

(Breen, 1988, 65). This is not a logical argument since in 1786 the
immediate concern was with the vast number of bust right George III
English counterfeit halfpence and not with the few, by comparison,

spurious Connecticut coppers attributed to Atlee. If indeed a change to
the bust left motif were intended to differentiate between two specific
genera of coppers, it is more reasonable to consider that this change was
effected to assist a largely illiterate population in distinguishing
between the new, official bust left Connecticut coppers and the very
common bust right, counterfeit English coinages, the latter being the
had caused so many problems in commerce. New bust left
culprits that
coins would resemble George II halfpence which by that time were not
as prevalent.
For those dated 1787, Connecticut coppers become more complex,

starting with the four examples, Miller 1.3-L, 4-L, 6.1-M, and 6.2-M.
These are certainly not characteristic of the work of Buell, who did the
draped bust left obverses for that year. The distinctive appearance of
T ig. 7.
A 1786
Connecticut Coppers
—genuine and contemporary cast counterfeit examples: a)
Miller 1.1 -A, itscll a struck counterfeit; b) Acopy of a Miller 1786 1 1 A,
cast .
a counterfeit of a counterfeit; c) A genuine 1787 Miller 33.6-KK; d) A cast copy of a

1787 Miller 33.6-KK.
removes them from the legal Connecticut mints. Breen has

this quartet
attempted to connect the above lour with the Morristown manufacture
of New Jersey coppers based on punch link evidence, particularly the
common, wide horse-shoe shaped “U” (Breen 1976, 111). 1 his
hypothesis is a classic example of the pitfalls encountered in using

naked-eye examination to determine punch-linking since Michael
Hodder later showed Irom using photographic superimposition tech-
niques, it becomes the “N,” “C,” and “A” punches that are linked, and
not the traditionally asserted “U” (Saccone Sale 1989, footnote lot
#1648). The Miller 4-L is the most common Connecticut copper and
the second most encountered of all the Confederation series, suggesting
that was the product of a technically sophisticated operation
it
(Mossman 1993, 1385-86; the Maris 56-n is the most commonly

encountered state copper). The related “laughing head, Miller 6.1-M,
also ranks high in the Connecticut copper frequency census.
Also bearing the date 1787 is the relatively common contemporary
counterfeit, the Muttonhead, or Bradford head, 1787 Miller 1.2-C,
from an unknown mint. The unusual appearing “Hercules” head vari-
eties, represented by the biennial paired 1786 Miller 5.3 and the rare
1787 Miller 7 obverses, were struck from a severely recut legal die and
despite their crude appearance, are authorized coppers.
It appears that the original legislative authorization, which was to
have run for from October 25, 1785, was suspended effective
five years
June 20, 1789, although no coins dated 1789 exist (Crosby 1875, 220-
24). For the remainder of 1787 and into 1788 there is more specula-
tion than proven fact about the Connecticut coppers attributed to that
period. It was documented that when Abel Buell left for Europe, he
allowed his son, Benjamin, to “stamp” coppers but we have no evidence
as to what activities the son performed. As Breen asserted, all contribu-
tions ascribed to Benjamin are pure conjecture (Breen 1976, 123-24).
In 1787 Abel Buell’s new obverse hub style featured a bust adorned
with a triple leaves chaplet. This type has two distinct planchet popu-
lations and it is at this point that Connecticut coppers start to show a
reduction in weight. The heavier triple leaves coppers, at 144.4 ± 14.5
grains (1787 Miller 2-B, 11.1-E, 11.2-K, and 11.3-K), adhere to the
authorized standard, whereas the lighter group is comprised of the
remaining ten varieties averaging 122.9 ± 19.8 grains, a value very con-
sistent with the non-overstruck 1788-dated triple leaves varieties (121 .0
± 16.3 grains) (Mossman 1991, 114-1 5). This planchet weight similar-
ity between the these two populations, the ten light 1787 triple leaves
varieties and the 1788-dated varieties, may indicate that the light 1787
triple leaves varieties could have been made in 1788, along with the
1788 varieties, but back-dated to 1787. The observation that there are
two different planchet weight populations of the Connecticut triple
leaves varieties, i.e. the heavy 1787s and the combined light 1787s and
1788s groups, suggests two different planchet fabrics. Without more
facts, this variation in weight, in and of itself, does not cry out “coun-
terfeit” from a non-authorized mint but it does clearly indicate a mea-
sure designed to squeeze out more profit for the coiner, whoever he
might have been.
Another group of coppers (1787 Miller 1.1-A, 1.1 -W, 1.4-WW, 3-
G.l, 52-G.l, 52-G.2; and 1788 Miller 1-1, 2-D, 3.1-B.l, 3.2-B.2, 5-
B.2, 4.1-K, 4.1-B.l, 4.2-R, 5-B.2, 6-H) has been attributed to James
Atlee from Machin’s Mills because of device style and letter punch sim-
ilarities with certain imitation halfpence and Vermont coppers, prod-
ucts presumed to have come from that source (Breen 1976, 113-18).
This is circumstantial evidence which regards them as contemporane-
ous Connecticut counterfeits since they cannot be immediately identi-
fied as the work of Abel Buell and the legal mint.
State Coppers: New Jersey

Because of all the legal entanglements which beset the early New
Jersey mints, it is no easy task to assign these coinages to specific loca-
tions. Matthias Ogden was authorized by the state to mint coppers
until June 3, New Jersey was in viola-
1790, even though the State of
tion of the new Federal Constitution. Therefore, any copper that came
from a mint under Ogden's jurisdiction must be regarded as legal and
not a contemporaneous counterfeit, the nature and condition of the
coins and their planchets notwithstanding. Specifically, the
Elizabethtown mint, for lack of virgin planchets, overstruck the prolif-
ic Maris 56-n and obverse 70 to 73, on light weight demonetized

series
coppers — especially those from Connecticut. Even if this were the
series thatprompted the June 7, 1790 report at the New Jersey General
Assembly, the question would not be their legality but rather their sub-
standard planchet weight (Newman 1976, 154). There are those who
feel that the 56-n group originated at Machin’s Mills, in which case,
they would have to be considered counterfeit. This perennial argument

was recently reviewed elsewhere (Moore 1996, 1626-29). he coppers 1
attributed to John Bailey were obviously legal products having been

Fig. 8. —
New Jersey genuine and contemporaneous cast counterfeit examples: a) A
1787 Maris 54-k; this copper has been accepted as a contemporaneously struck coun-
terfeit from an unknown mint; b) This is a cast copy of a 54-k, or rather a counterfeit
of a counterfeit; c) A genuine Maris 32-T; d) A cast copy of Maris 32-T; e) A Maris 56-
n overstruck on a lightweight counterfeit Irish halfpenny; note the obvious ERNI with-
in the lower left obverse legend, and the GEORGI 12:00 to 2:00 o’clock on the reverse;
f) Another Maris 56-n overstruck on a cast counterfeit 1754 English halfpenny with a
specific gravity of only 8.58 and weighing a scant 107.2 grains.
minted on a valid subcontractual basis by Walter Mould of the

Morristown mint (Trudgen 1990, 1161-62).
There are other New Jersey coppers which fall outside the realm of
the authorized and thus can be considered contemporaneous counter-
feits. This question was posed to several New Jersey specialists as to
which New contemporaneous
Jersey coppers, in their opinions, were
counterfeits. The answer was quite consistent, anything of Maris 80 to
84 was definitely illegal, with some numismatists adding 79 to that
inventory (Hodder, Moore, Wierzba, Williams 1998). Again, these
struck counterfeits are in addition to the dozen known different cast
counterfeit New Jersey coppers enumerated in CNL 107.
The last item deals with the so-called “Hatfield” counterfeit, Maris
54-k. There is nothing but “hearsay” evidence, four times removed
from the source, to support the contention that these coppers were
struck by an illusive Mr. Hatfield. Mr. Crosby quoted a communica-
tion from Mr. Bushnell who had reported to Crosby that he had once
heard that his friend, Mr. Halsted, had an acquaintance who knew a
Mr. Hatfield “who claimed (italics mine, PLM) and
to have made dies
coined New Jersey coppers” (Crosby 1875, 228). Although the names
“Hatfield” and “serpent head” are traditionally applied to Maris 54-k,
both nicknames inspire about the same level of confidence regarding
accuracy. Even though its provenance is unknown, the 54-k is doubt-
less a contemporaneous counterfeit because of its substantially different
styleand its consistently light weight of 117.9 ± 14.7 grains as com-

pared to the 150 grain standard (Mossman 1993, 208-10). Fig. 8 above
shows a cast copy of Maris 54-k which makes it another example of a
“counterfeit of a counterfeit.”
State Coppers: Massachusetts
Among which bear the emblems of Massachusetts, there

the cents
are four, 1787 7-H, and 1788 1 4-J, which are set apart from
1 -B, 5-1,
the coppers of the state mint since their dies were impressed with let-
ters and numbers from different punches than the accepted legal dies
prepared by Joseph Callender and Jacob Perkins (Greco 1962; Packard

1991, 1274). Crosby, having observed that the legends of the 1787 1-
B cent were so clearly different from the rest of the Massachusetts vari-
eties, considered it was “among the most peculiar of the coins of this
State” (Crosby 1875, 250).
The numerals in the date of 1787 1-B and the other two 1287
“counterfeits,” 5-1 and 7-H, were discovered by Richard August to
match those found on the Machin’s Mills 87C reverse (August 1998;
also see August and Sarrafian 1997). The central devices on the four
deviant coppers, just mentioned, are very similar to all the legal cents
and it is unlikely that any Bay Stater of the period could have recog-
nized the subtleties between the lot of them. Even today, many of us
need photographic plates to identify the different varieties.
These 1787 “counterfeits” have been recently studied by Michael
Packard from photographic overlays prepared by Tony Carlotto
(Packard 1998). From this impressive study, August’s observation
regarding the “87” date elements is confirmed. Also it would appear
that the 1 and 7 were engraved by the same artist and the
787 obverses 5
eagles on I and H, are identical, except that the
respective reverses,
shields were individually added by hand. As earlier related, the letter
punches on these four outliers differ from those coppers attributed to
Callender (i.e. 1787 open S’s) at the state operated mint.
What conclusion can be drawn from these data? In regard to overall
style, these four “spurious” coins far more closely resemble the legal
Massachusetts cents than any of the other Confederation period coun-

terfeits match the coppers they were designed to imitate. Whoever he
may have been, the individual who engraved the dies for these four cop-
pers was obviously an accomplished professional. While the common
date punches are an intriguing observation, it is insufficient evidence to
attribute the coins with certainty to Machin’s Mills. The relationship
could be explained by the fact that both facilities — that is, Machin’s
Mills and whatever mint responsible for the questionable
Massachusetts coppers — used similar commercially available date num-
ber punches impressed from the same matrices.
These four varieties, just described, are numbered among the eleven
very rare Massachusetts coppers with a rarity census of R-7 and R-8.
Curiously, this 1787 1-B is more commonly found as a host coin for
Connecticut 1788 Miller 16.3-N than seen in the non-overstruck con-
dition. This circumstance seems to raise more questions than it
answers. If one considers both Massachusetts 1-B and Connecticut
16.3-N as unauthorized emissions from Machin’s Mills, what was the
possible objective of the Newburgh mint to strike its less desirable
Connecticut copper over a Massachusetts cent which never depreciated
in value during the Coppers Panic? What would have been gained by
transmuting an acceptable Massachusetts state copper into a
Connecticut token that had significantly depreciated after the summer
of 1787? In regard to weight, 1-B is light (Mossman 1993, 21 On; three

specimens averaged 1 16.8 grains), whereas the other “counterfeits” may
Thus we are faced with another
actually exceed the authorized weight.
conundrum, what motive would prompt a clandestine operation to
mint coppers heavier than the legal requirement?
So in summary, these four Massachusetts cents have features which
set them apart from the other Massachusetts varieties, and as a group
they share a common date element with five imitation halfpence. It is
unclear when the conclusion was first advanced that the four men-
tioned coppers are contemporaneous counterfeits. The 1787 1-B is
undeniably different in several respects, but Iwould propose that it
requires more study before the three others, 1787 5-1, 7-H, and 1788
Fig. 9. Genuine and presumed coun-

terfeit 1787 Massachusetts cents: a)
Genuine Massachusetts cent from the

statemint for comparison of details; b)
e Crosby 1787 1-B; c) 1787 1-B as host
coin for 1788 Connecticut Miller
16.3-N; d) Crosby 1787 5-1; e) Crosby
1787 7-H.
—
14-J, can be summarily dismissed as counterfeits, judged solely because

of letter and number fonts which differ from their companion issues.
In any case, while one can propose a Machin’s Mills connection, it is far
from proven. Here is yet another numismatic puzzle from the
Confederation period!
State Coppers: Vermont
Two locations participated in the production of Vermont coppers

the state operation at Rupert Newburgh,
and the contract facility at
New York. There has been an attempt to assign eachVermont copper

to its own mint but there are some anomalous, crudely made pieces
whose provenance remains a mystery. While it may be tempting to call
them counterfeit, they could have been legally produced from dies cut
by a poorly trained novice. This roster would include RR-1 and RR-30
(Stack’s 1998, lot 115).
The strong tie between Vermont coppers and counterfeit Irish
George III halfpence has already been mentioned. The circumstances

are thus far lost to history as to how these false coppers became the
ready-made planchets for certain Vermont varieties, but it is tradition-
ally stated that this practice occurred at the Machin’s Mills mint.
Crosby described the very unusual RR-5 Vermont copper in his work;
its inclusion in the numbered Vermont series is the fact which makes it
a “collectable.” The history of this rare piece, well described by Carlotto

(1998, 90-93) remains another numismatic mystery.
Other Vermont coppers were counterfeited by casting as in the case
of the RR-27 (fig. 10 below).
The Fugio Cents

“Although Fugio coppers were not state coins, the Club Ray varieties
should be considered unauthorized varieties not produced under the
Jarvis mandate. By whom, or why, we have no evidence
other than the
many differences in styleof workmanship which suggest they were
made by others and not the original group of craftsmen” (Spilman
1998). It is also unclear why some varieties are actually heavier than the
legally mandated requirement, not a situation expected in counterfeit
production.
Fig. 1
ples: a)
0.
—
Vermont genuine and contemporary cast counterfeit, and overstruck exam-
Genuine Ryder/Richardson-27; b) Cast counterfeit of Ryder/Richardson-27; c)
Ryder/Richardson-25 struck over a counterfeit Irish halfpenny.
Miscellaneous
Without doubt, there were a number of mints that participated ille-
gally in counterfeiting Confederation-period coppers and foreign specie

coins. It has been a regular intellectual exercise for numismatists to
attempt to identify these clandestine operations. Some of these struck
counterfeit Confederation period coppers, such as the 1783 and 1786
Nova Constellatios (Breen #1115 and #1116), are only forgeries of
unauthorized tokens so there is no legal consequence. Breen tended to
nominate the elusive Bungtown Mint as the possible site for many such
miscellaneous emissions (Breen 1988, 90). Such an attribution adds
nothing to our knowledge since essentially one is defining one
unknown in the terms of something else equally unknown, and perhaps
unknowable. Clearly it is desirable to continue research in this area.
Although some contemporaneous newspaper reports have been
found to be erroneous or, at best, misleading and not very helpful, the
reliability factor increases when several independent accounts appear in
succession. That
the case for the years 1784 to 1786; it is fascinating
is
to peruse the New

England papers of that three year period and search
for more clues. There was obviously a continuing problem during that
era with counterfeit money as indicated in a letter submitted anony-
GRIEVANCES cv BOSTON.
T
of this
HE Grievances which the Inhabitants
Town have great Reafon to complain of are
the following —
jft. Forestalling of the Markets,
ad. Falfe Mealurea and fatfe Weights,
3d. The Circulation of bad Money.
4th. The vaft importation of ForeignGoods.
5:h. The great exportation of Cafh to Europe.
6th. Scarcity of Gold and Silver Coin.
7 h. The extravagant, enormous Rents dc
minded by Landlords.
Sen. The keeping of Foreign Servant#, while
Natives are out of Fuca.
9th. The multiplicity of Lawyers — and their
Candu<3 .
to’h. The hiring of Country Carpenters and

M.fms. while thofe of this Town are in real want
of Employ.
It is ia this time of public tranquility that thefe
objrdi of complaint, among others lhould be taken
—
ium onfiieraiioa : and that fame, if not all, may
be remedied, ia the ardent wifh of
A CITIZEN*
Fig. 1 1 . Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, MA.
mously by a citizen to The Boston Gazette and the Country Journal of

April 26, 1786 listing ten grievances which placed “The circulation of
bad money” as number three among the enumerated complaints. 2
Unfortunately, there was never any follow-up on this citizen-initiat-
ed complaint in subsequent issues.
Several items on from the significant post-war eco-

this list resulted
nomic depression of the 1780s. Immediately following the Revolution,

there had been ample hard money in the States which was soon remit-
ted to Europe to buy manufactured goods which had been in short sup-
ply during the hostilities. Subsequently the bustling wartime economy
cooled and foreign export credits dwindled obliging merchants to pay
for imported goods in specie. With a money shortage due to this eco-
nomic downturn, there is little wonder why counterfeiters were hard at

work again.
From April and May 1784 there are the three separate reports from
Providence, Rhode Island, cited by Newman, warning of the counter-
feit halfpence coming from nearby Massachusetts with the additional
comment that Massachusetts authorities were unable or unwilling to

arrest the offenders (Newman 1976, 154-55). Another report from The
Massachusetts Centennial of March 4, 1786 states in part:
The Copper-Smiths of the neighboring towns [to

Boston] have done us much evil, by fabricating in large
quantities and throwing into circulation pieces of base
metal, resembling the current Copper Coin of the
Commonwealth. This seemingly petty business has so long
been transacted with impunity, that it had encreased [sic] to
an alarming degree, and ought to be discouraged and con-
demned by every considerate citizen.
The term “current Copper Coin of the Commonwealth” cannot

mean Massachusetts coppers since the state mint was not authorized by
the legislature until October 17, 1786. By the process of elimination,
this probably refers primarily to counterfeit English coppers.
These accounts have spawned much speculation about a copper
counterfeiting operation in Massachusetts. In this regard, the North
Swansea, Massachusetts, area has been the prime suspect as the site of a
clandestine mint. The problem remains as to whether sufficient evi-
dence exists to allow us to trace either the facility or its products more
than two hundred years after the fact. Newman, in his classic essay,
“English and Bungtown Halfpence,” reviewed the subject in detail.
Because of the coincidence of certain 1784 newspaper reports alerting
citizens to the flurry of counterfeit British halfpence emanating from a
southern Massachusetts location and the occurrence of the 1784-dated
Vlack 14-84A, Newman
opined that it would “be a tempting specula-
tion” to ascribe that notorious halfpenny to a North Swansea origin
because of geographic proximity (Newman 1976, 155, 171-72).
Speculation as to the provenance of that particular copper and the role
of the Swansea mint in general is still alive and well and no consensus
has yet been reached (Easterbrooks 1998, 50-52).
Nothing seemed to discourage the counterfeiting of specie coins.
From Boston on April 19, 1784, there is an account of the apprehen-
sion of persons who counterfeited some “well imitated” 1768 [Spanish
milled] dollars “but the sound will easily denote them as base metal
(.Providence Gazette 1784a). “Badly executed” 1773 counterfeit dollars
were passed in Groton, Connecticut, in July 1784 ( Providence Gazette
1784b). To add to the frustration of authorities, three convicted coun-
of Spanish dollars broke out of the South Kensington jail in
terfeiters
October ( Providence Gazette 1784c). The census of counterfeited specie
coins appeared endless during the Confederation Period but fortu- —
nately for us, a writer in The Vermont Gazette (1785) provided us with
a summary:
The great number of persons lately convicted of passing

counterfeit money in the different States, is an alarming
subject of consideration. Dollars are the coin most fre-
quently counterfeited. They are variously described in the

different papers, and some of them are so good an imitation
of the true as to be with difficulty discovered. They are
almost universally said to be too light, and those that are
nearest weight are swelled in the centre, or visibly thicker
than the true. According to the papers, counterfeits have
been detected of the following dates, 1771, 1781, 1783,
1784, &1785.
Summary and Conclusions

Counterfeiting was a thriving activity in British North America dur-
ing the Colonial and Confederation periods including all types of legal
tender specie coins, Lion dollars, pistareens, and copper halfpence. The
prime motive was profit and thus it was the successful coinages that
were forged either by casting or striking with dies. When
Confederation coppers were minted by the states, clandestine mints
quickly sprang into operation to falsify those issues. These counterfeits
were struck with a screw press while others were made by casting copies
of legitimate and, occasionally, struck counterfeit, varieties. We are frus-
trated that the legitimate mints left incomplete paper trails, but the
counterfeiters even fewer traces unless they were apprehended and
left
a court record was generated. Research will be ongoing to define the

source of these, many counterfeits —
which have lately assumed another
major function: to entertain, challenge, perplex and delight future gen-
erations of numismatists!
[1] As evidenced by contemporaneous court records, several well orga-

nized counterfeiting rings operated in this country in the later half of
the eighteenth century. All successful European coinages, including
gold, silver and copper denominations, were widely counterfeited in
pre-Federal America. None of the existing laws seemed to have had any
dramatic effect in curbing this nefarious activity. It is difficult to dis-
tinguish from among those surviving examples which ones were
imported and which were manufactured domestically.
[2] English and Irish coppers were prime candidates for counterfeiting
due to their universal acceptance, potential for large profits, and the
minimal risk of prosecution. These coins were imported to America in
large numbers.
[3] Initially, made by casting techniques. By

counterfeit coppers were
the reign of George and
by the 1750s, counterfeiters took
II, certainly
advantage of new industrial methods and the cottage-industry casting
technologies were largely supplanted by striking prepared planchets
with a screw press, similar to the Tower Mint.
[4] About one third of both George II Irish and English counterfeit
coppers in our study collection are cast examples. By the reign of
George III, casting had decreased to only 6% for Irish coppers and less
than 1% for English coppers. This trend indicates that the displace-
ment of casting by striking technology had progressed at a more rapid
pace in England than in Ireland.
[5] Cast counterfeit English and Irish coppers were made in America
but it is of their production since any
difficult to identify the location
facility with the capacity to prepare molds and melt metals would have
been capable of casting coins.
[6] James E Atlee is credited with engraving dies for many imitation
English halfpence struck in America. The facility at Machin’s Mills,
Newburgh, NY, authorized to strike coppers for Vermont, is considered
as one of several locations where many of these were minted.
[7] Since casting counterfeit coins is a much slower process than strik-
ing coins on prepared planchets from dies, it may take as many as 10
to 20 casting operations to equal the output of a single facility equipped
to strike counterfeits.
[8] Due ro the large number of counterfeit halfpence that circulated in

America, several states attempted to mint their own coppers during the
1785 1789 period in order to offer a standard alternative to the cir-
to
culating counterfeits and thereby discourage their currency. he autho- I
rized state coppers were only struck but counterfeit copies ol these
legally struck state issues were produced by casting methods. Other
non-authorized state coppers were struck (and also counterfeited by
casting copies) at a variety of clandestine mints whose locations have
generally remained unknown. In the Connecticut series, any copper
not engraved by Abel Buell is suspect as being a counterfeit since it was
produced outside the legal mandate. From New Jersey, the Maris 54-k
is probably an unauthorized emission. There are four rare
Massachusetts cents whose unusual characteristics suggest they may be
counterfeit; their status is currently under evaluation.
[9] In the period 1784 to 1786 in Massachusetts, a large counterfeiting

operation was suspected, details about which are the subject of contin-
uing research.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our appreciation to Mike Ringo, Eric P.
Newman, and American Numismatic Society who allowed us to

the
illustrate this paper with coins from their collections, and an addition-
al thanks to Mike for taking the photographs.
Endnotes
1
It is possible that McMaster actually meant “joe” when he wrote “moidoire.”
-
To forestall a market normal trading by buying merchandise on its way
is to prevent
to market with the intention of reselling
at a higher price, by dissuading persons to bring
goods to market, or by persuading those already with goods for sale in the market to raise
the price. This would amount to a manipulation of the market by price fixing.
List of References
American State Papers, Finance (Washington 1832) vol. I. (ASP-F).
Richard August and Ed Sarrafian, “Thomas Machin, James Atlee and Abel Buell,” pre-
sented at the 3rd Annual C-4 Convention, Nov. 7, 1997.
Richard August, personal communication.
Edward R. Barnsley, “Problem with James F. Atlee,” CNL 44 (Jan 1975).

The Boston Gazette and the Country Journal April 26, 1786, #1659. Reprint courtesy
,
ol the American Antiquarian Society.
Richard L. Bowen, Rhode Island Colonial Money and its Counterfeiting 1647-1726
(Providence, 1942).
Ernest Bramah, pseud., English Regal Copper Coins, A Guide to the Varieties and Rarity
of Charles II to Victoria (London, 1929).
Walter Breen, “Six Connecticut Mints,” CNL 41 (Sept 1974).
Walter Breen, Walter Breens Complete Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Coins (New York,
1988).
Walter Breen, “Legal and Illegal Connecticut Mints” in Eric P. Newman, ed. and
Richard G. Doty, assoc, ed., Studies on Money in Early America (New York, 1976).
Third Annual C-4 Convention Sale November , 8, 1997 by Chris McCawley and Bob
Grellman. Cataloguing by Tom Rinaldo and Mary Sauvain.
Tony Carlotto, The Copper Coins of Vermont (NP, 1998).
C.E. Challis, A New History of the Royal Mint (Cambridge, 1 992).
Sylvester S. Crosby, The Early Coins ofAmerica (Boston, 1875).
Russell Easterbrooks, 1998, “Swansea Shipbuilding: a Possible Bungtown

Connection,” The C4 Newsletter, vol. 6, Num.l.
Peter P. Gaspar and Eric P. Newman, “An Eighteenth Century Hoard from
Philadelphia,” Coin Hoards 4 (1978).
Harrold E. Gillingham, Counterfeiting in Colonial Pennsylvania, ANSNNM 86 (New

York, 1939).
P. Greco, “Massachusetts Cents,” photographic plates, 1962.
Michael Hodder, “Attitudes Towards the Coinage Right in Early Federal America, the
Case of New Jersey 1788-1794,” CNL 91 (July 1992).
Michael Hodder, Roger Moore, Dennis Wierzba, Raymond Williams, 1998, personal
communications.
Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7 (Princeton, 1953).
Charles Jenkinson (1st Earl of Liverpool) “Of the Copper Coins and the Relative
Expence [sic] of Coining Gold, Silver and Copper,” from A Treatise on the Coins of the
Realm in a Letter to the King (Oxford, 1805) reprint (London, 1880).
John Kleeberg, personal communication, Nov. 3, 1998.
Lyman H. Low, Hard Times Tokens (1899).
John Bach McMaster, A History of the People of the United States, from the Revolution to
the Civil War (New York, 1883), 3rd ed.

Roger A. Moore, “The Only Difference Between Men and Boys is the Price of Their
Toys,” CNL 102 (May 1996).
Philip L. Mossman, “Weight Analysis of Abel Buell’s Connecticut Coppers,” in John M.

Kleeberg, ed.. Motley of Pre-Federal America, COAC Proceedings 7 (New York, 1992).
Philip L. Mossman, “TN-131 Revisited,” CNL 94 (July 1993).
Philip L. Mossman, 1993, Money of the American Colonies and Confederation, ANSNS
20 (New York, 1993).
EricP. Newman, “American Circulation of English and Bungtown Halfpence,” in Eric
P.Newman, ed. and Richard G. Dot)', assoc, ed., Studies on Money in Early America
(New York, 1976).
Eric P. Newman and Peter P. Gaspar, “The Philadelphia Highway Find,” The
Numismatist (1978).
Mike Packard, “Rarity Ratings of Massachusetts Copper Coins,” CNL 89 (Sept 1991).
Michael Packard, personal communication, November 21, 1998.
C. Wilson Peck, English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the British Museum (London,
1970).
Providence Gazette and Country journal, 1784a, April 24, 1784, #1060.
Providence Gazette and Country Journal, 1784b, July 17, 1784, #1072.
Providence Gazette and Countny journal, 1784c, Oct. 30, 1784, #1087.
Mike Ringo, “Georgivs Triumpho,” CNL 100 (July 1995).
P.H. Robinson, “The Dunchurch and Strafford Finds of Eighteenth-Century

Halfpence and Counterfeits,” British Numismatic Journal, Vol. 41 (1972).
Neil Rothschild, personal communication, May 16, 1998.
The Saccone Sale, Bowers and Merena ( Nov 6-8, 1989).
Oscar G. Schilke and Raphael E. Solomon, Americas Foreign Coins (New York, 1964).
Kenneth Scott, Counterfeiting in Colonial New York, ANSNNM 127 (New York,
1953).
Kenneth Scott, Counterfeiting in Colonial Pennsylvania, ANSNNM 132 (New York,

1955).
Kenneth Scott 1957a. Counterfeiting in Colonial America (New York, 1957).
Kenneth Scott 1957b. Counterfeiting in Colonial Connecticut, ANSNNM 140 (New

York, 1957).
Kenneth Scott 1957c. “The Great Epidemic of Coining in the Jersies,” Proceedings of
the New Jersey Historical Society, Vol. 75 (April 1957).
Kenneth Scott, Counterfeiting in Colonial Rhode Island (Providence, 1960).
Charles W. Smith, “The English George III Contemporary Counterfeit Halfpenny

Series: A Statistical Study of Production and Distribution,” in Philip L. Mossman, ed.,
Coinage of the American Confederation Period , COAC Proceedings 1 1 (New York,

1996).
Charles W. Smith and Philip L. Mossman, “Cast Counterfeit Coppers in Pre-Federal
America,” CNL 107 (April 1998).
James C. Spilman, personal communication May 16, 1998.
Stack’s Public Auction Sale, January 12, 13, 1998.
Frederick B. Taylor Sale, Bowers and Merena (March 26-28, 1987);
Gary Trudgen, “Thomas Machin - Patriot,” CNL 66 ( Nov. 1983).
GaryTrudgen 1984a, “Machin’s Mills,” CNL 68 (July 1984).
Gary Trudgen 1984b, “Machin’s Mills Silver Coinage,” CNL 69 (Nov 1984).
Gary Trudgen 1987a, “James Atlee’s Imitation British Halfpence,” CNL 75 (Mar
1987).
GaryTrudgen 1987b, “Gilfoil’s Coppers,” CNL 76 (July 1987); 77 (Nov. 1987).
GaryTrudgen, “David Brooks - Machin’s Mills Partner,” CNL 81 (Apr 1989)
GaryTrudgen, “John Bailey, New York City Coiner," CNL 85 (July 1990).
Gary Trudgen, “Samuel and James F. Atlee, Machin’s Mills Partners, CNL 92 (Oct
1992).
Byron Weston, “Evasion Hybrids: A Commentary on Counterfeit Halfpence and

Farthings,” CNL 98 (Nov 1994).
Dennis Wierzba, “Another Example of the ‘Baby Head’ Counterfeit Halfpenny, CNL
106 (Dec 1997).
The Vermont Gazette, Bennington, VT, Monday, Sept. 26, 1785, vol. Ill, #121.
Robert Vlack, “Early English Counterfeit Halfpence Struck in America," photographic

plates, 1974.
Counterfeiting of the Bolivian
Four Soles Coins of 1830
Horace P. Flatt

November 7, 1998

—
40 Horace P. Flatt
Counterfeits
Every coin collector has at one time or another acquired a counter-
feit coin for his collection —sometimes deliberately for comparison

purposes with a legitimate coin for a specific period, but usually inad-
vertently through lack of experience with a particular type of coin. Of
course, it is the carefully executed counterfeit that causes difficulty for
the collector or merchant, but there was a period of time in the histo-
ry of Bolivia and Peru during which very unsophisticated counterfeits
circulated freely and comprised about one-third of all available coins.
Even some who might be thought expert in the making of coins occa-
sionally accepted the bad coins. The counterfeit coins circulated not
just in Peru and Bolivia, but in adjacent countries as well; they were
manufactured not just in Peru and Bolivia, but in other countries
including the United States.

I doubt that any particular aspect of these counterfeit coins is unique
in the history of coins; however, the combination of all the political and
economic factors which affected the manufacture and acceptance of
these coins may well be unique. The relation of these factors is the sub-
ject of this article.
Background
As in the case of other new South American Republics in the 1820s,

Bolivia adopted the Spanish coinage system, under which all coins
made in the Spanish colonial mints were to have a fineness of 10
dineros 20 grains. The coins of these mints were accepted throughout
the world because the nominal value of a coin was also the intrinsic
value of the metal in the coin. This ready acceptance of the famous
“pieces of eight” had led to their counterfeiting (e.g., the counterfeiting
of the Mexican eight reales of 1792 in Birmingham) with the implicit
permission of the English government. This counterfeiting occurred
while England was at war with Spain and France, which was probably
the reason why the English government ignored their own law con-
cerning the counterfeiting of the coins ol other countries. In the arti-
cles by Bordeaux and the documents from the Spanish archives (espe-
cially the attachment to the document dated 14 lune 1796), there is a
Counterfeit Bolivian Four Soles of 1830 41
great deal of interesting information on the methods used by counter-

feiters in Birmingham at the end of the eighteenth century (Bordeaux
1903, 1915; Archivo de Simancas).

Writing in the mid-nineteenth century, J. L.
Riddell observed,
Perhaps no coin has ever been more extensively counter-

feited and variously counterfeited, during the same length
of time, than the Mexican dollar. This could not have been
done, had similarity and regularity prevailed in the dies with
which they had been sramped. (Riddell 1845, 6).
Independence for Bolivia, however, only deepened the economic
problems of the country. When Andres Santa Cruz assumed the presi-
dency of Bolivia in 1829, he said that there was only half a peso in the
country’s treasury (Parkerson 1984, 44), and comparatively little in cir-
culation for the needs ol the country.

It is important to understand something of these needs, for they dic-
tated subsequent events. Bolivia needed gold and large silver coins for
its purchases in external markets, primarily Europe, while its internal

markets required mostly the smaller silver coins. Bolivia, however, also
carried on an extensive commerce with its neighbors — primarily Peru,
although its natural trading area included Argentina to the south and
Ecuador and New Granada (Colombia) to the north. The smaller silver
coins were normally involved in this commerce, for other foreign mar-
kets absorbed the eight soles. In its external markets, the balance of pay-
ments generally ran against Bolivia, leading to the outflow of coins
from the country. These small coins flowed primarily to the neighbor-
ing countries, where they were gladly accepted because of the need of
those countries for small coins as well. During the first few years of
independence, only a little over 2% of the country’s coinage was in
small coins (Flatt 1994, 119), and gradually, even the small coins were
no longer to be found in Bolivia.
It was at this point that Santa Cruz made what has been called the
worst administrative mistake of his career (Parkerson 1984, 52). He
authorized in 1829 the emission ol debased coins having a fineness of
eight dineros. Begun secretly in order to satisfy the need in Bolivia’s
internal markets, the small coins quickly became an integral part of
Bolivia’s commerce with its neighbors, where they were accepted at full
42 Horace P. Flatt
value. These debased coins were also specially minted in 1835 to help
finance an invasion of Peru by Santa Cruz in that year. Santa Cruz,
however, before his demise as President of the Peru-Bolivian
Confederation, recognized his mistake, and attempted to stop the
minting of small coins of 8 dineros fineness. In the anarchy following
Santa Cruz’s departure, the emission of these coins continued nonethe-
less, and caused financial havoc in Peru and Bolivia for another 20 years
(Flatt 1989).
There was a long tradition of counterfeiting in both the silver min-

ing countries of Bolivia and Peru. Counterfeiting provided an even
more profitable use of the silver bullion than smuggling the bullion out
of the country. In addition to avoiding taxes on the silver bullion and
the cost of transportation to the mint, there was obviously the oppor-
tunity to use much less silver than in the legitimate coins. Both large
and small coins were counterfeited; the simplicity of the design of the
coins made it much simpler for an engraver to make dies which could
be used to produce very acceptable coins. Moreover, there were many
small variations in the design of the legitimate coins because of prac-
tices in the mints, thereby allowing the public to attribute some small
differences solely to problems at the mint. Some counterfeits were
crude and easily recognized, but others were excellent copies, leading to
some question whether or not the mints themselves sometimes made
counterfeit coins. See for example, the 1834 and 1838 Bolivian eight
soles described in Riddell’s treatise on the silver dollar (Riddell 1845,
Nos. 116-117).
For coins produced in Bolivia beginning in 1830, however, there are
other aspects of these coins which are of interest. 1 he debasement from
a fineness of 10 dineros 20 grains to a fineness of 8 dineros was con-
fined to the smaller coins, while the eight soles (pesos) remained of full
fineness. There was a clear intent to deceive the public as to their true
value; for almost 30 years, the coins were accepted by the public at their
nominal value. The minting of these coins at this fineness was autho-
rized by law, albeit a secret one, and carried out by the government. In
this early period under Santa Cruz, it is difficult to characterize the
coins as counterfeit, but it is easy to see how the coins lent themselves
to the work of counterfeiters, who concentrated on the four soles coin

{toston). First, the design of the coin, including the date, remained fixed
for over 20 years. The design of the coin was also simplistic, and easily
duplicated by “unofficial” engravers. The design on officially issued
coins blurred quickly in use, because of the higher percentage of cop-
per. Small differences in design were attributed to normal wear from
the circulation of the coins. Another practice which made it easier for
the counterfeiter was that in larger transactions, instead of counting the

coins, they were weighed, so that any particular coin might not even be
viewed or handled. Finally, there was a real need for the coins in com-
merce, and people accepted them, even knowing they were counterfeit.
Two examples of the 1830 Bolivian four soles —both believed genuine coins. Note the
differences in design, particularly on the obverse, where both the size and placement of
the stars are significantly different. Such differences made the work of the counterfeit-
Both coins are examples of the variety with a small Potosi mintmark
er easier.
in the
middle of the obverse.
44 Horace P. Flatt
Counterfeits of the Debased Bolivian Coins
It is not known when the counterfeiting of the coins dated 1830

began — probably in 1830. It is also probable that the two soles and
smaller coins were also counterfeited, but no examples are known to the
author, and in the contemporary newspaper and official accounts, only
the counterfeiting of four soles is mentioned.
During the period of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation and the polit-
ical chaos which followed, there appears to have been little attention
paid to the rising problem ol the counterfeit coins which had come into
circulation. The coins, however, were being made: there is an account
of the discovery in 1850 in La Paz of a counterfeiting operation which
had been active for ten years {El Celage, 5 November 1850). But this
operation could not have been the only one — even in Bolivia or Peru,
for by 1 846 there was a considerable amount of counterfeit coins in cir-
culation in Peru. After the establishment of the government of Ramon
Castilla in Peru, Jose Paz Soldan summarized the problems of the coins
circulating in Peru. In October 1846, it was estimated that there were
only 3 million pesos of the Bolivian coins and about 1 1/2 million pesos
of the debased Peruvian money in circulation. Paz Soldan did make
some suggestions: impede the importation ol the Bolivian coins, place
no tax upon their export, and take special care to impede the importa-
tion of counterfeit coins from Europe and the United States (Biblioteca
Nacional 1846).
There no record of immediate action, but the Peruvian and
is
Bolivian governments did negotiate in 1847 a treaty of friendship and

commerce under which the Bolivian government agreed to stop mint-
ing the debased coins (Flatt 1994, 51). For a time, the Bolivian gov-
ernment considered a change to a system which would mint coins of
full legal fineness of 10 dineros 20 grains, but of lesser weight. I he gov-

ernment was financially dependent, however, upon the continued emis-
sion of the debased coins, and did not fulfill the terms of the treaty,
thereby leading to a short war with Peru (Flatt 1994, 79). At the same
time, design changes were made in the coins, with the introduction of
a star with five points rather than the six which had been used previ-
ously. This change was also reflected in at least some of the coins dated
1830 (Fill 1990).

Counterfeit Bolivian Four Soles of 1 830 45
Following on Paz Soldan’s recommendation, in 1848 a directive was

issued to the prefects of the departments ( El Peruano, 30 September
1848). The custom house was ordered not to accept Bolivian coins
arriving from overseas, for many of the coins were counterfeit. In
December 1848, the English consul in Islay wrote as follows
(PRO:FO:61/l 18):
The Government as yet have not been able to take cer-
tain and energetic steps for retiring from circulation the
base Money in the Country . . . and which is increasing in
a frightful degree by large clandestine Importation from
Foreign Ports (said Princibly [sic] to be from the United

States) and coinage in private Mints in the Country tempt-
ed by the great profit they make by these nefarious transac-
tions . . . The base money imported and coined in private
Mints, all bears the stamp of Bolivia, the date of 1830, and
consists entirely of Half dollar pieces . . .
It was said that during this period, there was a private “mint” in New
Jersey which made the counterfeit four soles and used them to fill the
hollow tubes of an iron bedstead. The bedsteads were then shipped to
Peru, where the counterfeit coins were sold locally for a fixed price.
And, of course, counterfeiting continued both in Bolivia and Peru. On

5 November 1849, El Celage, the newspaper of Potosf of the period,
reported the seizure in Cochabamba of a machine that would mint 800

pesos of the tostones daily. Almost a year later, three counterfeiters were
captured in La Paz, as mentioned above. They had over 5,200 pesos of
counterfeit coins in their possession ( El Celage, 28 November 1850).
Some of those coins were assayed, and the fineness ranged from 5
dineros 13 grains to 5 dineros 15 grains. During this period there were
many reports of Bolivian coins with a fineness of six dineros or less.
Such counterfeiters did provide an excuse for the Bolivian government

when an amount of new moneda feble was discovered in
especially large
Iquique in December 1850. The minting of such coins was prohibited
by the recent Treaty of Arequipa; the Bolivian government simply said
that counterfeiters had made the coins.
The machinery discovered in Cochabamba was undoubtedly the

source of a proposal to obtain equipment for a new mint in Oruro
46 Horace P. Flatt
(Flatt 1994, 97). It was said that the machinery could be purchased for
1,500 pesos and transported to Oruro for another 500 pesos. Note that
the machinery was to be purchased, not confiscated; the owner was
David Douglas, a powerful friend of President Ballivian (Cunietti-
Ferrando 1978). In the list of machinery there were two dies for the
four soles of Potosl.
The overall growth in the number of counterfeit coins in circulation
was noted by a report of the Bolivian Finance Minister in 1850. In
1850 it was estimated that there were about 20 million pesos of “legit-
imate" and counterfeit moneda feble in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, New
Granada and the Argentinian provinces adjacent to Bolivia. By 1857,
there was a total of about 27 million pesos of the bad coinage in circu-
lation, with about 9 million being counterfeit. This estimate was possi-
bly low, for it is already clear that many of the Bolivian four soles were
being remelted to provide the material for coins of even lower fineness.
Concern was expressed that if the monetary disorder continued, there
soon would be no coins in circulation which had any real value (Flatt
1994, 85).
In 1853, the design of the “official” Bolivian four soles changed for
the first time since 1830. These coins were called arbolitos because of
the prominent tree on the obverse. From that time forward, each year
the date on the coins was changed. These coins were accepted in Peru
at their nominal value, but it was subsequently ordered that the coins
bearing the dates of 1856 or 1857 would not be accepted in Peruvian
government offices {El Comercio , 9 July 1857). This decision was
reversed in 1859, just about the time all of the coins began to decline
in value to the intrinsic value of the metals {El Comercio, 14 October
1859).
During the middle of the 1850s, counterfeiting operations contin-
ued, with an occasional success by the government in stopping a par-
ticular operation. An especially large find of equipment and money was
discovered in Peru in a raid toward the end of April 1855. In a deep
ravine on the ranch of ex-colonel Bonifacio Franco near Cochabamba,
a coin press and over 1,400 counterfeit Bolivian four soles coins were
discovered along with nine additional pieces of coining machinery {El
Comercio 21 ,
May 1855). A subsequent raid led to the discovery of 20
more pieces of machinery, including two large wheels, one of bronze
—
and one ol cast iron, as well as a milling machine {El Comercio, 8 June
1855).
Probably the best analysis ol the overall problems of coinage in Peru
in this period was that of Ernesto Malinowski in 1858. As far as coun-
terfeits were concerned, he noted that the counterfeiters were making
coins of ever decreasing fineness, but, at the same time, of increasing
sophistication. He commented that even persons accustomed to han-
dling coins were easily deceived, using as an example the agency in
Arequipa which sold tickets for the steamship to Lima: of 150 pesos
accepted in payment, only about 13 pesos were legitimate coins
(Malinowski 1858, 9). He urged the use of more complicated designs
for coins which would require very powerful presses to strike, thereby
making it more difficult and expensive for counterfeiters to carry on

their work.
The efforts of the police had not been able to deter the continued
manufacture and circulation of the counterfeit coins. Shortly after the
appearance of Malinowski’s treatise, the value of the debased coins

began to decline, eventually reaching the point at which the coins of
1830 and their successors were accepted only at their intrinsic value
whatever the amount of silver content. This signaled the end of the
counterfeit coins as well. Both the Bolivian and Peruvian governments
initiated significant reforms in their coinage systems, accompanied by
the melting of large quantities of both the debased and counterfeit
coins. Through these actions, the reign of counterfeit coins in both
countries was ended, although, of course, counterfeiters continued
their work, just as in other countries.
Summary
Counterfeit coins have been a part of the economic history of most
countries, undoubtedly ever since coins became an accepted means of
exchange. While it is impossible to maintain that every aspect of the
counterfeiting of the Bolivian four soles coin of 1830 was unique, it is
believed that the combination of the factors discussed in the preceding

article is unique, particularly from the viewpoint of Peru. The counter-
feiting of Bolivian coins was facilitated by their debasement, which
unofficially was increased over a period of years. In addition to the pri-

48 Horace P. Flatt
vate counterfeiters operating in Bolivia and Peru, there were operations

overseas, accompanied by evidence that counterfeits were being made
in at least one Bolivian mint. The objective of the counterfeiters was to
introduce the coins into circulation in Peru, where they would be

accepted at the nominal value of the coins.
Infrequent raids by the police were unsuccessful in stopping the

counterfeiters; in some cases, there was suspicion that such counterfeit-
ers were being protected by government officials. Ultimately, the only
solution was the action of the marketplace, which began to accept coins
at their intrinsic value — legitimate or counterfeit. Counterfeiting
became unprofitable, and the melting of most of the older coins
removed them from circulation as coins of the full legal fineness
became available.
Reference List
Archivo General de Simancas, Spain. Secretaria y Superintendica de Hacienda. Legajo

845.
Bordeaux, Paul. 1903. Les Fausses Piastres de Birmingham. Revue Numimatique

Francaise.
Bordeaux, Paul. 1915. Counterfeit Spanish Piastres Issued at Birmingham. Numismatic

Circular 23:558-563.
EL Celage, Potosi. 1850.
El Comercio, Lima. 1855, 1857, 1859.
Cunietti-Ferrando, Arnaldo J. 1978. Historia de la efimeria Casa de Moneda de Oruro

y sus labraciones. Cuadernos de Numismdtica 5.
Flatt, Horace P. 1989. Moneda Feble in Peru 1830-1867, in William L. Bischoff, ed.,
The Coinage of El Peru, 192-231. New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Flatt, Horace P. 1994. The Coins of Independent Peru. Vol. Ill: Bolivian Moneda Feble.
Terrell, Texas: Haja Enterprises.
Fill III, George. 1990. Evidence shows Bolivia used 1830 date into 1850s. World Coin
News, 17 September.
Malinowski, Ernesto. 1 858. La Moneda en El Peru. Lima: Aurelio Alfaro y Ca.
Peru-Boliviana.
Parkerson, Phillip T. 1984. Andres de Santa Cruz y La Confederation
1835-1839. La Paz: Librerla Editorial “Juventud.”
El Peruano, Lima. 1848.
Norman. 1969 Reprint: Mexico City: Sociedad Numismatica de Mexico, A. C.

Circulating Counterfeit Capped Bust
Half Dollars, 1807-1839
Keith Davignon and Bradley S. Karolejf, NLG

November 7, 1998

50 Keith Davignon and Bradley S. Karoleff
Introduction
The Capped Bust Half dollars of 1807-1839 were the most exten-
sively counterfeited United States coin. In this paper we are going to
review the major historical issues of this time period and how the social,
political, and economic conditions contributed to create the peak peri-
od for counterfeiting in our nation’s history. We are going to discuss

how the bogus coins were made, including an in-depth look at a propo-
sition that genuine U.S. Mint hubs, dies, or other implements may
have been utilized in some counterfeiting operations.
Next we will explore what is known of the identities of the counter-
feiters, looking at what evidence exists of who they were and where they
operated.
Lastly, we will see how these old counterfeit coins have been mistak-
en over the last several decades as U.S. Mint patterns, die trials, and
experimental coins, and how confusion still exists in the modern
numismatic marketplace over these pieces, many of which are still pro-
fessed to be genuine Mint products.
Circulating counterfeit coins, also known as contemporary counter-
feits, were those coins that were made to pass off as genuine in every-
day commerce. Although counterfeiting of large denomination paper
currency remains a problem today, coin counterfeiting for circulation is
Fig. 1. Map of the United States circa 1830.

1
Counterfeit Capped Bust Half Dollars 5
rare, due to the miniscule purchasing power of coins in the modern

economy.
But back in the 1830s, when 50 cents translated into a day’s pay, the
counterfeiting of coins was a major problem. The low level of educa-

tion (even literacy) of the common store clerk made passing bogus
coins fairly easy, and the success of early counterfeiters can be measured
by the quantities of fake coins surviving to this day.
Picture that you are back in the 1830s! As you can see on the above
map, anywhere west of Missouri and the Mississippi River is outside of
what was then the United States. Travel is by horse, stagecoach, or
riverboat. It was a time of explosive population growth. There was no
federal paper currency at this time. The paper money came from hun-
dreds of private banks, and the coins most commonly seen in circula-
tion were Mexican or Spanish silver, and British coppers.
In the early 1800s the U.S. Mint had problems producing enough
coins to meet the demands of the young nation’s economy. Until 1857
foreign coinage such as Spanish Milled Dollars and Mexican Reales
were legal tender; British Halfpennies and tokens circulated as well. In
many areas they were more common and recognizable to people than
our own currency, which tended to be hoarded by banks and individu-
als while the old worn out reales circulated.
Diverse coin types in use as legal tender enlarged the seri-
ous trouble the public experienced by being constantly

swindled with bogus coins (Schilke and Solomon, p. 33).
Small denomination coins were in great demand for everyday trans-
actions and the Mint struggled to meet this need.
Our new need for small change, and our maze of unfa-
miliar coins, made young America a paradise for counterfeit
moneys (Miller).
Because of the scarcity of U.S. Mint coinage, and a variety of foreign

legal tender, the people were generally unfamiliar with their currency.
This was even more true of paper currency, with state and local banks
all issuing their own notes. Eventually merchants needed to have coun-
terfeit “detectors” on hand to educate clerks as to the qualities and vari-
eties of all of the genuine monies then in circulation. Economic hard
52 Keith Davignon and Bradley S. Karolejf
times of the late 1 830s caused hoarding of coins, making fakes easier to
pass. When you combine this huge diversity of types of monies with a
general lack of education, you had incredibly fertile ground for coun-
terfeiting.
pete McCartney, BILL GURNEY,

THE KING OP COUNTERFEITERS. ALIAS *• BIG RILL,” THE <*,CEERSWA*V.
“CRANKY TOM” HALE, BILL DOW

KORORR AND COVKTRRF* I T K R. THE NOTED N. E. ••BOODLE-CARRIER.”
The psyche of the young nation was very much geared toward the
“American Dream Economic success was possible for everyone in this
.
vibrant, expanding economy. Nothing seemed impossible, and entre-

preneurship and speculation ran rampant. Ii you could not find some
venture with which to become wealthy, then you were looked upon as
a failure.As the country was expanding so rapidly to the west, land
speculation became a favorite way to get rich. Ii you could do your
speculating with counterfeit money, it became all the more profitable.
In a climate of bold speculation, this additional risk was not seen as
as to make it
being so great much of a deterrent. Counterfeiting was an
easyway to wealth, and the landscape was full oi men like Pete
McCartney and “Cranky Tom” Hale (see fig. 2).
Although counterfeiting still occurs today, it is certainly not a prob-
lem the average person ever has to deal with. Therefore it is difficult for
us to understand the magnitude of the problem counterfeiting was in
the early years of this country. It was the primary occupation of orga-
nized crime, and it is estimated by some that just prior to the Civil War,
nearly 50% of the money then in circulation was “bogus”.
This situation had some curious effects. Although people often
would find that they had been swindled with bogus money, the more
well-made counterfeits continued to circulate as if genuine until well
worn. In the rapidly expanding economy of the time, this probably had
an unintended positive effect, allowing the money supply to keep up
with the growth of the population and with the growth of business.
As a rule, there are not a lot of early contemporary counterfeit coins
to be found today. Not too many modern collectors have ever seen a
bogus bust dime or quarter, other than a modern counterfeit made to

deceive collectors. This is because the profit was to be made in paper
money. It was easier to make, the raw materials were cheap, and if you
were going to risk being caught, it was better to be making $5 a pass
than 5c, when the criminal penalties were the same.
The one exception to the “rule” of paper money counterfeiting
among early United States coins was the Capped Bust Half Dollar
(1807-1839). It was a popular target for many reasons, but foremost
because it was the largest denomination coin which was widely circu-
lated. A major cause ol this was the bimetallic legal tender system,
which set a ratio of the value of gold and silver. This system was con-
stantlyundermined by the forces of the free market. When this ratio
changed in the open world market, the overvalued metal would imme-
diately disappear from circulation. Because of the relative scarcity of
gold in the early nineteenth century, it was usually the large silver coins
which would disappearto be melted, and the bullion used to purchase
more coins which were melted, on and on. As Schilke and Solomon
point out in their book, America’s Foreign Coins :
Only a small group of “experts” such as bullion dealers,
silversmiths, goldsmiths, bankers, money changers and the

like were in a position to take advantage of the open invita-
tion presented by the situation. Some people benefited by
means of knowledge and facilities, operating in sufficient
volume to make good profits over expenses, but many oth-
ers were willing to participate with a supply of “capital” in
the form of bullion or coins. To uncoin money by melting

coins to bullion involved financial risk and incurred the dis-
pleasure of the government. (Mint Director) Boudinot
reported to President Adams on New Year’s Day 1 800: “The
Director is sorry to observe, that the practice of melting
down the coin of the United States, by workmen in gold
and silver, is, he fears, becoming too common, to the man-
ifest loss of the United States. As there are not any laws pro-
hibiting it, every one is left to his own discretion, which,
from the certainty of the standard, becomes so great a con-

venience, if not a pecuniary advantage, as to render the
prevalence of the practice almost beyond a doubt, if not

prohibited by law.”
This “endless chain” operation made it difficult to keep
domestic dollars in circulation. Secretary of State James
Madison instructed the Director on May 1, 1806: “In con-
sequence of a representation from the Directors of the Bank
of the United States, that considerable purchases have been
made of dollars coined at the Mint for the purpose of
exporting them, and as it is probable further purchases and

exportations will be made, the President directs that all the
silver to be coined at the Mint shall be of small denomina-

tions, so that the value of the largest piece shall not exceed
''
half a dollar.
Eagles suffered the same fate as dollars, mintage of both denomina-

tions having already been suspended. Except for half eagles and half
dollars, the minting of domestic gold and silver coins was generally
either in small quantities or nonexistent in some years until the early
1830s. The authorized eagles and dollars were not produced by the
Mint for over three decades, mintage being resumed upon weight and
fineness changes of domestic coins, and the alteration of the legal
coinage ratio in 1834.

The half dollar, as a result of this situation, became the largest
denomination silver coin to be produced for a period of over 30 years,

a period of history which was to become known as the heyday of coun-
terfeiting in this country. This chain of events set the stage for the
Capped Bust Half Dollar to become, along with the Spanish and
Mexican Dollars, the obvious targets for the coin counterfeiters of the
period. It is our belief that it was the popularity and recognizability of
the Capped Bust Efalf Dollar, combined with its high value at that
time, which made it, by far, the most commonly counterfeited United
States coin type of all time.
The Historical Context
Philip L. Mossman writes in Money of the American Colonies and

Confederation , A Numismatic, Economic, and Historical Correlation
(Mossman 1993):
...money, in whatever form — be commodities,
it
wampum, coin or paper —must be understood con- in the
text of a circulating medium of exchange. This holistic

approach to numismatics requires an appreciation of the
prevailing economic, political, and historical factors which
shaped the environment in which the money was current.
Without such an awareness, the coinages of this fascinating
era are reduced to interesting specimens in collectors’ cabi-

nets rather than active players in the living history of our
national tradition.
Philip Mossman’s words are a reflection of our beliefs that in order
to fully understand the items we collect we must also have an under-

standing of the times that produced them. Based on this belief we
would like to explore the political, social, and economic factors con-
tributing to the wide appearance of counterfeit half dollars during the
1820-1840 time period.
The appearance of the counterfeit half dollars in appreciable quanti-
ty began in the early 1820s. This is based on the belief that the coun-
terfeits were created on, or near, the date they bore. The first “common'’
hall dollar counterfeit was the 1823 1A. There are dates prior to this
known, but not in quantities that would indicate wide distribution. We

will therefore start with the events of 1820.
1820, Missouri was admitted to the Union as a free state as part of
the Missouri Compromise which stated that slavery was prohibited
north of 36 deg. 30 min. in the Louisiana Purchase Area. The question
of slavery would be a recurring problem throughout the next 40 years.
James Monroe defeated John Quincy Adams in a landslide victory in
the presidential election. The fourth census of the United States was
taken showing a population of approximately 1 0 million. This was a
30% increase during the last decade. New York City had a population
of 124,000 with Philadelphia close behind at 1 13,000. T here were 22
states in the union. 72% of the workforce was agricultural.
In 1821 Mexico granted Moses Austin rights to settle 300 families
in Texas. This would prove to be a problem area in the next decade.
Andrew Jackson was named governor of the Florida region after he for-
mally accepted the territory from Spain at a cost of 5 million dollars to
the U.S. Davy Crockett was elected to the Tennessee legislature. The
Saturday Evening Post was founded.

822 saw the replacement of Langdon Cheves by Nicholas Biddle as
1
President of The Bank of the United States. This appointment would

have interesting consequences during the Jackson administration.
Water powered cotton mills opened in Massachusetts. Rochester and

Albany, New York were linked by the Erie Canal, which would be com-
pleted in 1825. The United States formally recognized Latin American
states in their fight for independence from Spain. Stephen F. Austin
establishes the first American settlement in The Texas lerritory on

lands inherited from his father, Moses.

1823 saw “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (commonly known as “Twas
The Night Before Christmas”) printed for the first time in the Troy
Centennial. Stephen Long designates the boundary of the United States

and Canada in North Dakota. Argentina and Chile were formally rec-
ognized. The Monroe Doctrine was issued by the president in response
to the “Holy Alliance” of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France agreeing
to help Spain recover its lost territories in the New World. The Monroe
Doctrine stated that the United States would not stand by and let
European countries interfere in the affairs of any countries in the

Americas. This was the first time the United States attempted to influ-
ence the established powers of Europe diplomatically.
The Tariff Act of 1824 was approved by Congress, with the support
of Henry Clay, which protected American goods. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs was established. Brazil was the next South American country
recognized by our government. The Marquis de Lafayette arrived for
his yearlong tour of the U.S. In the west, the Great Salt Lake was dis-
covered. The presidential election was sent to the House of
Representatives when no candidate won a majority of the electoral
votes. Andrew Jackson, Senator from Tennessee and War of 1812 hero,
had 99 electoral votes. John Quincy Adams, the current Secretary of
State, had 84. W.H. Crawford, the Secretary of the Treasury, garnered
41, while Henry Clay, a Kentucky Congressman, controlled 37.
The Presidential Election of 1824 was decided in 1825 during a ses-
sion of The House of Representatives. John Quincy Adams was elected
President when he gained support from Henry Clay and his 37 elec-
toral votes. Adams then made Clay the Secretary of State in return for
his support. Jackson was angry over this seemingly underhanded way
he was defeated. He used this as ammunition in the next election. John

Stephens invented a steam locomotive for use on rail lines in Hoboken,
New Jersey. The Library of Congress suffered a major fire. Schools
began using John Pierpoint’s readers in the classroom. Robert Owen
purchases Harmony Indiana from George Rapp for $125,000. He
renames it New Harmony, Indiana. Rapp returns to Pennsylvania,
where he began. Akron, Ohio is planned in the path of the Ohio/Erie
Canal. The Erie Canal is completed linking New York City with Lake
Erie.
Peru gained independence in 1826 and establishes diplomatic rela-
tions with the United States. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both
die on the same day: the fourth of July, 50 years after the signing of the
Declaration of Independence. James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the
Mohicans is published.
One of the major issues of 1827 is the continuing tariff question.
The north wants higher tariffs to protect their products. The south, on
the other hand, does not like the higher prices they create. The tariff
bill is defeated when Vice President Calhoun casts the deciding vote.
Talk by some of the southern states about separating from the north
begins. The Supreme Court rules that the state militias may be mobi-
lized by the President. New York officially abolishes slavery. The first
sawmill in the Pacific Northwest is opened. Edgar Alan Poe has his first
book of poetry published. John Audubon issues “Birds of America” in

Scotland. New Harmony, Indiana fails.
In January, 1828 the “tariff of abominations act” was introduced in
Congress, designed with abnormally high tariffs. It was intended to be
defeated, but eventually passed as thought was that high tariffs were
better than none. Adams was blamed for the passage of the act and lost
the first hotly contested Presidential campaign to Jackson. High tariffs
haunted the new president when, in December of 1828, South

Carolina rebelled against them. South Carolina began the nullification
controversy as they threatened to secede from the Union. 1 828 also saw
the United States agree upon a boundary with Mexico at the Sabine
River. The Reciprocity Act is passed eliminating excessive duty on
goods with nations agreeing not to tax our exports to them. The
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad has their groundbreaking. The Delaware
and Hudson Canal begins shipping anthracite coal from Pennsylvania
to the eastern states. The funds to begin The Smithsonian Institution
were bequeathed by James Smithson. Websters Dictionary is published.

During the Inauguration of Andrew Jackson, in 1829, his support-
ers mob White House. The Chesapeake Canal is opened.
the he I
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad begins ferrying passengers over their first
section of rail using horse drawn railcars. William A. Burt obtained a
patent for the typewriter. The Guerrero Decree is issued eliminating
slavery in Mexico and its territories, including Texas. 1 his was later
amended to allow for slavery only in the Texas lerritory. Horatio Allen
demonstrated his English-built steam locomotive in Honesdale,
Pennsylvania, running it on Delaware and Hudson Company tracks.
The 1830 census showed almost 13 million people now populating
the United States. There are 73 miles of railroad track and 1,277 miles
of canals in the country. The city ol Chicago is planned. he first I
wagon train crosses the Rockies. Peter Cooper experimented with steam
running his locomotive, The Tom Thumb, on Baltimore and Ohio
tracks. He lost a race with a horsedrawn train due to mechanical fail-
ure, but this experiment forecast the future of transportation in the
United States. The Baltimore and Ohio Rail Company began manu-
facturing steam locomotives. Robert Stevens invents solid iron rails to
support the added weight of the new steam engines. The Removal Act
is signed by Jackson, moving the Indians west of the Mississippi.
1831 saw Henry Clay nominated to run against Andrew Jackson in
the next election by the newly formed Whig party. Steam railroads con-
tinue to make advances in transportation. In Albany, New York, Joseph

Henry invents an electric motor and a telegraph. Nat Turner incites a
Negro revolt in Virginia that kills numerous whites. He is later caught

and hanged for his crimes.
1832 was a very pivotal year for our interests. The Bank of the
United States applied for an early extension to their charter. They were
worried about criticism of their economic policies. Biddle, the presi-
dent of The Bank, thought he could push the recharter through

Congress against the wishes of President Jackson. Jackson said of the
Bank recharter, “Many of our rich men have not been content with
equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make
them richer by an act of Congress. ” The charter amendment was passed
by Congress but was vetoed by the President. There were not enough
votes to override the veto. This was one of the early skirmishes of the
great bank war between Jackson and the Bank of the United States. The
original charter had four more years to run, each of which would be a
year of war between Biddle and Jackson. Jackson and Van Buren were
selected to run for President and Vice President in the first Democratic
National Convention ever held. In New York City there was a cholera
epidemic that killed over 4,000. New Orleans also had cholera and yel-
low fever epidemics that killed in excess of 5,000. Henry Schoolcraft

discovered the source of the Mississippi River. Jackson defeated Henry
Clay 219 to 49 in electoral votes to remain president. Future president,
Martin Van Buren, was elected vice-president. Import tariffs were still
a major issue of the day in the south. South Carolina sought to nullify,
or ignore, the national laws and gave thought to separating from the
nation. Jackson, in December, wrote: “Can anyone of common sense
believe the absurdity that a state has a right to secede and destroy this
union and the liberty of your country with it, or nullify the laws of the
union; then is our Constitution a rope of sand; under such I would not
live.” Jackson sent reinforcements to the forts located in South Carolina
and sent warships to the coast to discourage revolt.
1833 saw political upheaval in the west. Plans for gaining indepen-
dence by Texas from Mexico were formulated. Sam Colt developed the
revolver. The Treasury Building in Washington burns. John Deere
invents a steel blade plow for cutting through the “western soils”. South
Carolina’s possible secession is put to rest by passage of Henry Clay’s
Compromise Tariff Act, which addressed many of the southern states’
concerns. Jackson then predicts, correctly, the next great problem with
the south, “the Negro or slavery question.” The bank war heated up
with Jackson ordering the withdrawal of government funds from the
Bank of the United States. They were deposited in numerous state
banks, called “pet banks” as they were chosen by the administration.

Jackson, in order to carry out his plan, had to make changes in his cab-
inet. His Treasury Secretary, William John Duane, refused to help and
was replaced by Roger Taney. Jackson referred to The Bank as 'the
hydra-headed monster” and “a threat to our liberty.’ 1 he President

views The Bank as an institution benefiting his political enemies and
vows to kill it before it kills him.
1834 saw Congress fight the appointment of Roger Taney as
Secretary of the Treasury. The British Empire abolishes slavery. Cyrus

McCormick patents his grain reaper. This reduced the need for season-
al help on the farms and thus reduced the price of grain. Henry Clay
was successful in getting Congress, by a vote of 26 to 20, to censure
President Jackson for his removal of the funds from I he Bank ol the
United States without Congressional approval. 1 he Coinage Act of

1834 is passed mandating a 16:1 ratio of silver to gold. 1 his resulted in
silver being overvalued compared to gold, and removed it from circula-
tion creating economic difficulties.
1835 saw Congress authorize new mints in the cities of New

Orleans, Charlotte, and Dahlonega. France, responding to demands
from Jackson in 1834, agrees to pay claims for damages from the
Napoleonic Wars. Colt obtained a patent for his revolver and develops
plans for a factory in Hartford, Connecticut. The Liberty Bell cracks
while tolling the death of Chief Justice John Marshall. Civil War breaks
out in Texas. President Jackson survives the first assassination attempt
on an American President by Richard Lawrence when both of his pis-
tols misfire.
The Alamo falls to Mexican troops in 1836 after 12 days of fighting.

187 Americans are killed in the battle including Jim Bowie and Davy
Crockett. Santa Anna was eventually captured and agreed to acknowl-
edge Texas’s independence. Sam Houston becomes the first President of
Texas. The United States Mint produces its first steam press coins.
Arkansas becomes the 25th state being admitted as a slave state.
Michigan is to be admitted next year as a free state. The McGujfey

Readers come out in Cincinnati, Ohio schools. Martin Van Buren is
elected President declaring to carry on the ideals of President Jackson.

No candidate wins the majority of votes needed to be elected vice-pres-
ident, which will now be decided by the Senate. The Bank of the
United States has its original charter lapse and is rechartered as a state
bank under the laws of Pennsylvania. It becomes The Bank of the
United States of Pennsylvania.
1837 — Financial Panic! The country falls on hard times after the
boom of the last decade collapses. Some of the accepted causes of the
panic include:
1. The 10 year boom in business, banking, transportation, and western
land acquisition led to excessive borrowing.
2. The demise of The Bank of the United States which was a conserva-
tive banking institution.
3. The Specie Circular. The order by President Jackson that federal land
sales be made only for specie, hard currency, and not banknotes.
This removed the specie (gold and silver) from circulation. There are
some who believe that the widespread use of counterfeit paper

money to speculate in land was a major cause of this proclamation.
4. Failure of 1836’s wheat crop.
5. 50% drop in the price of cotton hurting growers in the south and
brokers in the north.
6. Failure of three banks in England.
7. Downturn in European businesses.
8. Overseas banks calling American short term notes causing specie to
be lost to these nations.
9. These factors caused many United States bank failures and unem-
ployment.
Texas’s bid for statehood is rejected, due to anti-slavery votes by the

Whig party. Jackson leaves office, his legacy of Jacksonian Democracy,
a belief of deep conflict between rich and poor, the business communi-
ty and the farmers and laborers is left behind. Michigan is admitted as
the 26th state as a free state. This keeps the balance of 13 states for and
13 against slavery. A smallpox epidemic decimates the Indian Tribes in
the west. Samuel Morse applies for a patent for the telegraph.
1 838 sees President Van Buren dealing with the problems he inher-
ited from Jackson. The first successful silk mill is opened in
Connecticut. Race problems continue to be a national problem. The

Specie Circular, the law requiring hard currency for land purchases, is
repealed. Morse develops his code for use with the telegraph. Britain
begins transatlantic steamship service. The “Trail of Tears”, a forced
march of 18,000 of the Cherokee Tribe from their ancestral home in
Georgia westward, occurs.

1 839, France recognizes Texas as an independent nation. The Whig
party nominates William Flenry Harrison to run for president. He
defeated Henry Clay for the right to run against Van Buren in the elec-
tion. Erastus Bigelow develops the power loom for weaving two-ply
carpet. D.S. Rockwell invents the corn planter. American farmers sell
more than 84 million bushels of wheat. Charles Goodyear develops

rubber making. Abner Doubleday writes the rules for baseball.
1840 sees William Henry Harrison elected President on the slogan
of “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too!” At 67 years old, he is our oldest
President to date. The first dental college in the United States is opened
8
in Baltimore. The first postage stamps from the United States are
issued. The population has now surpassed the 17 million mark. This is
nearly a 33% increase during the last decade. There are now over 2,8 1
miles of railroad track and 3,326 miles of canals in the United States.
The agricultural workforce now is only 69% of the population.
The Administration of John Quincy Adams
The 1820s was the decade of the industrial revolution. Steamboats

traveling on the rivers reduced the cost and time it took to ship raw
materials to the factories and the manufactured products to market.
The railroads were expanding and improving to challenge the canals as
the premiere method of shipping and travel. The mechanization of

farming reduced the number of laborers needed to run the farms and
allowed farmers to expand their size.
The westward movement of the population continued during the

decade of the 1820s. Farmers, as well as merchants and tradesmen,
came west to settle and build towns. Louisville, Kentucky and
Cincinnati, Ohio, grew to populations of over 35,000. The Erie Canal,
after completion in 1825, opened immigration into Michigan and
Wisconsin via the Great Lakes. The Mississippi River Valley was the
center of commerce for the western states. Goods were shipped via flat-
boat, then later steamboat, to New Orleans. From there ocean going
ships transported the merchandise to the east coast and overseas ports.
Many major counterfeiting operations could be found just west of the
United States border at this time, immune from prosecution, with
access to this river-based transportation system.
Theaters were popular forms of entertainment in the 1820s.
Traveling companies ventured as far west as St. Louis. American litera-
ture began to emerge using legends and frontier stories as bases for their
tales. Greek Revival Architecture was the most popular until the Civil
War era. Portraiture, long the staple income for artists, began to give
way to landscape and nature paintings. Photography began to develop
in the late 1830s, which nearly supplanted portraiture painting.
There was a continuous increase in manufacturing facilities and pro-
ductivity during the 1820s in the United States. An example of this was
seen in the increased number of spindles used for manufacturing tex-
tiles. In 1805 there were 4,500 spindles in use, this increased to 87,000
in 1810, 130,000 in 1815, 1820 saw 220,000 in use, and by 1825 there
were 800,000! Cotron was the export staple, mainly to England. There
was movement westward geographically, and upward socially, for the
American population. There was great wealth to be created in the seem-

ingly endless natural resources of the young nation.
Labor parties came into being to protect the rights of the growing
numbers of laborers in the cities. These unions attempted to unite
workers on city and statewide levels. Numerous lawsuits over the legal-
ity of these unions resulted with decisions on each side of the issue. The
financial panic of 1837 put to rest labor questions for a couple of years
as workers had to accept whatever terms were offered, or someone else
would be happy to take their place.

During the 1820s more of the population became involved in polit-
ical matters. This decade saw the first real competition for the
Presidency. Monroe was the last “Great Virginian”, and automatic can-
didate for election. There was great controversy over the election ol
1 824 where the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams
President. This led to the formation of a new political party, the
Democratic-Republicans. Andrew Jackson led the field in electoral
votes with 99, but did not have the majority needed to secure the
Presidency. Adams was next with 84 and he forged a deal with Henry
Clay, who was fourth. Clay gave support to Adams, and with his elec-
toral votes won the election. Jackson was angry over what he thought
was an underhanded deal when Clay was named Secretary ol State in
Adams’s administration.
The tariff laws of the United States divided the manufacturers who
viewed them as necessary, and the merchants who wanted lower costs
for their imports. The conservative banking system was against the
expansion of credit, which protected the manufacturers of the north-
east. Cotton prices reached a high in 1818 of 30.8 cents per pound.
They dropped by 1831- Hie Bank of the United States
to 8.3 cents
declined to support southern businesses with credit during this drop in

prices. 1822 saw imports at $18.5 million more than exports. I here
were an estimated 500,000 unemployed in 1820. One of the main

issues of the day was States rights versus the National rights.
As secretary of state, Adams had defended die country s internation-
al business interests and supported territorial expansion. He obtained

the cession of Florida from Spain and stopped Russian expansion in the
Pacific Northwest. He envisioned the westward expansion of the

United States to that point.
The Administration of Andrew Jackson
Jackson entered the White House immediately after the death of his
wife, Rachel. He took any opposition personally, often becoming vio-
lent as he participated in several duels. He promised to rid Washington
of many of the bureaucrats, streamlining government. This made many
of the officials in Washington nervous as they feared for their careers.
The average citizen in the cities was better informed than ever
before. The newspaper industry grew from 90 papers in 1789 to 800 in
1829.
Steamboats were still the first choice of travelers, soon to be replaced
by the railroads. The transportation revolution brought about econom-
ic revolution, allowing farmers ready markets for their excess crops.
Additionally, increased manufacturing brought about a need for addi-
tional financing. This created the need for additional credit, and to fill
the need state banks were formed to supply the capital. The number of
state banks grew from 88 in 1811, with capital of $23 million, to 330
in 1830, with capital of $61 million. This included the capital of $13
million in the second Bank of the United States. Public land sales dur-
ing this period almost quadrupled.
Slavery issues came to the forefront of the political and social scene.
Nat Turner’s slave rebellion began in Virginia in August of 1831.

Abolitionists began attacking the ownership of slaves with papers, pam-
phlets and speeches. Many riots were caused by the actions of the
Abolitionists. Slaves numbered about 2 million in 1830.
Foreign policy was preoccupied with the deteriorating relationship
with Mexico resulting in the siege of the Alamo in 1836. The defeat of
Mexico gave rise to the idea of Manifest Destiny — to spread the coun-
try westward, both physically and with products and ideals. Some
wanted to expand to all of the Americas.
New England towns depended on the whaling and textile industries
major sources of income. Also, trade with China through the

as their
Hawaiian Islands was centered in the New England states.

By 1830 New York supplanted Philadelphia as the largest city, pre-
mier seaport, and the financial center of the United States when
Jackson dissolved The Bank of the United States.
Americans, for the first time, had discretionary income to spend.

The national obsession with wealth pushed many investors to overex-
tend themselves hoping to make more money. This led to a split in the
agrarian and old ways of doing things, and the commercial interests
hoping for a revolution fueled by liberal credit. The more money peo-
ple had to spend, the more sales they could make. Greed was rampant,
there was easy money to be made, with counterfeiting being one of the
easiest.
Andrew Jackson and the Bank War
Bad land speculation deals, early in his life, led Jackson to have a fear
of credit and speculation. Banks were heavily involved with land spec-
ulation, issuing easily counterfeited paper notes as payment, causing
Jackson to dislike them. Jackson became very conservative, affecting his
thinking as President years later.
Jackson arrived on the political scene as the country was in transition
from revolutionary aristocrats of government to new homegrown lead-
ers. Virginians’ hold on central government was over, and other parts of
the country were ready to assume leadership.

The First Bank of the United States was developed by Alexander
Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington. The
main bank was located in Philadelphia, with branches in other major
cities. The Bank was a depository of government funds, an agent for the
collection of taxes; issuing notes redeemable in specie which were
accepted for tax payments, thus increasing the money supply to finance
the country’s growth. The main argument against this system was that
a private institution would almost control the country’s finances, and

that institution was run by wealthy northerners. Hamilton believed
The Bank would benefit the entire country providing financial stabili-
ty and flexible credit. The first charter expired in 1811 and was not
immediately renewed; inflation resulted, driving specie from circula-
tion and necessitating the issuance of private “shinplasters by mer-

chants to use as small change. President James Madison, in 1816, char-
tered the Second Bank of the United States for 20 years. 1 he Banks
first president was Captain William Jones, who was a political
appointee of Madison. He was inept at the job and involved 1 he Bank

in questionable operations. A Congressional investigation ensued and
The Bank’s stock dropped, forcing his resignation.
In 1819 Langdon Cheves, a former Congressman and Speaker of the
House from South Carolina, replaced Jones and brought The Bank
back from the brink of insolvency at the expense of the American pub-
lic. Cheves called loans and mortgages, and presented state bank notes
for payment in specie. Many private banks had overspeculated and were
forced into insolvency, which drove many investors into bankruptcy.
The resulting depression was part of a worldwide panic made worse in
the United States by these actions. The states moved to reduce the
effects of this money tightening by The Bank of the United States.
Many western states passed ’‘stay laws” to prevent The Bank from fore-
closing on loans. Many of Jackson’s future political appointees from
these states, especially Kentucky, resented The Bank for these actions.
In 1823 Nicholas Biddle was appointed the next president of The

Bank of the United States. Biddle was often described as intelligent,
articulate, an aristocrat, wealthy, and handsome. He was a
Philadelphian, and a friend of President Monroe. He was also arrogant

and vain, two qualities that would get him in trouble with President
Jackson in the years to come. Biddle had a habit of covering up prob-
lems rather than solving them. He also showed favoritism in loan prac-
tices. Biddle exerted control over smaller state run banks by either hold-
ing or redeeming, for specie, their bank notes. By 1828 The Bank of
the United States had become too large for the good of the country.
Biddle had the power to ruin state banks at will. His bank wrote 20%
of the country’s loans, circulated 20% of the nation’s notes, and held
33% of the country’s deposits.
The Bank of the United States worked against Jackson in the elec-
tion of 1828, lending money to his opponents and denying loans to
Jackson’s supporters. This deepened Jackson’s resolve to attack Biddle
and The Bank.
.
Jackson and Biddle were each unwilling to compromise, forcing

Biddle into a corner. Biddle tried to get around Jackson’s authority by
asking for a recharter four years early, in 1832, an election year. This
became one of the main political issues of that election between Jackson
and Henry Clay. Jackson was against the early recharter and Clay sup-
ported it. 1 he bill for recharter was passed by Congress and The House
of Representatives in 1832. The bill was then vetoed by Jackson who
said this of The Bank: “...it was a monopoly whose profits came out ol
the pockets of the poor and served only to enrich foreign stockholders
and a few hundred of our richest citizens... I can not permit the prosti-
tution of our government to the advancement of the few at the expense
of the many” (. Annals ofAmerica) Jackson was the first President who
made extensive use ol his veto power. He vetoed more bills than all his
predecessors combined which caused future Congresses to consider

Presidential views more closely. Jackson’s veto language was written to
members of Congress. Jackson believed he was
the electorate, not to the
representing the demands of the average American in objecting to the
power and practices of The Bank. As a result, this issue became the
number one question in the next presidential election.
The Bank of the United States spent an estimated $100,000 to
defeat Jackson in the election of 1 832. This, in fact, was using the gov-
ernment’s money against the present administration. Jackson ran on the
“people democracy” vs. Clay, The Bank, the aristocracy. In reality,
Jackson made the central government larger and the office of the
President stronger. Jackson’s policy of a strong office gave rise to a new
political party —The Whigs.
Jackson removed government funds from The Bank and deposited
them in “pet banks”, which were state chartered banks chosen by the
administration. In October 1833 there were only 7 of these pet banks

in the nation. The number increased to 22 by the end of the year and
to over 90 by 1 836.
Biddle fought back at the administration for removing the govern-
ment money by curtailing credit throughout the United States. I he
Bank also began only accepting specie payment for loans. Businesses at
that time were expanding rapidly and needed capital. he Bank’s tight- 1
ening of credit shut down the expansions and created unemployment.

Bankruptcies dramatically increased and wages and prices declined.

Biddle's actions, that helped bring on the recession, finally cost The
Bank in public opinion. The Bank was doomed when Jackson declared
that their drafts were no longer acceptable for payment of taxes.
Jackson inadvertently, through the creation of many new state
banks, helped fuel the industrial revolution. 1 hese new banks, with
deposits from the federal government, had to lend the money, which
was used for speculation. Many individuals used these loans to expand
or create businesses.
Cotton prices had been rising during the time period just previous
to the panic of 1837. In 1834 they were 11 cents per pound and
reached 16 cents per pound by the next year. Much of the profits gen-
erated by this increase went into the coffers of The Bank. Land sales
had also tripled from 1834 to 1835. The United States, as a country,
was out of debt and amassing a surplus from the increased land sales.
The 1 830s was a decade of growth for industry in the East. Profits
fueled internal improvements —mainly roads and canals. The popula-

tion grew by 50%. There was an increased demand for laborers, not
only for state-financed improvements, but for the construction of new

rail lines. Cotton was the number one export for the country at a total
of $50 million for 1835. By 1837 most banks were working on a ratio
of 10:1 to 30:1 of paper versus specie. This glut of paper (including
counterfeits) financed much of the internal improvements of the coun-
try. Bonds were being sold on the international market on time credit.
English concerns were the major purchasers of these bonds. There was
not enough specie on hand to guarantee the amounts of notes circulat-
ed by the banks.
America was a demographic and commercial success, and
the normal rules of monetary usage did not hold. Faced
with an economy that constantly outstripped the orthodox
money supply, Americans did what they had done before:
they replied with an unorthodox one. Just as the
Constitution was taking force, just as it was seeking to chan-
nel America’s money into a particular direction, the
prospective users of that money were cutting a path of their
own, with the paper note, from the private bank. And paper
—
money, not coinage, would be king for the next three-quar-

ters of a century.
It (paper money) had fueled their industries, financed
their ships, and fostered their farms. It had gone with them
everywhere, and the spread of the private bank note reflect-
ed the westward expansion of the Republic itself (Doty

1998).
June 1836 saw the passage of The Act to Distribute Government

Surplus to States and Regulation of Deposit Banks. The excess in the
treasury over $5 million was to be distributed to the states in quarterly
payments. The deposit banks could not hold the government money in
excess of 75% of their paid-in capital. This would fuel the economy and
speculation causing inflation. The last installment from this act was
never paid to the states.
In July, The Specie Circular was issued dictating that government

land sales could only be made in specie or Virginia Land Script. This
was issued to curb the effects of the distribution act and help keep infla-
tion in check.
During this time period England was losing gold to foreign trade.
This loss was blamed mainly on trade with the United States. The Bank
of England took steps to curb this cycle and the price of cotton dropped
significantly. Debts in the United States that were secured by cotton
became almost worthless, which was a factor in the suspension of specie
payments by the state banks.
In 1836 European houses began calling loans demanding specie pay-
ments.1835—
This led to the depletion of specie from the holdings of the
United1836—
States banks. This depletion, combined with the effects of the
specie circular, curtailed land deals, tightened credit, and exposed ques-
tionable banking practices by the state chartered banks.
Public land sales for the three years preceding the panic:
1834 4,658,000 acres
12,564,000 acres
20,074,000 acres
The banks lent out notes to speculators to purchase the lands. It was
then paid to the sellers who deposited it with the banks which then sent
it out for new loans in a seemingly never ending cycle. The notes that
the bank lent out were a promise to pay in specie, but were actually
backed by, generally, less than 10% real money.
First, in order of time as well as of importance, of the
long train of events that prepared the way for the panic of
1837, was the destruction of the United States Bank, and

the subsequent removal of deposits. The banks selected to
receive these governmental funds immediately began to
extend their loans; while the hope of obtaining a portion of

the deposits led to the creation of hundreds of new banks.
Merchants were tempted and invited to borrow from the
banks in order to enlarge their business operations. The
value of all kinds of property rose to fabulous heights. Men
of limited resources, in their mad haste to be rich, bought
land, city lots, and stocks. A restless spirit of adventure and
daring enterprise swept the nation. Over-trading, specula-
tion, and investments in unproductive undertakings
became the dominant note in American society. The sales of
public lands outstripped the wildest expectations; and as
our nation paid off its debt, and began to pile up a surplus
in the treasury, largely as a result of the sales of the public

domain, our credit was expanded to maintain the over-
action in trading. When such credit could not be secured
here, the American people were confident it could be
obtained abroad. Thus a large foreign indebtedness was
incurred at a time when our imports were exceeding our
exports (Temin 1969).
This resulted in the following events:
1. June, 1836 Act for distribution of the surplus revenue to the states.
2. Treasury’s order to transfer public money from points of receipt to
other areas to ready it for distribution.
3. July 11, 1836. Specie Circular issued, stating only gold and silver is
to be received for sale of public lands.

4. Government is forced to make demands on deposit banks for specie.
5. Banks demanded specie from customers at a time of crop shortages.
6. The next spring banks pressed merchants as well as foreign creditors.
Money that had been readily available now suddenly became very
scarce. Spurious notes issued by individuals and corporations, contrary
to law, took up for the lack of small currency. This was a major prob-
lem as many could not be redeemed and the public was at a loss for the
value of the notes they held. By 1839 agricultural products dropped in

price due to abundant harvest and shortage of currency. This hurt the
western states — Ohio, Tennessee, Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Wisconsin and Michigan. Counterfeits circulated heavily, and barter
became popular again. Demand notes were often redeemable for farm
produce, such as horses, cows, and pigs.
There was a huge demand for coinage for everyday trade, and
American greed and ingenuity helped fill this void with the largest pro-
duction of counterfeit bills and coins in the history of our nation.
The Means and the Methods

It is obvious from studying these “contemporary counterfeits” that
they were executed with varying degrees of skill. Some are so crude as
to be laughable; others are so clever as to continue to deceive even expe-
rienced numismatists today!

Little is known about the specific origins of these coins, as very few
of the counterfeiters were caught and successfully prosecuted. As one
would expect, successful counterfeiters had money with which
a lot of
to bribe their jailers and prosecutors and, even when apprehended, sel-
dom faced justice. All we have left to tell the tale are the coins them-
selves, along with the shreds of evidence we can piece together from the
historical record.
Many different methods were employed to produce the bogus half

dollars of the period. Among the early attempts, cast copies ol soft met-
als were popular but easily detected. The first widely successful were
those made from homemade dies. The earliest ol those, made in the
1820s and early 1830s, were struck in copper, bronze, or brass, and
then plated in a silver-colored chemical solution, or “wash”. Until these
“coins” circulated lor a while, wearing off the surface coating of silver,
they were hard to detect if the dies were well made, and some of them
were, as you can see from fig. 3 below.
Counterfeit Cupped Bust Half Dollars 73
This particular coin is so well executed that an example was graded

and encapsulated by PCGS in the late 1980s as AU 50. This isn’t meant
to be critical of PCGS, although I think that the dealer who submitted
the coin meant it to be. Rather, it is a testimony to the talent of the
early counterfeiter who produced the dies. You have to wonder whether
some of the legitimate token and medal engravers of the time, or per-
haps even a U.S. Mint engraver or employee, was doing a little moon-
lighting. There are those who would suggest that these dies are “too
good”, and that the counterfeiters somehow got hold of genuine mint
hubs or dies with which to ply their illegal trade. We’ll discuss this at
greater length later.

Other home-made dies were not so perfect, as evidenced by the
example shown in fig. 4. But as poor a rendition as this may seem to a
numismatist today, these were produced in huge quantities in factory
like settings, probably in Mexico, and passed successfully for many
years.
Fig. 4. Bogus half struck from “homemade” dies.
One of the big technological breakthroughs which aided in the suc-

cess of these factories was the invention of a new metal alloy. In 1837,
Dr. Lewis Feuchtwanger produced a metal that consisted of nickel, cop-

per, and zinc, and suggested to Congress that his metal be substituted
lor copper in the manufacture of small-denomination coinage. In 1837
he produced one-cent and three-cent trial pieces in order to promote
his idea of having the United States adopt this alloy as an official metal
for coins. Of course, he would supply the mint with the planchets at a
handsome profit. While the U.S. Mint never did employ the use of
“Feuchtwanger’s metal”, counterfeiters certainly seized the opportunity!
Cheap and easy to work with, “German Silver”, as “Feuchtwanger’s
metal” is commonly known, is an alloy with no actual silver, but a sim-
ilar weight and the look of worn silver. Die-struck bogus halves of this
metal were successfully passed in large quantities during the 1830s, and
into the early 1840s.
According to Don Taxay in his popular book Counterfeit Mis-Struck
and Unofficial U.S. Coins (Taxay 1966):
Aside from gold, there are only a few major exceptions to
cast counterfeiting. These are predominantly early coins,

mostly bust type half dollars which have generally been
struck in German Silver, a yellow-white alloy of about 55%
copper, 30% zinc and 15% nickel. (In rare instances, most-
ly early, where the alloy is copper and silver, a superficially
good color is given to the coin by pickling the blank

planchet; the surface copper is thus dissolved, leaving only
the fine silver).
Fig. 5. Obverse die for counterfeit half 1831 3/C.

Fig. 5 and the illustrations that follow, provide a few examples of

tools and dies which were used to make bogus half dollars. These par-
ticular dies seem to be made to be struck with a heavy hammer.
Fig. 6. Actual coin struck from die shown above.
Fig. 7. The “Settlement” exhibit, Michigan Historical Museum, Lansing, MI. The actu-
al die is an engraved steel plate, which can be seen behind the “tool”. Holes in the plate
were used to hold it in place in the tool while it was struck, probably with a heavy ham-
mer. The round “blob” seen in the foreground of the photo, to the left of the tool, is a
wax impression of the die, which is dated 1832.
The magnitude of the coin counterfeiting problem in this country

was first brought to public attention in abook written by J.L. Riddell,
A Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad. Written in 845, this 1
book lists illustrations and assays of 37 different varieties of spurious

half dollars dated 1814-1839. Several varieties of the coins illustrated in
this 150 year old book are still found today.
J.L. Riddell, M.D., was a melter and refiner in the U.S. Mint at New
Orleans. He was also a professor of chemistry at the medical college of
Louisiana. In 1845 he published his treatise on counterfeits in an
attempt to educate the public as to the serious problem of the circulat-
ing “contemporary counterfeits”, the Mexican 8 real and the U.S. bust
half dollar in particular. “Illustrated with fac-simile figures of four hun-
dred and twenty-five varieties of dollars, and eighty-seven varieties of
half dollars, including the genuine, the low standard, and the counter-
feit; giving their weight, quality and exact value, and enabling the inex-
perienced to detect those which are spurious.” This lengthy subtitle
pretty much describes the contents of this early expose on bogus coins.
Perhaps the most interesting of Dr. Riddell’s remarks are those

describing the process of making genuine dies, and how this con-
tributed to the proliferation of coin counterfeiting in the years prior to
the introduction of modern coin making technology in 1836:
It is no small labor to engrave a steel die de novo, in a fin-
ished style, and with a complicated design; and it is perhaps

unattainable by art to counterfeit perfectly, or in other
words, to produce by engraving in steel, an exact fac-simile
of such a die. Hence the security of well made dies, proper-
ly guarded, against the production of spurious money.
The following, at the present day, is the most approved
method of preparing dies for coinage; The artist, in the first
place, engraves many of the objects to be represented on the

coin upon distinct steel punches, such as the bust, figures,
letters, and items that are repeated in the legend, coat of
arms, &c. With these he proceeds to make female dies, sim-

ilar to those used in coining, finishing the same, and adding
thereto by engraving: a work altogether that for a single pair
of dies, sometimes occupies many months. When complet-
ed, the steel is hardened, and thus is made a pair of original
dies. The impressions are then communicated by great pres-

sure, careful annealing, pressure again, the pressing and
annealing being successively many times repeated, until the
whole designs are perfectly transferred, resembling in steel
the coins to be formed. Thus a pair of king dies to be used

in stamping gold or silver. The impression in the female dies

having been made perfect, a steel punch is used to add prob-
ably the last figure of the date, and another punch perhaps
for a mint mark. The whole surface of the female dies is
then ground very slightly convex and polished; after which
they are hardened and again polished.
It may be inferred from their coins for the last forty years,
that the French and English pursue the foregoing plan or

others equally systematic. Those coins are very rarely coun-
terfeited. The mint of the United States has also pursued a
like regular system in the production of dies since the year
1 836, although there have occasionally been changes in the
original dies. It is hence easy to detect any counterfeits of
the coins dated since. Previous to that date the dies were
much more irregularly produced, and as a consequence
many counterfeits, especially of the Half Dollar, have been
made and put in circulation, which the ordinary observer
cannot well distinguish from those which are good.
The coins of Mexico are particularly obnoxious to this
fault. There are seven Mexican mints, each of which uses

differently made dies; and in the same mint the dies seem to
have often been arbitrarily changed.
Their working dies seem to be made directly from steel
punches, for while among many coins many similar items

can be identified, their relative position varies somewhat.
Perhaps no coin has ever been more extensively and vari-
ously counterfeited, during the same length of time, than
the Mexican Dollar. This could not have been done, had
similarity and regularity prevailed in the dies with which
they have been stamped.
The dies used in stamping the coins of the United States
at the present time, though very fair, might yet be material-
ly improved, so as to give additional security against a spu-
rious circulation. The very highest order of the die sinking
art, should be put in requisition for the production of a
series of original dies, which should be adhered to for a long
and definite term of years; when, if desirable, they might

give place to another series of dies equally elaborate and per-
fect. The strictest uniformity should also be maintained in
respect to the diameter, thickness, and finish of the coins.
It is easy to see by Riddell’s comments that it was not only the large
variety of foreign and domestic coin types in circulation at that time

which confused the public, providing fertile ground for counterfeiters,
but it was also the amount of variety in genuine dies of a single coin
type!
Mexican dollars make up a principal part of the specie
circulation of this country. Of these, as generally met with,

about one in one hundred is counterfeit, and sometimes the
proportion is very much greater. The great number of dif-
ferent stamps (dies) borne by the good Mexican dollars, ren-
ders the detection of the bad ones, ordinarily, rather diffi-

cult (Riddell 1845).
While die variety collectors of today are thankful for this lack of per-
fect uniformity in Bust Half Dollar dies prior to 1836, so were the
counterfeiters!
Means of detection of counterfeit coins were most important to the

merchants of the early- to mid-nineteenth century who were being con-
stantly swindled by bogus money. W.E. Dubois, Assayer of the U.S.
Mint, Philadelphia, offered the following advice in the Daily Press Jan.
,
25, 1877:
The genuineness of a half-dollar is something worth
looking after, to any of us, and especially to a storekeeper,
taking them often through the day. It is, therefore, worth

the trouble to have on the counter one or two witnesses easy
to be had.
First a balance —which need be no more than a thin strip
of wood, eight or ten inches long neatly poised. Place a

good piece on one end and the suspected piece on the other
and have a weight of three grains at hand; ii the difference
is more than that decline taking the piece.

Second, a liquid test composed as follows, twenty-lour
grains of nitrate of silver in crystals, one gramme (say 15

grains) of nitric acid and one ounce of water. Any druggist

can put this up in a small bottle with a pointed glass stop-
per made for lifting drops, taking care to use pure ingredi-
ents. Remove a little of the surface of the coin by a knife and
then touch the place with a drop from the stopper. If good
there will be no action, if bad it will blacken at once.
As for pieces struck from dies, they are generally such
poor imitations that the taken almost deserves to lose by
them. The writer has chosen to speak mainly of the half dol-
lar, because these are chiefly complained of, and the lesser
pieces are less likely to be imitated. Still some men seem to
take a pride in this despicable work, even if it yield a small
profit. In the long run counterfeiters are never enriched and

their sequel is generally in prison walls.
Riddell’s assays of dozens of bogus half dollars yielded the following

observations as to methods of manufacturing:
Most counterfeit coins will be found to belong to one of
the two following classes: 1st, Those which have been pro-
duced by impressions with steel dies. 2nd, Those which
have been formed in molds of plaster, lead, type metal or
fusible metal, either by casting, or by the deposition of
metal under the influence of galvanism.
1st. Those that are coined by means of dies.

Except in a few rare instances where the authentic dies
have been stolen, these coins can be detected by comparison
with the genuine coin, or a facsimile print thereof, as given
in this work. The material commonly used is a debased alloy

of silver or gold; silver being combined with an undue pro-
portion of copper, to which is sometimes added zinc, tin,
nickel, &c., to improve the color. In cases where the alloy is
copper and silver, a good color externally is given to the coin

by scrubbing it in aqua ammonia, or boiling it in diluted
sulfuric atid, or some other pickling menstruum, which dis-
solves away the copper and leaves the fine silver. In this way,
counterfeits of good appearance are made, which are
sonorous, like the genuine coin. They usually range in com-

position from 1 50- 1 OOOths to 750-1000ths of fine silver,
while genuine Dollar silver has a fineness not far from 900-
1 OOOths. Many of these counterfeits may be detected by
cutting or rubbing as the copper thereby becomes apparent.
The energetic action of nitric acid when applied, affords
also instructive indications. But the varieties more rich in
silver are not thus to be easily distinguished. A careful com-

parison of stamps is then to be chiefly relied upon. If these
false coins are not too bulky (too large in thickness or diam-
eter), they are necessarily too light; for silver has a higher
specific gravity than copper, and the more coppery an alloy
of the two metals is made, the lighter does it become.

According to Eckfeldt and Dubois, ( Manual of Coins and
Bullion, page 185,) fine or pure silver hammered has a den-
sity compared with distilled water as unity of 10.55
Alloyed with copper, and 900-1 OOOths fine, 10.30
“ “
: 800 10.14
“ “
: 750 10.05
“ “
: 700 9.96
“ “
: 650 9.88
“ 600 “ 9.80
:
“
: 550 9.71
“ “ 9.64
: 500
Copper, 8.80
Hence, by obtaining the specific gravity of a sonorous sil-
ver coin, (directions for doing which may be found in all
treatises upon chemistry and natural philosophy,) we may

conjecture pretty closely as to the proportion of silver it
contains.
2nd. Spurious Coins made in moulds ol plaster, lead,
type or fusible metal.
Coins thus made are usually perfect fac-similes of the
genuine coins from which they are patterned. I he following
seems to be one of the villainous plans frequently put in exe-

cution. A complete plaster cast is taken horn a coin, alter

the manner in which stereotyping is performed. 1 his is
moderately backed and adjusted into a mould into which

some alloy of lead, antimony, tin, zinc, & c., analogous to
type-metal, is poured in a melted state. When cold, the cast
is removed, finished up, and sometimes nicely silvered over.
These alloys are too soft, and usually too light, and cannot
be made to ring like the genuine coins. Hence they are easy
to be detected.
Of late years the curious powers of galvanism have been

pressed into the service of counterfeiters. It is probable they
first compress the coin into lead, or semifluid fusible metal,
to procure accurate types of their business. Upon the types

thus formed copper is deposited, under the well known
influence of a galvanic current, adapting itself to the most
delicate features of the types. When the copper has attained
sufficient thickness it is removed from the types, finished
up, and the two sides brazed or soldered together, so as to
imitate the original coins. Afterwards the whole is delicate-
ly silvered over by the same potent means, galvanism. I have

seen spurious coins of this sort, that seem to have been
deposited in a mould all at one operation, as there were no
signs of soldering apparent.
The coins of galvanic production are usually much too

light. A person moderately conversant with hard money
would instantly perceive the deficiency in weight by merely
handling them. It is true the color might be good, and the
impression genuine; but a slight cut or scratch would bring
to light the copper, and a close inspection, especially with a
magnifying glass, would reveal the cheat, by presenting the
fine and sharp lines and corners of the impression rounded,
blunted, and perhaps partially obliterated, by the deposition
thereon of the silver.
Fig. 8. Examples of cast counterfeits.
Evidence and Suspicion
The Historic Relics
The counterfeiters of the past have left only their handiwork for us
to study. There are no minting records or other documents of their
manufacture for our study. This leaves us to gather all our knowledge
from the “coins” themselves and the limited contemporary accounts of
their activities. Keith Davignon, in his book, Contemporary Counterfeit
Capped Bust Half Dollars, assembles some of the counterfeits into
groups based on their similar characteristics. He theorizes that each of
the counterfeits in that group were made by the same minter. The
majority of the die varieties for the counterfeits were made from rather
crude imitations of the originals. These crude attempts, although

accounting for many die varieties, actually are responsible for a minor-
ity of the extant specimens. They were generally made inmuch small-
er quantities than the varieties we would like to review. The following
groups were selected due to their similarities to each other and the fact
that, for some of the varieties, there are numerous surviving specimens.
This large population, and uniform appearance, suggest a more sophis-
ticated counterfeiting operation. These pieces could not be produced
by the casual counterfeiter working in a cave, or his basement, with

basic tools. We have to look at the possibility that the counterfeiter had
access to modern (for the time period) minting machinery and had spe-
cific knowledge of the process of creating dies. Our conclusion is that
some of the counterfeiters had to be trained in the art of die produc-

tion. This would lead us to believe that someone who worked at the
Mint, or a contemporary token manufacturer, was involved in produc-

ing base metal coinage for circulation. Following our assumptions that
the counterfeits were made on, or near, the dates they display we will
try and narrow our thoughts as to who may have been responsible for
some of these unique collectibles.
Fig. 9. 1823 1 /A Obverse. Fig. 10. Common Reverse Fig. 11. 1825 1/A Obverse.
for the “Top Gun”
Counterfeits.
The first group we studied was the “Top Gun” counterfeits of 1822
1/A, 1823 1/A, and the 1825 1/A. These are some of the best counter-
feit half dollars ever produced. Some have often been mistaken for the
real item by collectors, dealers, and yes, even a slabbing service. The
1823 1/A has also often been mistaken by collectors and dealers for a
pattern, or trial strike by the Mint. This has been proved false by
research done in the 1970’s by Stew Witham, which will be discussed
in detail in the last section of this paper. The 1823 is also one of the
most plentiful of all the varieties of the counterfeit halves. This would
suggest that the manufacturer had access to die steel nearly equal to that
of the Mint. A closer study of the three varieties suggests something else
more sinister in nature. The central devices of each of the three pieces
is the same. This proves that the minter used a hub to create his work-
ing dies. The hubbing process required the pressure of a screw press to
fully sink the design of the hub into the working dies. The striking
qualities of the known examples further suggests that a screw press was
used in the manufacture of the counterfeits. A study of the numeral
punches also reveals that they are the same for each of the three vari-
eties, virtually proving that they were made by the same hand. Further
comparisons of the numerals with ones from original coins shows no
similarities between the counterfeits and the Mint punches. The only
persons with access to a screw press with enough tonnage to complete
the hubbing tasks would be workers at the Mint and medal manufac-
turers.
Russell Rulau of Krause Publications has provided a short listing of

the diesinkers active in the U.S. during this time period. They include:
Robert Lovett Sr., Pelletreau Bennett & Cooke, Richard Trested, and
Charles Cushing Wright, all of New York, J.M.L. Scovill ofWaterbury,
Conn., and John S. Warner of Philadelphia. Could one of them been
involved with the manufacture of these nefarious pieces? Or, could it
have been someone more intimately involved with the Mint?

Remember, John Reich had left the Mint’s employ only a few years ear-
lier in 1817. Rumor had it that he was not at all happy with his treat-
ment during his tenure. His salary had not increased in the 10 years of
his employ. Could he have thought that the country owed him some-
thing? Who better knew the nuts and bolts operations of the Mint and
the artistry of the half dollar itself? In Reich’s defense, Stew Witham
speculates in his book Johann ,
Matthaus Reich, Also Known as John Reich
(Witham 1993), that he left the Mint’s employ due to his failing eye-
sight. Witham believed that he could no longer produce the quality' of

work fast enough for the demands of the position. He cited Reich s fail-
ure in producing the Decatur medal for the Secretary of the Navy in
1817 and his subsequent letter to the Secretary explaining his failing
eyesight. Could Reich have, with the aid of magnification and time,
produced just one more hub of his beloved design? We have always
found it strange that a figure as influential as Reich was to our early
coinage could have just disappeared for the last decade or so of his life
leaving us no knowledge of his employment or demise.

Another possible suspect, Moritz Fiirst, would have to be added to the
list. Fiirst was an accomplished engraver competing lor a job at the U.S.
Mint. He arrived in the U.S. after Reich had been hired as die Assistant
Engraver, and was passed over for William Kneass and Christian
Gobrecht later in his career. He made a living as a medal and seal
engraver with the U.S. Government offices of the War and Navy
Departments as his largest clients. He replaced Reich as the engraver for
the award medals issued for commanders from the War of 1812. These
medals were completed in 1824, leaving a void in Fiirst’s income.
Neuzil, in his paper, “A Reckoning ol Moritz Fiirst’s American Medals"
(Neuzil 1999), details Fiirsfs income and lifestyle showing him in con-
stant debt. Even though Fiirst earned much more than the average cit-
izen, even substantially more than Reich as the Assistant Engraver, he

managed to live beyond his means. Could this have prompted him to
create dies for the half dollar equal to Reich’s own? Did Fiirst hold a
grudge against the U.S. Mint for not employing him before his return
to Europe in 1840? This was probably not the case as there is a lack of
quality counterfeits from the 1825 to the 1832 date range. Only care-
ful study of the punches Fiirst used in creating his medals comparing
them to the “Top Gun” counterfeits could prove his possible involve-
ment.
Fig. 12. Ron Landis repro- Fig. 13. Original 1796

duction 1796 Half Dollar Half Dollar, courtesy of
Obverse. ANS.
Drawing from modern day events we have to look more closely at

the possibility of one of the token and medal makers of the day. Ron
Landis, of the Gallery Mint Museum, today creates some wonderful
replicas of our early coinages. His talents equal those of the early
engravers, and his products, produced in the same manner of the orig-
inal coinages, could easily be confused with the originals. We think that
one of these merchants would have had the opportunity, knowledge
and equipment necessary to produce these well made counterfeits.
They would have had no reason to conceal the minting equipment, and
its use would have drawn no suspicion. Future research into the punch-
es used in the manufacture of the counterfeits and the ones represent-
ed on the tokens and medals of these manufactures may lead to more
clues as to their possible involvement.
Fig. 14. 1833 1/A Obverse, Fig. 15. Common Reverse Fig. 16. 1837 2/B Obverse,
note test scratches in field. for all the “Too Legit To
Quit" varieties except
1838 3/E.
The next die group to be studied was Davignon’s “Too Legit To

Quit” varieties. These counterfeits are tied together by the use of a com-
mon reverse on 4 of the 5 varieties. Included in this group is Davignon
1833 1/A, 1836 5/E, 1837 2/B, 1838 3/C, and 1838 3/E. The 1838
3/E is the lone piece with a different reverse than the others. Close
examination of the central device again reveals that the working dies
were prepared from a hub. The E in LIBERTY is tilted identically with
a clockwise rotation on all the pieces. The 3 punch in the date is also
the same for each die in this group. The reverses also exhibit the same
punches for the denomination. One of the most interesting oddities for
these varieties is the fact that the837 and 838 dated coins still exhib-
1 1
it the lettered edge that the Mint discontinued in 1836! Many ol these
varieties have also been misrepresented in the collecting community as
experimental or die trial pieces.
Again, as with the previous group, the manufacture of these pieces

suggests the use of a screw press and the knowledge ol an experienced
die sinker. These varieties are also the most plentiful of all the counter-
feits suggesting a large mintage and wide circulation. The manufactur-

er of these counterfeits enjoyed much success and wealth from his illic-
it activities.
The known die sinkers of this era as provided by Russell Rulau

include: Z. Bisbee Co. of Cincinnati OH, Bale & Smith, Edward
Hulseman, Robert Lovett Sr., James G. Moffet, Frederick B. Smith, and
Charles Cushing Wright all of New York, Belleville Mint, Bellevue NJ,
Benedict & Burnham, and Scovill Mfg. Co., both of Waterbury Conn.,
Shubael D. Childs, Chicago IL, Alexander C. Morin, and John S.
Warner of Philadelphia PA, H.M. & E.I. Richards, Attleboro, Mass.,

and Benjamin C. True, Albany, NY. Mr. Rulau also suggests that any
good metalsmith was capable of engraving the dies, but would likely
lack the presses needed to strike the coins. We are sure that some of the
more crudely engraved and manufactured pieces represented in
Davignon’s book are the products of some of these metalworkers, but

evidence suggests they were incapable of the manufacturing methods
needed to mass produce the better varieties.
Fig. 1830 1/A Obverse. Fig. 18. Common reverse

17. Fig. 19. Obverse of the
Note this piece was of the “Ski-nose” varieties,
that 1829 1/A. Note the hole
double struck by the coun- again note the double strik- which is commonly found
terfeiter. Was this intention- ing. on counterfeits.
al to improve on a weak first
strike, or did the counter-

feiters have the same
mechanical failures that
sometimes occurred at the
U.S. Mint?
The next die group is the “Ski-nose” varieties of 1829, 1830, and
1831. All three years are represented by the variety designation 1/A.
These varieties are relatively common as the counterfeits go which sug-
gests a rather large mintage. Study of these pieces also shows that the
images are hubbed as they are identical for each piece. Again, there are
no clues as to who produced these pieces, or where they were original-
ly circulated. Research by token collectors may yet provide some clues
as to their origin.
Fig. 20. 1832 Obverse 2/B. Fig. 21. 1832 Obverse 3/B. Fig. 22. 1832 3/B Reverse.
Fig. 23. 1832 3/C Obverse. Fig. 24. 1832 10/J Obverse.
The last group studied revealed the most interesting similarities and
raised the most startling questions. This group of counterfeits include
the following varieties all dated 1832: 2/B, 3/B, 3/C, 10/J, and 13/M.
Our study shows that all the working dies were prepared from a single
hub. The reverses also were produced from the same eagle hub. The
numeral punches used in the date are all identical. The most alarming
thing is that the hubs and the numeral punches all match those used in
the U.S. Mint! The obverse hub is the same as the 7th hub used in the
production of original half dollar dies at the U.S. Mint from sometime
in 1832 through 1834. This was the current hub, not one that was
obsolete. How this happen? Was someone at the Mint actually a
could
midnight counterfeiter? Remember, the Mint was changing locations in
1832, moving to their new building beginning in January of 1833. The
process of changing locations after four decades must have been some-
what chaotic. Could someone have liberated the hubs for a limited time
to produce the counterfeit dies? The problem is that the hub would
have been one of the most valuable items in the Mint’s inventory and
would have been kept under lock and key. Also, the fact that the
numeral punches in the dates match suggests that someone in a posi-
tion of influence was involved in the manufacture of the counterfeits.

The letter punches for the reverse differ not only between the counter-
feits, but also from the Mint products. The dentils are also not the same
as those found on the original coins. One interesting side note: in
studying the dentils we decided to count the quantity on the counter-

feits to see if they matched the number on the originals. David
Finkelstein notes in his April 1994 John Reich Journal article, “Obverse
Die Dentil Analysis, Part 2-Capped Bust Halves, 1820-1836”, that all
dies prepared for 1832 had 110 obverse dentils. The 1832 3/B we
found had 123 dentils and the 3/C had 129! This proves that the two
obverses are actually different dies! Most of the stars, when charted as
to their dentil relationships, were found to be positioned almost in the
same relationships. The only noticeable differences are stars 8 and 13.
This will change the variety designations for these two counterfeits.
Fig. 25- Obverse 3a, 123 Fig. 26. Obverse 3b, 129
dentils. dentils.
This evidence of differing letter punches and dentils leads us to

believe that the counterfeits were actually produced outside the Mint.
Our suspicions again rest with the medal and token manufacturers of
the time period. Our findings that the devices were made from actual
Mint hubs leads us to the suspicion that one of the Philadelphia medal-
ists would be the most likely candidate for collusion with one of the
Mint officials. Our hope is that someone in the exunomia field will
pick up on our study and try and identify a fingerprint linking one of
the letter punches foundon the counterfeit halves and one found on a
medal or token issued by one of the local die sinkers.
Fig. 27. Obverse of authentic half, Overton 103, flanked by counterfeit obvs. 2 and 3.
Fig. 28. Counterfeit reverse Fig. 29. Authentic reverse of

B of 1832. Overton 103 for 1832.
In the Paul Bosco numismatic quarterly (fall/winter 1983) the writer

suggests:
...in the 1830’s the only significant uses of nickel in coin
forgery rest with two coin types; Mexican 8 reales and U.S.
50 cents. The latter are struck from crudely engraved dies.
Although scarce, they are wide-spread enough, and come

with various dates. They are too frequent and some too
sophisticated to have been made by some farmer; it’s just
possible that the crudeness of die work was a ruse to deflect
attention from a known manufacturer of (well-executed)

tokens. Comparably crude 8-reales are not found.
Some may think it ridiculous to think that genuine Mint hubs or

dies may have been somehow used in the manufacture of base coinage.
But besides the evidence presented above, which was obtained by Brad
Karoleff from the coins themselves, there is much other historical evi-
dence to suggest that this was not only possible, but likely.
Taxay writes:
If we are to be faithful to history, we should also mention

a series of very dangerous struck counterfeits which first
became known in the 1 840’s. From the description of these
pieces given by the U.S. assayers Eckfeldt and DuBois in

their “Coins, Coinage and Bullion,” 1851, it is obvious
(despite the plaintive denials of the authors) that the spuri-
ous dies were sunk from hubs which, in turn, had been
made from genuine U.S. dies, secreted or otherwise
removed from the mint (Taxay 1963).
On page 44 of his book (Taxay 1963), Taxay Presents a “Rogues’
Gallery” of bogus half dollars. Regarding one particular 1833 piece, he

states:
1833. A liberty and eagle so perfectly executed as to

necessitate their having been “hubbed” into the dies. The
border areas, by contrast, are very crude, and the entire date,
plus two stars, is heavily recut. ...Eckfeldt and DuBois,
unable to account for the perfection of detail in the above
counterfeits, assumed that the dies had been transferred
from genuine U.S. coins by means of some mechanical
process. They did not venture to explain the process, and it
is just as well, since no transfer engraving machine, either in
their time or in our own, could reproduce models at a one-

to-one ratio without a great deal of fine detail being lost.
This is the reason that models many times actual coin size
are used on the Janvier to produce a hub.
As previously suggested, one of the ways which dies or hubs could

have left the Mint would be a Mint employee, on his own, or in cahoots
with a local medallist. There is a second quite possible scenario. While
security of bullion and current working hubs and dies at the early Mint
was no doubt strict, outdated or broken dies were treated literally like
scrap iron.
Some of the restrikes were made from genuine mint dies
outside the mint. In the early period of the mint, it had
been the custom to sell the dies which has passed their use-
fulness at the close of the year for old iron. Apparently, it
had not occurred to the authorities that the dies would be

used for making restrikes (Kosoff 1982).
Charles K. Warner, the veteran Philadelphia medallist writes, in a
letter to The Numismatist magazine, December 1910 (cited in Taxay

1963):
I have at times in the past promised to write you some-
thing regarding my boyhood days around the old mint
building, which still stands on the east side of Seventh street
and which was pictured and featured in the January and
February Numismatist of this year.
My father, the late John S. Warner, who from 1823 to
1868 was the oldest established medallist in the United

States, was well acquainted with a certain William Sellers
who for many years conducted the business of a silversmith

in the old mint building. He occupied the entire first floor
and a greater part of the basement. In the latter part of

1857, Mr. Sellers gave to my father a large number of old
coin dies which were a part of a great lot of both obverse
and reverse dies for all the silver and copper denominations
that Sellers found in the old building when he first occupied
it years before. It was stated at that time that these were
found among general rubbish when the basement was
cleaned. Most of the dies were considerably rusted, chipped
on the edges, or cracked across the face. My father having
no use for the old dies gave them to a particular friend of
his, the then Chief Coiner of the mint, which was then
located in Chestnut street near Broad.
As a lad I frequently visited the old mint building on
errands to Mr. Sellers for my father and often played about
the building with a son of Sellers, who was about my age. I
well remember the old vault. I could easily have explored

the vault, and no doubt could have found many things
which, if preserved, would be of great interest today, bur lad
that I was, I had no interest in such things.

Lynn Glaser, in his Counterfeiting in America (Glaser 1968), also

speculates on this intriguing possibility:
Most ol the counterfeits, which fall around the 1830 s
have ludicrous portraits of liberty, are irregular in size, and

ring poorly. There is evidence that they were made in
Mexico. There is one remarkable exception. It is a half dol-
lar of 1833 with both obverse and reverse dies so perfectly

executed that they could not have been made in any other
manner than by having the devices hubbed in from genuine
United States Mint matrixes!
Dies did often leave the Mint. Old worn dies were com-
monly sold as scrap in the early days! A number of them
were preserved by numismatists, who occasionally struck
them to produce bizarre oddities. In view of this history of
cavalier protection of dies at the Mint in those days, it is not
unlikely that some of the hubs or dies could have fallen into
the hands of counterfeiters. During the early years there was
at least one attempt to steal actual coining dies from the
Mint. In 1795 an attempt resulted in the arrest of William
Hodgins and Charles McNear, but they escaped indictment
because of insufficient evidence.
It is unclear which dies Mr. Hodgins and Mr. McNear attempted to

steal in 1795, or whether their attempts were successful, but it is possi-
ble that this heist was related to a conspiracy to counterfeit U.S. Dollar
coins which was discovered in 1799 in what was then the Northwest
Territory:
Marietta, Territory N.West of the Ohio

Sirs,
We the Subscribers, Justices of the Peace for the County

of Washington in said Territory, take the liberty to inform
you, that a certain person who calls himself Charles Maynor
was arrested and brought before us this day for examination
on a charge of counterfeiting and of aiding and assisting in
counterfeiting the current Coins of the United States, Bills
of the Bank of the United States, and the other Banks estab-
lished by law in the United States, and of uttering and pub-
lishing the same as true.
It appeared on the examination that the prisoner had

confessed to one or two persons (in order to induce them to
join him in his scheme) that a combination was formed
consisting of persons in different parts of the United States,
for counterfeiting Dollars coined by the United States, and
Bills of the Bank of the United States: That two sets of
instruments for coining Dollars were taken out of the Mint
about two years since (as the witness believes) by a
Goldsmith of New York, who was engaged by the party to

procure them, that the Goldsmith was detected and one set
of the Instruments regained through the information of a

Woman in New York, and that the Goldsmith was confined
in prison lor the crime - that the dollars and Bank Bills were
made on the South end of Long Island, at a place called
Sandy Point, by a person by the name of Swan, and two per-
sons of the name of Crane, thence circulated to different
parts of the Continent.
That a certain Rankins, or Sankins, who kept a Tavern in

or near New York at the sign of the Blue Bell was concerned,
and also a Col. Eames keeping the White Horse in Boston,
alsoone John C. Fox of the Genesee Country, and one
Hard, or Hird, who (as the prisoner said) had gone to
Charleston So. Carolina with a large sum of the money. It
appeared that the prisoner had further said, that the Bank of
the United States had received within one or two years past
(according to the best recollection of the Witness) thirty
thousand dollars.
The Witness above referred to having informed the pris-

oner that he intended soon to go to New England, the pris-
oner told him that the Witness might receive any quantities
of the money at Eames’ in Boston, sign of the White Horse
before mentioned. It appeared further that the prisoner had
confessed he had a partner in this Country, a certain Doct.
Mursey or Munson of New Haven, Connecticut with
whom he had performed a journey last spring or summer up
the Allegheny River and disposed of a considerable quanti-

silver lor goods which they lost by acci-
ty of their paper and
dent in coming down tbe River, that he had left his partner
the Doct. a few days since, and came down to this place to
sound the Inhabitants to find whether they might venture

to put off of this money here, but found it was not safe to
attempt it, that in going into the Country a few miles from
the Ohio he had left a letter for the Doct. who soon after
came to this place, received the letter &t left word for the
prisoner that he should go to the mouth of the Scioto,
where he would wait lor the prisoner twelve days and that
the Doct. has gone down the River having with him one set
of the coining instruments taken from the Mint, and about

six thousand Dollars of counterfeit money.
A person of the Doctrs' description did in fact pass this
place at the time stated by the Prisoner and inquired for
him. Inlormation has since been sent to the Justice below in

order to have him arrested. The above are the most materi-
al facts related in this affair, as furnishing a clue to a gener-
al detection of the plot, if any exists. We have no Statute of

this Territory against counterfeiting Coin and can find none
enacted by Congress.
The Law on which the prisoner must be convicted here
(if convicted at all) is the law for punishing frauds on the
Bank of the United States. Or a clause against forgery in the
penal laws of this Territory.
However as there is little (if any) proof that the prisoner
has been guilty of any of the crimes laid to his charge with-
in this Territory we doubt whether he can be tried and con-
victed here.
As however by the laws of this Territory we have power
only to bind over the prisoner to trial in the General Court
of Quarter Sessions in the Territory, we have concluded to
require of the prisoner a recognizance in the usual form for
his appearance at the next term of the General Court of this
Territory, rather than the Circuit or district Court of
Pennsylvania where he might more probably be convicted.
Should it be thought proper, the prisoner might be

removed by Habeas Corpus from our prison to one of the
prisons in the District of Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
We are, Sir, with the greatest respect your most obedient
humble servants,
Dudley Woodbridge
Josiah Munro
Wm. Rufus Putnam
Griffin Greene
Ephram Cutler
Justices of the peace for the County of Washington
Marietta, 19 r ^ April, 1799
Department of State, 6 May 1799

Sir,
I have the honor to enclose to you a copy of a letter
received from the Justices of the Peace for Washington

County in the Northwestern Territory, containing informa-
tion, which, if true, manifests an extensive project for
defrauding the Banks and the public. I shall transmit copies
of it to the Attornies for the District of Massachusetts, New

York, and South Carolina, with instructions to use their best
endeavor to ascertain and arrest the offenders, concerned in
the scheme alluded to, who may be found in their respective
Districts. In the meantime 1 must request, that any com-

munications you may judge it necessary to make, in order
to protect the Banks against the fraud, may be accompanied
with injunctions of secrecy, until the event of the intended
efforts to make a further discovery and to arrest the offend-
ers shall be known.

I am, Sir, very respectfully
Your most obedient servant
Timothy Pickering
Letter from Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State, to
Thomas Willing Esq.,
President of the Bank of the United States.
Additional evidence exists to support this report ol a conspiracy to

remove dies from the U.S. Mint. Mint Director Henry De Saussure
reported to President Washington on October 27, 1795:

Permit me, sir, to suggest the necessity of protecting laws
for the coinage. I understand that none of the laws of
Congress have provided any penalties for the various
offences which may be committed against the coinage. In
most countries, strict laws are enacted, prohibiting the

interference of individuals in this attribute of the sovereign-
ty; and, in some, the very possession of dies, or presses, or
other implements essential in the coinage, is made criminal.
In this country, mints are said to be boldly erected at
Baltimore, and elsewhere, professedly to imitate the coins of
foreign countries, and to furnish a debased gold coin for the
West Indies markets; and so much of the gold bullion which
would be brought to the national mint, is carried to these
private establishments, which degrade our national charac-
ter. Encouraged by this negligence of Government, men
have carried their ideas farther; and there is too much rea-
son to fear, that a recent attempt at our dies and other

implements was made with nefarious views.
De Saussure also points out in his report to the President that he has
some serious concerns about security at the mint:
Amongst the unpleasant circumstances which attend the
contracted scale on which the mint has been erected, there
is one of very serious import. The owner of a small lot
adjoining the mint, has a right of passage through the inte-
rior lots of the mint. This exposes the works to improper
and prevents the complete control over the work-
intrusion,
men, which is essential to the well ordering of the business.
A small sum of money would have purchased that lot some
time ago. I believe it may still be had, reasonably.
De Saussure’s successor, Elias Boudinot, had more to say about the

lack of laws protecting the mint from such attempts to steal dies and
hubs for the production of counterfeits in his first report to the
President in December, 1795:

I he stealing of the dies, hubbs, milling stamps, screws,
presses, or other instruments used in the coinage, as well as
the taking, receiving, adulterating, or secreting, the metals

kept in, or belonging to, the mint, call for special provision
from the Legislature of the United States. The Director is
sorry to say, that his observations are justified by facts that

have already happened at the mint.
We were unable to locate any surviving specimens of late eighteenth

century base coinage of United States dollar coins, made from genuine
dies, which would have provided us with evidence that this particular
conspiracy was successful, but there is at least one other example of
counterfeit coinage from genuine dies which lends further credence to
our theory. J.L.Riddell, melter and refiner of the New Orleans Mint,
believed that certain circulating counterfeits of Mexican Dollars which
had been showing up in deposits of silver for coinage at the United
States Mint in New Orleans, were made from genuine dies. Riddell
remarked on June 1 6th, 1845:

After a careful inspection and comparison of.. .the
Durango dollars; and the Guanaxuato dollars, (Durango &

Guanaxuato Mints, Mexico) I am induced to entertain the
following opinion: that at least one pair of dies, (king dies
perhaps). ..has been removed from the mint of Guanaxuato,
and made subservient to the production of base coinage, ...
and that there has probably been a similar removal and

prostitution of one or two pairs of dies from the Mint of
Durango. It can hardly be supposed that base and fraudu-
lent money would be manufactured systematically in those
mints, the great majority of whose Dollars stand so
deservedly fair; and since, therefore, the impressions allud-
ed to, appear genuine, it seems probable that the dies were

abstracted.
In response to Dr. Riddell’s request for information, Dr. Wm. P.
Hort, Assayer, replied:

Branch Mint, New Orleans

16th June, 1845
Sir, I have read your note of this day’s date. 1 have much
pleasure in imparting whatever information I possess rela-
tive to the subject matter of your inquiry.. .more or less
counterfeits were found in almost every deposit; and some

were so admirably well executed as to render their detection
impossible without an assay. These I considered as debased
or depreciated coins, not properly counterfeit. They were, at
the time referred to, very abundant in this city. My opinion
was confirmed by a gentleman who had resided many years
in Mexico, who informed me that the old dies could be pur-
chased at certain Mints, remote from the Capital; that they

were sent to Europe, where new dies (fac-similes) were man-
ufactured, and that with the dies so procured, dollars were
stamped, and an immense number thrown into circulation.
There is reason to believe that this information was correct,
for a communication on the subject, which I had inserted
in one of our daily papers, attracted the attention of the
Mexican Consul here, who apprised his Government of it.
Shortly after, a proclamation of the subject issued from the

Government of Mexico, and since that time the particular
of which I have been speaking, have become com-
dollars
paratively rare.
Truly yours,
Wm. P. Hort, Assayer
We have the strong evidence of the coins themselves to support the

theory that genuine Mint hubs or dies were somehow procured and
used by counterfeiters in the production of bogus half dollars. That
token or medal manufacturers of the time were somehow involved
appears likely, though the conclusive link between the two has yet to be
found.
1 00 Keith Davignon and Bradley S. Karolejj
Who Were the Counterfeiters?

In discussing the large quantity of contemporary counterfeit bust
half dollars which survive to this day, the question most difficult to
answer is, “Where did they come from and exactly who made them?”
The answer handed down through the years which has become
accepted as gospel is that most of them came from Mexico. There is,
however, little hard evidence offered to support this theory. Research

into early nineteenth century court records, newspapers, and literature
of that time period, has unearthed some evidence as to their true ori-
gins, and accounts of the capture and prosecution of some of the cul-
prits has been discovered. Some did originate in Mexico, and in the
U.S., and Canada, and elsewhere, including Europe. The sheer quanti-
ty of different surviving varieties displays a tremendous range in engrav-
ing talents. When you add to this the various base metal alloys seen,
and examine the evidence uncovered, it suggests a variety of sources,

Mexico included. By basing operations in Mexico or Canada, there was
much less risk, as these governments cared little about counterfeits of
foreign coins and currency.
One of the first recorded Canadian counterfeiting cases
arosewhen Canada was barely five months old. On
November 27, 1867, three brothers named John, Michael,
and Nurtagh Tierney, and a friend Daniel Buckley were
busily occupied at a farmhouse near Ottawa making
American half dollar coins. When police arrived they found
500 pieces of liberty seated half dollars, together with dies,

presses, moldk, matrixes, tools, machines and five tons of
metal (Aaron 1975, 26).
1 remained in Canada during most of that winter, visit-
ing several of the important towns in Western Canada,

adding many names to the list of my acquaintances, who
were of the same order as myself, and in whose society 1
spent my time, and among them made my home.

At this time, in St. Catherine’s, there was a gang ol coun-
terfeiters making United States money, so I took a hand in
it; not in the making, but in disposing of it, effecting some

sales as traveling agent through the state of New York.
“The Life of Sile Doty”
(Winter I 836)
Court cases abound with the stories of the smuggling of counterfeit

coins and currency from abroad. But there is no lack of evidence of
purely American conspirators in this pursuit either:
In 1842 the Mint assayers said of coin counterfeiters:
“Prosecutions in this part of the country (Philadelphia) are

not frequent, nor are spurious coins abundant; but in the
southern and western states the case is different. We read
continually of organized hordes of deprecators upon the
currency, and of the diffusion of ‘bogus money’ throughout
the Great Valley of the Mississippi.” The circulation of
American Dollars was at that time so small that it received
little attention from the counterfeiters, but our large
coinage of half dollars was extensively imitated in base

metal. (Glaser 1968, 227-231).
An old newspaper clipping from John Kovach, Kinsman, Ohio:
Counterfeit Coin
G.S. Brainard of Burghill, dropped in the other day, to
show us one of those counterfeit half dollars, made in
Gustavus in the 1830’s. His is dated 1832, has the Liberty

head on one side and American Eagle on the other. As the
counterfeiting story came down to George S. from his
grandfather, Lorenzo Brainard, the man who made the spu-

rious coins was named Kellogg, and when about to be
“caught ”, he destroyed the evidence by dumping the coins
on hand and his counterfeiting equipment into a pond or a
well in his back yard in Gustavus.
Or this 1834 article from the Portland (Maine) Advisor (research

courtesy of Ken Cable):
Counterfeiters. We learn through one of the Stage

drivers that a nest of counterfeiters has been discovered in
Rumford, Oxford co. We we heard them

give the facts as
related. Two young men last week purchased hats at
Augusta for which they paid half dollars; the next day they
were found to be counterfeit, but so well executed that they
could be detected only by weighing. Pursuit was immedi-
ately made for the young men, and they were traced to
Rumford, where from information obtained of a person
concerned in this business, a cave was found in the moun-
tains, very difficult of access, in which from 20 to 30 per-
sons were busily engaged in coining spurious half dollars!
The number of persons was found to be so large that the
party thought it most prudent to return and increase their
forces, and on again visiting the cave, the men had escaped,
leaving their tools and money, and their fires burning. Five
or six of the gang have since been apprehended.
Since the above was in type, we have seen a letter from
Hallowell, which states that counterfeit money had been
passed there, and that five of the counterfeiters had been
arrested; these are probable (sic) part of the same gang.
Portland Adv.
Organized counterfeit rings were comparable to the illicit drug

smuggling cartels of today. Intricate networks were set up within
regions, with “safehouses’' to be found in almost every community for
gang members on the run.
It took me but a short time to become well acquainted
with all the villains in Clinton, Tecumseh, Adrian,
Blissfield, and soon in Toledo, Detroit, and as far west as
Chicago; the Kankakee River country, Fort Wayne, Noble
and Lagrange Counties in Indiana, and all the places in
Southern Michigan; east, to Milan, Norwalk, Cleveland,
and as far as Ashtabula.
I found that a very inefficient ring had been formed
between these places, by our class of men; but so imperfect
was its workings that it did but little. I immediately took the
matter in hand, and as near as possible, brought it up to my
standard of doing and thinking, extending the ring south,
Counterfeit Capped Bust Half Dollars 1 03
into Indiana, along the Wabash River.
This organization consisted of every possible grade of a
mean rascal - thieves, counterfeiters, burglars and highway-
men - who were guilty of every act, that could be called

crime, under the law. Over immense body of men was
this I
head chief, and ruled with an iron will. When said do this
I
or that, it was done.

(Spring, 1 834)
Sometimes, a member of a gang would be caught and confess to
authorities, giving them the names of others involved in the operation,

in return for a lighter sentence; sort of an early version of plea bargain-
ing, as in the following account (from the Duke University Special
Collections Library, James Martin Bell Papers, 1768-1870):
To His Excellency J. Andrew Schulze, Governor of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Sir,
A man named Jonathan Border, one of the members of a

numerous and very extensive association and confederacy,
having long existed among persons resident in this County
for the purpose of passing spurious and counterfeit bank
notes and coins, and who had (practiced) their diabolical
number of
object of defrauding their fellow citizens for a
years with perfect impunity, was on the 2nd day of
December last, arrested for having passed the above men-
tioned kind of notes and brought before Thomas Johnston,
Esquire, a Justice of the Peace of this County.
On being brought before the Justice he confessed that he
had passed the spurious and counterfeit notes with which
he was charged and informed the Justice that two men
named Israel Evans and Henry Beck were engaged with him
in the business, that they were his employers, and that in the
house of H.B. in a particular place, would be found a con-
siderable quantity of the above mentioned kind of money.
The Justice took his information upon oath, issued war-
rants against Beck & Evans, and on the 3rd of December

committed them to jail. In pursuance of Border’s informa-
tion, 200 two dollar spurious notes purporting to be of the
Merchants Bank of Newport, with fictitious signatures as
Cashier and President, and 20 five dollar notes purporting

to be of the Eagle Bank of someplace, unsigned.
A few days previous to our last April Court, there was an
understanding between Border and myself that if he would
agree to remain in prison until the August Sessions, now
past, and would on the trial of Beck and Evans disclose fully
and truly all he knew of the above combination, he should
be recommended to Your Excellency as a proper object of

mercy. I was induced to this for two reasons; one was that it
appeared tome that I would not be able to convict Beck and

Evans,who were old offenders and heads of the conspiracy,
without the evidence of Border. The other was that last
April’s Sessions was the second he had been imprisoned and
had he then been tried he would certainly have been acquit-
ted, as I had not been able to get the necessary proof to con-
vict him, and had he not agreed to remain in jail and
applied to the Court, he would have been discharged under
the Habeas Corpus Act.
And when last week Beck and Evans and a man named
John McFadden, against whom Border gave information
after he was in jail, were indicted and tried for a conspiracy
to pass spurious bank notes, Border was called by me as a
witness, and I believe the evidence which he gave of the

conspiracy was the truth. His testimony was consistent and
coherent, and as to the criminal transactions between the
persons indicted, uncontradicted. B & E were found guilty
and McFadden acquitted. Beck was sent by the Court to 5
years imprisonment in the penitentiary. Evans had his horse
out - a man stationed to communicate the verdict, which as
soon as he heard it he cleared out.

Under these circumstances I pray Your Excellency to
grant a pardon to Jonathan Border lor the offense ol pass-
ing spurious and counterfeit writings, purporting to be
bank notes. He has now been imprisoned in the jail of this
County, which is a very bad one, 8 months and 10 days,

which considering his disclosures have been the means of
bringing old and obstinately determined offenders to pun-
ishment, if it had not been for the information he gave still
would have been left to prey upon their fellow citizens, I am

of the opinion is a pretty adequate punishment, when it is
likewise taken into consideration that he was but an appren-

tice in the business.
...I feel confident that I don’t go beyond the line of truth

in saying there are at least 100 persons, if not many more,
in this County connected, combined, and acting in concert
for the purpose of passing counterfeit money and that from
20 to 30 thousand dollars of such money has been in, and
passed through, their hands within the last five years.
This den of inequity cannot be put down without admit-

ting some of the initiated to give information which may
lead to the knowledge of acts sufficient to crush it.
As Border is in jail and may not be able to get bail, if you
will please grant him a pardon, as before stated, I wish that

it might be sent on as soon as possible.
I have understood that some of the attornies of the

defendants tried, have expressed an intention to remon-
strate against Borders being pardoned, and if they attempt
to do so, I have no doubt that they could get plenty of coun-
terfeiters and passers of counterfeit money to sign such a
remonstrance. But I have as little doubt that you would pay
no attention whatever to a remonstrance coming from such
a source.
Very Respectfully,
James M. Bell, District Attorney for Blair County
To combat these organized gangs, the public sometimes resorted to

the creation of “vigilante” type groups, paramilitary in nature. Given
the fact that local law enforcement in those times was limited to per-
haps a small, regional sheriff’s office, this was often the most effective
way to deal with these criminals. The following is a newspaper clipping

from an Indiana newspaper, dated December 3, 1958, provided by the
Indiana State Library:
Out Of The Past:
Counterfeiters made their Headquarters In Lawrence

County In The Early 1800’s
By Claude Parsons
An organized band of counterfeiters reportedly had their
headquarters somewhere in Lawrence County in the early
1800’s and a police organization composed of several citi-
zens of the county was formed to deal with the criminals.
In addition, a large number of stolen horses were traded
from Kentucky and other parts of the hills in and around
Lawrence County in those early days, but in most cases fur-
ther clues were lost.
Suspicion pointed to several persons residing in the
county as among ringleaders of the counterfeiters, and sev-
eral were severely dealt with by this police group of “regula-

tors”.
The Association (as the police organization was called)

was thought to have been organized about 1819 or 1820 at
Palestine, the former site of the Bedford Courthouse. A

copy of the original articles (rules and regulations) of the
group - written in pen and ink - is now in the possession ol
Carroll Johnson, Twenty-fifth and G streets.
Hard To Catch
Reports have revealed that the heavy forests and hills of
Lawrence County made law breakers hard to catch and they
often moved to new hiding places.
A man named George Crior was reportedly punished
severely by the Association as one of the supposed leaders in
counterfeiting, but this seemed to have no big effect at the
time since he remained in the community “with habits

unchanged”, according to the account.
The horse-stealing offense was quite severe because the

early settlers depended on horses for fast traveling and rais-
ing crops. Stolen horses could be moved quickly, making

the thieves hard to catch. Cattle and pigs were also stolen in
those early days, but not as many as horses.
According to the original articles of the Association, the

names of 92 citizens of the community are listed as mem-
bers. Included on the list are such prominent names in
county history as Col. Vinson Williams, Winthrop Foote,

and Moses Fell.
To Suppress Crime
The members agreed “to form ourselves into an

Association for the purpose of suppressing crimes in gener-
al, and more particularly those of counterfeiting and horse
stealing”, and established eight rules and regulations “for the
faithful observance of which we do hereby severally pledge
our honors and our characters as men and good citizens”.
The rules and regulations were, in part, as follows:

(1) The officers will be a captain, who will appoint such
number of subalterns as necessary, and a treasurer.

(2) The captain will call on company members whenever he
thinks proper, to be ready to march at half an hour’s
notice on any expedition.
(3) Any member who does not appear at a muster or who
disobeys orders shall be fined in any sum not exceeding
five dollars, at the discretion of a majority of members
present.
(4) If any member suffers in his property by executing the

command of the officers, or if officers shall suffer dis-
charging duties, the expense shall be equally appor-

tioned and defrayed by the entire group.
Two-Thirds Consent
(5) No important regulating measures will be taken unless
by consent of two thirds of members present.
(6) In case of emergency and in absence of captain, subal-
terns will take over.
(7) Captain has power to call company to meet at Palestine
when he thinks proper.

(8) Any respectable citizen of the county shall be admitted
to Association upon subscribing to these rules and reg-
ulations.
This particular Association, according to historical

accounts, was abandoned after a time, accomplishing a great
deal. A number of similar organizations were in operation in
the county, however, after that time until around World
War I.
Counterfeits came from hundreds of sources during this time peri-

od; from skilled and highly organized gangs, to equally skilled inde-
pendent individuals, to totally inept criminals looking to get their
hands on a piece of the action:
My first stopping place was at a small town about ten

miles east of Adrian, called Blissfield. This place was situat-
ed on the river Raisin, and was, at that time, a sort of cen-
some residing in and near the place, and
ter for blacklegs,
where many would come and go unobserved by the good

people who then made up the chief part of the population.
Among the few resident villains, may mention the names
1
of three: Rogers, Blake and Banton, the two last named

being the ring-leaders of a small handful of horse-thieves
and counterfeiters. Their place of business was a short dis-
tance up the river, where they had dug a hole in the bank,
and were making money of the most inferior kind. I
stopped in Blissfield over night, and was invited to go up

and visit them at the den. I went in company with Blake,
and when near the place were confronted by the guard, to
whom Blake whispered, and we passed on. Judging from the

dignity assumed by my conductor, I did not know but we
were about to enter the grand hall or council chamber,
called Pandemonium, and I was not much disappointed, for
it was no other than a branch of it.

The interior of the room was not in the least inviting,
and the workmen corresponded in every way with the
room. Their tools were an old worn set of dies, and the
material they used was very poor. 1 hey were running just
the kind of a place that would, in a short time, be the means

of providing them all with a better home, and something
more useful to occupy their time. I learned afterwards that
I was correct in the opinion formed of them, as they were
enabled to do the State of Michigan some little service. The
only kind of nourishment I saw in this place for the men
was whisky, of which they freely imbibed, until its effect on
them was such as to make it necessary to suspend work for
the night.
(1838)
No area of the country was immune:

A railroad employee discovered a huge safe under a pile
of rocks near Gray Cliff, Montana, not far from the cabin
where Counterfeiter Ellis was recently arrested and the
counterfeiter’s tool confiscated. The safe contained a lot of
spurious silver dollars and halves, as well as dies and tools
used in the manufacture of the same (Glaser 1968, 97,
reprinted from Dickerman’s U.S. Treasury Counterfeit
Detector 1891).
Not only was no part of the country immune, but the coins of the
United States were not the only subject of the Counterfeiters’ “art”:
A white-haired old gentleman named Clark was in
Newark last week for the first time since the close of the war
(Civil War). Since then he has been living in Minnesota.
His errand to Newark, he said, was one of curiosity alone.
Last week he visited Belleville again for the first time in thir-
ty years, and upon his return to the Continental Hotel that

night he told his impressions of the place to a chance
acquaintance, another old veteran.
“Belleville is the one place I have revisited which shows
few marked changes,” he said. “The river is dirtier, a few of

the old houses and factories have crumbled down or been
destroyed and a few new factories and dwellings have been
put up, but generally speaking, the town is little changed in
thirty years, or in fact in seventy for that matter. The upper

part of thetown along Washington Avenue is all new and I
don’t count that part. I am interested in that part of the
town lying along the river road. It is just as homely and as
pretty as it was when I was a boy and when the chief indus-
try in Belleville was coining counterfeit money. Yes, sir,
counterfeiting was the most lucrative work in the place sixty
years ago or thereabouts. 1 helped at the work for old man

Uffington when I was a boy in the village, and I can assure
you nobody thought that there was any harm in it. There
was Stevens and Uffington, both Englishmen, partners in
the business, Uffington had money which he brought from

England with him and Stevens was a skilled coiner and die-
sinker. Then there was old James Moffit and T.G. Moffit
and Joseph Gardner, all engaged They did
in the business.
not counterfeit United States coin, or the business would

have been quickly stopped. Their business was making good
imitations of South American and Central American coins,
and at that time there was no law against it. The coins were
struck in dies from base metal and were plated and packed
in bags containing fifty or seventy-five pounds. These were
packed singly in wooden cases and marked as general mer-
chandise. It was taken to Elizabethport and Amboy on a
small sloop and transferred to a big sailing vessel. I here was

no risk attached to the business until foreign waters were
reached. Then the coin had to be smuggled in. If the smug-
glers were pressed too closely they would sometimes drop
the money overboard. At one time three of them were
caught and hanged They were customers of the
in Brazil.
Belleville coiners, but were not in any other way identified
with Newark. The business went on for many years without

interruption.”
“You remember Jerry, who used to keep the Black Horse

Tavern at the stone bridge, just above Clay Street, in this
city? Well, he was a coiner and used to talk freely about it. 1
have heard Jerry say that it was a dull day when he could not
make five or six dollars working tor Mofiit. Joseph Gardner,
who afterward made stove ornaments in Newark, was a
skilled die maker, and was imported from Birmingham by
Uffington. think, however, he worked for others first and

I
then went into business for himself and made a big fortune,
but lost a great deal of it afterward in a conflict with the

government.”
“The Brazilians induced our Government to make a law
against counterfeiting foreign coins, and although this did

not stop the Belleville enterprise completely, it forced the
men to carry on the business more secretly. Another thing
that knocked the business out was that some parties seeing
how easy it was to make foreign coins, began practicing on

our money, and I remember hearing that there was a regu-
lar den of counterfeiters over the river in Bergen county.
One man, who afterward lived in Newark, could not resist
the temptation to make quarters and halves, and was caught

through a Negro servant who stole some of the coins and
was arrested in trying to pass them. He told where he got
them and a search of his employers house resulted in get-
ting evidence against the old man. The other coiners rallied
to his aid, and the best legal talent in New York was
employed. He got frequent stays, but finally spent a term in
prison. This broke up the business. For years afterward
when a house or factory was pulled down in Belleville it was
no uncommon thing to find counterfeit money which had
been hidden away in secret corners. I remember well that I
went to Dan Rice’s circus with a counterfeit half-dollar that

I found in Second River, under the old DeWitt wire mill,
and on another occasion when I was poking around in the
cellar of a ruined stone house near the river I found a lot of
blackened Mexican coins in a pocket in the foundation,
which was stopped with a roughly fitted wedge of stone.”

COUNTERFEITING WAS ONCE A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS
(From the “Sunday Call” of Newark, N.J. issue of June 2, 1895)
One of the most significant examples of an effect coin counterfeit-

ing had on the development of the United States is the story of the early
Mormons. An unproven accusation of coin counterfeiting led directly
to their early exodus from the state of Illinois in 1846 to the Great Salt
Lake in Utah, an event which marked the beginning of the great west-
ern migration, and changed American history.
There is no doubt that coin counterfeiting charges and Governor
Ford’s threat of the use of United States troops to arrest the accused
Mormon leaders led to the early emigration of the Mormons from
Illinois to Utah. The exodus of the Mormons was one of the most sig-
nificant events in American history at that time, an event which led

directly to the discovery of gold and was pivotal to the development of
the western frontier.
Piecing together the bits of information that can be ferreted out with
enough patience and effort, we now can begin to answer the questions
of when and where these bogus coins were made, and who made them.
By the end of the Civil War it was speculated that almost hall the
money in circulation was counterfeit, and it was at this time that the
Federal Government made its first concerted effort at cracking down.
It was from these early efforts that the Secret Service was born in July
1865. It is said that President Lincoln gave verbal approval for the for-
mation of the new agency at the cabinet meeting early in the day that
he was assassinated!
While counterfeiting still exists today, the success of the Secret
Service in the latter half of the nineteenth century put an end to the
“Golden Age of Counterfeiting.”
The Terminology of Counterfeiting

Part of getting the “feel” of the times is to tune in to the slang used
among the criminals of the early nineteenth century. 1 he following are

some of the most common terms found in the vernacular ol counter-
feiters, middle men, thieves, and receivers of stolen goods:
Acknowledge the corn, to make a full frank confession.
Beating, to get the best of, to defraud.
Bingo, whiskey or other strong drink.
Bogus, counterfeit coins or bank notes of any kind.

Bone orchard, a graveyard or cemetery
Boodle, counterfeit notes, placed in bundles or parcels.
Boozing-ken, a low drinking house for thieves or counterfeiters.

Coney, counterfeits.
Coney dealer, one who deals in, passes, or handles counterfeits.
Copped, arrested or caught by a “cop ", or detective.
Cracksman, a burglar, or one who breaks a bank.
Deal, the act of delivering counterfeits from one hand to another.
Doss ken, a lodging house of low character.

Flush, having plenty of money on hand.
Gobbled, captured suddenly by the cops.
Gone over, sent to jail or prison.
Job out, to partition or distribute counterfeits among coney men.

Ken, a safehouse, a small hotel for criminals.
Koniacker, a counterfeiter, or coney man.
Leg-bail, to escape, or run away from court or prison.
Lighted, “spotted”, alighted upon, found out, captured.
Lush drum, a disreputable resort for criminals.
Moll, a female confederate or mistress.
Nary red, out of money, broke.

Peddler, an itinerant counterfeit money seller.
Pipe off, to follow a suspected person’s tracks.
Queer, base or worthless; counterfeit money.

Queersman, a professional counterfeiter.
Shove, to push off, or pass counterfeit money publicly.
Stuff, the term used among counterfeiters for bogus money.

Toes up, dead.
Patterns or Fakes?
(This final section is largely an excerpt from co-author Keith

Davignon’s 1996 book Contemporary Counterfeit Capped Bust Half
Dollars, published by Money Tree Press, with edits and updates.)
The real dangers presented by contemporary counterfeits in today’s

numismatic marketplace are twofold: being offered a bogus coin as a
pattern, experimental, or die trial piece, or, a bogus coin being offered
as the discovery of a new die variety.
There are lettered edge halves of the years 1837 and 1838 which are
relatively deceiving. A surprising amount of debate and controversy has
taken place in the numismatic press over the last several decades con-
cerning these items. Some would propose that they were experimental
strikes. But why would the Mint bother to experiment with obsolete
features (lettered edge, scroll above eagle, 50C. instead of 50 cents)? If
truly experimental they would be found commonly used
in the alloys
by the Mint (silver, copper) rather than the debased alloy of German
Silver, so favored by the counterfeiters of the day. The simple fact is that
there are no genuine lettered edge hall dollars dated later than 1836,
experimental or otherwise.
There is another dangerous contemporary phony which frequently
shows up offered as a regular die trial piece. Unfortunately, the Judd ref-
erence book ( United States Pattern, Experimental and Trial Pieces)
appears to have been guilty of supporting, and perpetuating, the myth

that genuine copper 1823 bust half dollar patterns exist. The myth says
that such a coin (J-47), was made either by the Mint, or privately by J.
Mickley, with rusty dies discarded by the Mint. The latest edition of the
book now lists the piece with a footnote - “authenticity questionable”.
The late Stewart Witham, who owned at one time the most com-
plete collection of pattern half dollars ever assembled, searched long
and hard for a genuine specimen, and was unsuccessful. 1 he dozen or

so copper 1823 halves he was able to locate were all struck with the
same pair of dies. The abundance of German Silver, and plated copper,
specimens in existence also from the same pair of dies pointed pretty
conclusively to the bogus nature of these “coins”. All observed sped-

mens also had lettered edges rather than the plain edge described in
Judd, and lacked the die engraver’s (William Kneass) signature notch
in the bust drapery. Did a genuine plain-edge piece exist? 1 he follow-
ing is a chronicle of Stew’s search for a genuine J-47.
The following advertisement appeared in the February 12, 1969

issue of Coin World under the heading “ Patter ns-US”:
PATTERNS— U.S. 58
Pattern Coin;
PATTERN COIN U.S. Copper Hall
Copper Dollar, 1 823 (struck

U. S.
from rusty die) Very
Half Dollar Scarce. Judd’s Rarity
1823 8 Rating. $325.00

Gala Jewelers &
(struck from rusty die)
Coins, 205 Fifth
Very Scarce.
Ave., McKeesport,
Jodcfs Rarity 8 Raring.
Penna. 15132
$325.00
GALA
Jewelers & Coins
205 Fifth Avenue
McKeesport, Penno. 15132 Fig. 30.
Stewart Witham writes (2/18/69):
Dear Mr. Gala,

1 bring sad tidings-the copper half 1823-is not a mint
product-it is not by known dies of 1823. It is not struck-it
is cast. This was my first impression but it has been verified
by Mr. Grunthal of ANS (American Numismatic Society)
in N.Y.C. as well as Don Taxay-The Author/ Authenticator.
The coin arrived Saturday 2/15 and I came to N.Y.C. think-
ing I would have the chance to check it out. I am returning
home on 2/19 and will promptly return the coin to you for
full reimbursement.
On the other hand I will keep it for $10 as an interesting

sidelight on Bust Halves.
Sorry to bear such sad news-
Sincerely,
Stew Witham
As far as I know, the coin was returned to its owner and its where-
abouts remain unknown today. Did it sell for several hundred dollars to
a collector less knowledgeable? In 1976 another specimen was offered

for public auction by Steve Ivy. Ivy Auction 12/10/76, Lot 1108 was
listed as follows:
J-47 1823 50 cents, Fine/Very Fine (15+) copper, R.E., R-

8. Regular dies trial piece. One of our earliest examples of
pattern coinage. This piece is extremely rare and worthy of

your consideration.
Witham had sent a letter only a month earlier to Abe Kosoff, who
was then working on the sixth edition of Judd’s U.S., Pattern,
Experimental and Trial Pieces questioning the authenticity of J-47.

Kosoff replied on 12/2/76:
Dear Mr. Witham,

Thanks for your of 1 1/21 re: J-47. I am stating in Judd
6 that the authenticity is questionable. Actually I have not
found any that are genuine and will check with Breen to see
if he can recall one. 1 think it is an error carried over from

Adams-Woodin. Adams was prolific but did a lot of guess-
ing. The A-W book contained hundreds of errors:
Regards,
A. Kosoff
P.S.:There’s one listed in Ivy Auction 12/10/76. I’ll have it
looked at - it’s listed as Fine/V.F.
Witham requested to view the piece and did so, returning the coin
with the following letter to Steve Ivy.
November 21, 1976

Gentlemen,
I return lots 608-614-61 5-616 and 1 108- I have retained
609 to compare with my piece at the bank and will send
promptly in another package.

Since 1 have a special interest in Bust Halves, their relat-
ed pattern and die trials, 1 would like to comment on Lot

1108.
You call it J-47 describing it as R-8 with a Reeded Edge.
1 st-this piece has a Lettered Edge. 2nd-l have seen 3 other
pieces from equal dies, obverse and reverse. 3rd-I have 2 ger-
man silver counterfeits from the same obverse and reverse
dies.
I am sure you would serve yourself and numismatics with

its withdrawal.
Sincerely,
Stew Witham
Upon later learning that it had remained in the auction and had real-
ized a price of $1,000, he was enraged and drafted the following letter
to the ANA:
January 12, 1977
Mr. Ed Rochette, Executive Vice President American
Numismatic Association, Colorado Springs, Colorado
RE: Steve Ivy
Dear Mr. Rochette:
The Ivy Company held an auction dated December 10,
11,1 976, which included Judd 47, listed as Lot 1 1 08. Early
50 cent patterns and trial pieces are among my special inter-
ests so I asked to see Lot 1108. It was sent, studied and

returned with a letter (copy attached) suggesting that the
piece be withdrawn because it was not Judd 47.
When I received the prices realized I found that it was
recorded as having realized $1,000. Attached is a Xerox
copy of Judd and the Ivy catalogue page so that easy com-
parisons can be made.
Even if Ivy did not know me and my skills he could have
inquired of me regarding the legitimacy of my statements;
he did not.
Further, I am told A. Kosoff had the piece examined. It
was found to be a counterfeit and Ivy was so informed.

To me, this is a serious matter which deserves the atten-
tion of the ANA.
Yours Sincerely,
Stewart Witham
Before sending the letter to the ANA, Witham decided to show it to
Kosoff, saying “il you do not disagree or disapprove I’ll send this out.”
After reading the letter, Kosoff replied:
January 17, 1977
Dear Stewart,
Thank you for the copy of your letter of January 12,
1977 addressed to Ed Rochette in regard to the J-47.
Let me bring you further up to date. When I saw the list-
ing in the Ivy Catalogue, I asked Mike Kliman of

Numismatic Enterprises to examine it.Mike is well versed
in the series. I did tell him what 1 expected him to find and,
of course, that’s what it turned out to be. Mike told one of
Ivy’s men about it, suggesting that the lot be withdrawn.
Mike also spoke to 3 other dealers/collectors all of whom
agreed that the piece was not good.
Mike cautioned the Auction people and told
Finally
them he would outbid anyone bidding on the piece and
would then return it to them as a counterfeit. This he did.
Kliman outbid everyone to $1,000.00 and returned the lot
as a fake.
Why the Ivy Company, in the face of your letter of

November 21, 1976 and Kliman’s confirmation of your
opinion, did not withdraw the lot is a mystery to me. While
I hate to see complaints filed against any dealer in the
A.N.A. or the P.N.G. I applaud the efforts to discourage
misrepresentation in any form.

Very sincerely yours,
A. Kosoff
Satisfied that the issue was settled and that a collector had not been
swindled, the complaint letter was never filed with the A.N.A. It is
assumed that the coin was simply returned to its consignor.
(Author’s note: In an effort to relate both sides ol the story, Steve Ivy
was contacted regarding these events. Bob Merrill, Director ol Ivys auc-
tion company, had no recollection of the situation or any record of
what became of the coin.)
According to Ivy,
After my discussions with Mr. Merrill, I attempted to call
Mike Kliman, with whom I finally spoke yesterday. I relat-
ed the matter in its entirety to Mike and he, in fact, did
remember many of the details relating to this situation. It is
his recollection that he did tell us the coin was controversial

and that in his opinion it was not a legitimate pattern. He
did say, however, that there were knowledgeable people in
that field who did not share his opinion. In situations like
this it would be unfair to the consignor to withdraw a coin,
particularly before anything can be proven dispositively.
Under such circumstances, it is our normal policy to make

an announcement at the time of the auction indicating that
the authenticity of a coin has been questioned. Furthermore
if a questioned coin sells to a mail bidder, it is our policy to
notify the mail bidder with the same information. In dis-
cussing this with Mr. Kliman, it is his recollection that we

did make an announcement at the auction. (He wasn’t
there, but apparently he spoke with other people who were.)
Obviously, our firm is not interested in ever selling a
counterfeit coin, or for that matter ever misrepresenting any
coin we sell. It is, however, important that we balance the
interest of both buyers and consignors in weighing our deci-
sions.
Fig. 31. 1823 1/A counter-

Copper specimens
feit half.
have frequently been offered

as the so-called pattern J-47.
In October 1981, Witham saw yet another ad for a Judd 47. Up

sending for and examining the coin, he had another Dear John letter
write:
I have seen several of the 1823 copper halves purported

to be Mint products. Some want to call them Judd 47 (that
is listed with a reeded edge). All the pieces I have seen are
lettered - as is yours. The edge work is usually very good,
and for a counterfeit the die work is excellent. But the bot-
tom line is “contemporary counterfeit.” That is the answer
on your piece - sorry to say.
Don Taxay had one in 1975 which he called genuine. I
took aluminum foil impressions of the piece and they match

yours. Steve Ivy in a 1976 sale listed one. I was able after
some months to prove to him and Mike Kliman, the con-

signor, as well as Abe KosofF, that the piece was bad. I’m
told that Mike bought it at the sale and then returned it as
a fake.
The reasons that yours and the others are bad are various:
1. There are no known silver pieces with the obv/rev
die combination.
2. There are many pieces equal in all respects made of
German Silver - I own one of these.
3. In all genuine bust half obverses (1818-1823), the
period of Wm. Kneass’s Mint work, have his trade-
mark. There is a very small knick cut out in the
underside of the drapery of the bust on a horizontal

line from the top ceriph of the digit one. This does
not show on the counterfeits.
4. The reverse die is found used in combination with
obverses of other years. The obverse workmanship is
bad (not of Mint caliber) and the metal is usually
German Silver.
There are a couple of diagnostic marks on your piece that

follows the piece. On the obv. there are two metal “blobs”
on the breast just above the drapery. On the rev. the two
upper arrow shafts stop at the first claw rather than contin-
uing on to the left.
To those of us who collect counterfeit halves this piece is
known as 1/A. Value to that type collector would he $25.

Sorry for this disappointing report.
Regards,
Stew Witham
In a February 2-4, 1984 sale, Art & Don Kagin offered Lot No.
4023 for public auction. The coin was highlighted in their catalog and
even color-plated. The following description of the Lot appeared on
Page 82 of that catalog:
4023 - 50 cents 1823 Type Judd-47 copper lettered edge

AU-50. Deep red, uneven surfaces from possible cast
planchet. Obverse die not used for silver halves recorded by

Overton, equal-size digits in date with intact 3, short die
cracks at third and fourth stars with notable porosity at sixth
star. Reverse weakly struck at center. Edge bears incuse leg-

end FIFTY CENTS OR HALF A DOLLAR (star between
DOLLAR and FIFTY).
Copper 1823 pieces with reeded edges have long been asso-
ciated with Philadelphia numismatist Joseph Mickley’s pri-
vate restriking from salvaged dies in the late 1850’s (see
Stewart P. Witham’s “Rusty Dies, Mint Sports Abound in
Half Dollar Patterns” and Thomas K. DeLorey’s “What

Would You Call” column, Numismatic Scrapbook ,
November 1974 and September 1975.) The known

Mickley pieces were struck from dies purchased as scrap
steel from the Mint; Witham notes reeded edges on all he

has examined, while Judd records plain edges for J-47. The
GENA coin’s incuse - lettered edge is typical of the 181 4-
1831 period for half dollars. Mickley’s creations are believed
to date from 1858-61; Mint attempts to revive lettered
edges in 1860 saw only three letters and one star visible on
the Liberty Seated copper half dollar, Judd 269. (See Kagin’s
1983 ANA Sale, Lot 3026.)
This 1823 lettered-edge copper half dollar may be the dis-

covery that will clarify some of the Witham-Judd uncer-

tainty as to the existence of Mint-struck halves in copper
versus Mickley’s later additions. Judd 47 is listed as R-8,
while this unrecorded edge-lettered type must plainly be of

even greater rarity, quite possibly unique.
Upon seeing this commentary in the Kagin Catalog, Stewart

Witham responded with the following letter to Don Kagin:
Regarding Lot 4023 February 24 Sale please re-examine

my Numismatic Scrapbook Article. The lettered edge was
known me - from three different sources, including Art
to
(Kagin) and Don (Taxay) -in all instances declared it a I
counterfeit - equal to my German Silver piece - known as

1A. Your lot is, I’ll bet a lot of money, a counterfeit.
Regards,
Stew Witham
He never received a reply. The lot was sold, realizing $230.00. In

summing up his many years of searching for a genuine piece, Witham
wrote in 1984:
Judd 47 -
Since I’m getting older, 67 (April I’ll be 68) I have less need
to coddle to the promoters so I want to talk about an inter-
est of mine. Judd 47 - listed as a copper 1 823 bust half with

a R.E. (reeded edge, restrikes made at the Mint, ‘authentic-
ity questionable.’)
Since 1964 I have been a Bust Half specialist - also interest-
ed in the half dollar patterns through Judd 103, owning the

finest (I think) 50 cents pattern collection through J-103
that ever existed. Thus I had an interest in collecting
all/each, including J-47.
In reviewing my files I find the following references to an

1823 copper half:
1. Farouk 1953 #1710 - no mention of edge or other

characteristics.
2. Cox Stacks 1962 #2187 - rusty dies, patched three
variety - known to Judd but not illustrated. Edge -
no mention. (At that time “patched 3” had not been

clarified).
3. Foto Center ad in Coin World fall 1963 owned by

Bernard Cole, offered at $325. Saw it; German Silver
counterfeit, sold as counterfeit for $10... lettered
edge.
4. February 1969; Gala Jewelers ad in Coin World

asked for it and saw it. Returned as counterfeit.
Lettered edge, German silver.
5. Charles Fine, 1-10-73. Lettered edge. Saw it and

compared it. Equal to my German silver counterfeit.
6. Don Taxay, 1975; saw it and compared it. Equal to

Charles Fine German silver counterfeit.
7. November 1976, Steve Ivy #1108 sale 10-11-76

price realized - $1,000. Saw it and compared it.
Lettered edge counterfeit. Mike Kliman bought it
and returned as counterfeit.
8. John Rose, Colorado Springs. Same as Don Taxay

piece - lettered edge.
9. Jules Reiver; German silver, lettered edge.
10. Kagin - 2-4-84 #4023, listed as J-47. First, it is fair
to say that he misread my Numismatic Scrapbook

Magazine article. Second, I sent him a letter declar-
ing the piece a counterfeit, no answer.
If the truthbe known- 1823 J-47 copper 50 cents Judd says
reeded edge. Kagin 2-4-84 auction says Judd records plain
Witham notes reeded edges on all he has
edges. Kagin says
examined. Witham in Numismatic Scrapbook November
1974, Page 15 quote, “it would be fair to suggest that if the
dies are rusty, if they have reeded edges, if they are not from
known dies - they might better deserve the term “piece de
caprice.”
Witham did not say “reeded edges on all he had noted.” He

said “if.” The fact is on seven pieces Witham has examined
from 1963-1984 he has never seen a plain edge nor has he
seen a reeded edge.
Nor has he seen what he believes to be a mint-struck 50

cents copper piece. All that Witham has seen have been cop-
per, cast, lettered edge, and all have matched a German
Silver piece that he owns.
Since 1960 I have seen pieces in many states’ dealers, col-
lectors, and authors wanting their 1823 copper 50 cents to

be legit.
7th edition of Judd lists J-47 as ‘questionable authenticity.”
Never have I heard of a struck copper 1823 half with known

dies used on silver pieces.
I don’t think it exists. Who can say else?
As discussed earlier, German Silver was the favorite base alloy used
to produce die-struck counterfeit halves. Before this alloy was discov-

ered, the most common method was to strike copper planchets, and
then apply a silver plating or silver colored chemical “wash”. This latter
method was used to produce the 1823 halves which were erroneously
The copper planchets were struck, but never plated. A
called patterns.
blank copper planchet has been discovered with edge lettering applied,
which matches that of the 1823 copper halves. This planchet proves
both that the edge lettering was applied before the coins were struck, as
they were at the mint, and that the coins were struck; not cast as sug-
gested by Witham. The probable reason for
Witham’s confusion were the “blobs” on the

reverse, located above the denomination,
which he mistook for imperfections in the
mould which were often seen on cast coins.
These “blobs” were actually the result of die
rust, lending another clue that these dies may

have been unused or incompleted dies which
Fig. 32. Counterfeit cop- were discarded, or more likely, stolen from the
per planchet with lettered „ > i i
. _r
1
.
' mint and rput to use by
J
the counterfeiters,
edge.
The same counterfeiter who produced the 1823 dies has also been
guilty of a deception which he never intended, a pair ol 1825 dies so

good that a coin was slabbed by PCGS and offered for sale for 5 figures
as a newly discovered die variety. The 1825 1/A shares the same reverse
die as the 1 823 copper half complete with telltale raised lumps from die
rust above the C of 50C. on the reverse, as well as in other locations on
both sides of the coin. Few other bogus dies are capable of this level of
deceit. Needless to say, authentication by ANACS or another reputable
third party is mandatory on all new “discovery pieces.”
While it is fun to consider early bogus halves as examples of “crimi-
nal Americana”, and collectible in their own right, it is important to
recognize the possible dangers that they still do present to today’s col-
lectors. Collectors who, temporarily blinded by the excitement or the

greed of having “cherried” a new variety or die-trial piece, fail to notice
that slightly greasy feel of German Silver or the backward S in E
Pluribus Unum!
Patterns
J. Hewitt Judd, M.D. states in the preface of his book on U.S. pat-
tern, experimental and trial pieces that:
In recent years the term pattern has been commonly used to

denote any unissued piece, including, unfortunately, pieces
not originating in the mint such as copies, casts, elec-
trotypes and all types of false pieces. However, patterns are

pieces which present a new design, motto or denomination
proposed for adoption as a regular issue, struck in the spec-
ified metal, and which were not adopted, at least in that
same year.
The first true pattern of the Bust Half Dollar type is the 1836 reed-
ed edge J-57, a transitional design as officially adopted in 1837.
(Although with its 1,200 or so “business strikes”, many consider this a
regular issue.) Many new half dollar patterns were issued in 1838 and
1839.
The important point to be made here is that no genuine “pattern”
bust half dollars exist with dates prior to 1836, and any coins offered as
such should be immediately recognized as bogus. It is unlikely that con-

temporary counterfeits would be offered as such, as they were never
made in the correct metal, silver, and unlike all patterns were never pro-
duced in proof. The more realistic danger is presented by the off-metal
counterfeits, particularly copper, frequently offered as experimental
pieces or die trials.
Experimental Pieces & Die Trials

Experimental pieces are those made to try out a new metal or alloy
for possible use in an existing coin. Those coins struck in the proper
specified experimental metal are “experimental pieces”, and those

struck from the same experimental dies in other metals are “experi-
mental trial pieces.” “Regular die trial pieces” are those struck from the
same dies as subsequent business strikes for circulation, only they are
struck in softer metals such as copper, aluminum, or white metal to
“test” the dies prior to regular strikes. “Die trials” are strikes in soft
metal, usually uniface, of sometimes uncompleted dies, again for the

purpose of testing the impression prior to actual use.
Possibly the only authentic experimental piece of the Bust Half type
is the 1814 platinum J -44 of which 3 are known. No experimental trial
pieces exist. Therefore, all other off-metal bust halves would fall under
the category of “regular die trial" or “die trial” pieces.
The 1913 book on patterns by Edgar H. Adams and William H.
Woodin lists 4 copper bust halves as regular die trials (AW34, 35, 36,
38). All but AW34 have since been proven to be counterfeit. This piece
is listed in the 7th edition of Judd, Appendix A, as an 1822 uniface
obverse die trial “similar to but not exactly the regular die.” Witham
believes the die itself to be a mint product but there is evidence that the
few known strikes from this die were made at a later date outside the
Mint Witham’s “Rusty Dies, Mint Sports Abound in Half Dollar

(see
Patterns,” Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, November, 1974). Another

presumably genuine “regular die trial” listed in Judd Appendix A is an
1811 in white metal. While no 1813 die trials are listed in Adams-
Woodin, the Judd Reference lists an 1813 half in both copper and
brass, J42 (42a), J43. Although these arc from genuine U.S. dies, rust,
plain edges, heavy lapping, and a die combination not used for business
strikes (1813 0-107 ohv., 1810 0-104 rev.) would again indicate that
these were not true die trials, but once again a restrike, or “piece de
caprice”made at a later date from discarded dies, probably outside the
Mint. The last die trial listed in Judd is an eagle incompletely struck on
both sides of an 1832 large cent. It is listed as being the type of the
1807-1836 half dollars. I am surprised that Abe Kosoff, who did such
a great job weeding out errors carried over by Judd from Adams-
Woodin, missed this obvious bogus rendition of an eagle. I call it a
“counterfeiter's die trial” of a bogus die. (Not yet seen on another sur-
viving piece.)
Mint Errors
Fig. 33. Spectacular double-

struck 1833 counterfeit half.
Another continuing danger presented by

these old fakes is that of a “counterfeiter’s die
trial” being mistaken for a United States mint
error. Genuine mint errors of early half dollars
are rare, sought-after, and command premium
prices. In the Judd Appendix B, for example, 4 bust half dollars are list-
ed as mint errors:
1. 1818 half struck over a cent. Copper, 2 known.

2. 1823 half on large cent planchet. Copper.
3. 1832 half struck over a cent. Copper, 2 known.
4. 1832 half struck on a foreign copper coin.
Fig. 34. 1818 counterfeit half dies trial on 1808 large cent.
Stacks ANA 1976 Sale included Lot 3715, Bust Half Dollar over-
struck on a large cent. It was listed as a:
Mint error, no date, (probably 1832) regular dies, however,
unattributable to Overton. Overstuck upon an 1844 cent,

the date clearly visible among stars R. of bust. Judd,
Appendix B, where the comment “2 known” follows. The
cent was worn and had a small edge cut at the time of over-
striking the half dollar impression is seemingly fine, but part
of the appearance of wear may be from the weak uneven
striking, which has produced a jumble of impressions. Of
the highest rarity and interest.
Price realized $600.00.
The list goes on. An 1832 Bust Half Dollar, copper (dies not listed
in Overton) was offered as lot 4030 in the NASCA T. James Clarke

Sale, June 1978, as “a great rarity.” A pair of sharp eyes intercepted this
fact, however, and the piece was withdrawn from the auction. As a
comparison for evaluating their consignment, the catalog noted that an
overstruck large cent piece sold for $600 in Stacks’ 1976 ANA Sale. The
plate in the catalog confirms the coin’s bogus die matches several
known German Silver pieces.
I don’t know what price this piece brought, but I do know that its
present owner is in for a big disappointment someday.
The next example (courtesy of Jules Reiver) is another potentially

dangerous piece. It is a genuine 1798 large cent overstruck with con-
temporary counterfeit 1838 half dollar dies. While most likely a coun-
terfeiter’s die trial, the danger exists of a coin like this being sold (at a
big price) as a genuine U.S. mint error.
While genuine mint errors of bust halves

exist in the forms of off-center strikes, brock-
ages, etc., our advice with regard to any off-
metal strikes or strikes of half dollars on large

cents, or other foreign copper planchets, is to
be extremely skeptical. If the dies do not
Fig. 35. 1838 counterfeit half die trial on 1798 large cent.
march a known die listed in Overton, it probably is counterfeit. It is
safe to say that the great majority, if not all of them, are counterfeit die
trials.
Fig. 36. Uniface counter-

Fig. 37. Counterfeit 1 832 die trial on Brazilian 80
feit 1831 obverse die trial
Reis copper.
on lead “slug”.
All of the pieces listed in Judd as U.S. mint errors have been proven
to be bogus, by the matching of their dies with those of known base
metal counterfeits.
We would like to conclude this discussion with the history of one

such coin, a coin which has become the most famous, or rather infa-
mous contemporary counterfeit. Page 118 of the February 1934 issue
of The Numismatist illustrates the 1832 over foreign copper coin with
this commentary:
A U.S. Half Dollar on Copper Coin of Brazil. Among

the oddities which frequently find their way into the hands
of collectors is the one illustrated here, which comes to us
from H.D. Gibbs of Pittsburgh, PA.

It is a copper coin of Peter II of Brazil (1831-89) for 80
Reis upon which has been impressed the dies for a United
States half dollar dated 1832. The reverse shows a double
impression. The words “United States of America” show
plainly al?ove the eagle, while below it are portions of the
same words. The date 1 832 also appears above the head of
liberty on the obverse, although these are the only evidences
of double impressions.
Our guess as to its origin is that it was struck at the U.S.

Mint as a die trial or as a pocket piece of someone in the
Mint.
Kagin’s February 1987 sale lists this same piece on page 42 of that
catalog where it is plated and described:
Unique 1832 Bust Half Dollar on Brazil Copper Coin

2217-1832 Bust Half Dollar on a Brazil 80 Reis copper.
Basically very fine but hard to grade due to double striking.
Originally discovered by Don Taxay and first sold in a

November 1974 Kagin Sale as Lot 1864. Later sold in the
1977 ANA sale as Lot 2070. Listed in Scott’s Encyclopedia

of rare coins as “unique.” Undoubtedly a “set-up” piece used
for a trial strike when aligning the dies before the actual
striking. Listed in Judd (p. 255) as a Mint error. Tiny but
not very deep attempted puncture at the center and three
serrated marks at the right edge (to hold or align dies?) a
major rarity whether called a pattern or off-metal error.
How about calling it a “counterfeiter’s die trial?” Once again, Stew

Witham took pen in hand and wrote to Kagin’s:
Re: Lot 2217, sale of February 2/12/14/97
Gentlemen,
This Lot first appeared in “Numismatist” February 1934,
Page 1 18 from H.D. Gibbs’ collection. The next appearance
(to me) was from RARCOA in Oct., 1973. 1 had a chance
to study it at length, in my home, and the chance to declare
the impression of obv. & rev. from counterfeit dies.
The piece did not match any known silver 1832 die, obv.
or rev., the characteristics of letters, digits, bust, and stars
were not of the Mint. 1 pronounced the piece counterfeit.

I next saw the piece at the ANA in Miami Beach in 1974,
where Don Taxay bought it for $1,000 and sold it to Art

Kagin for $1,350. It was still counterfeit. Don Taxay was
upset that he had erred but nothing happened. The next
appearance ANA Atlanta, 1977 Lot 2070, still counterfeit
still it sold for $2,000, no floor bid. The Rarcoa piece, the
1974 ANA piece, the1977 ANA piece, all counterfeit. I’m
sure by plate and description your February Sale piece is the
same.
Please, end its misery, eliminate a buyer’s suffering, and
throw it away.
Sincerely,
Stew Witham
In response to this plea, an Errata sheet for Kagin’s 1987 Long Beach
sale was issued. The Lot was not withdrawn but an amended descrip-
tion was offered:
Lot 2217: The 1832 50 cent dies are from the Mexican
counterfeit dies, contemporary issue, from which nickel -
struck counterfeits were made.
The auction took place and a pronounced counterfeit U.S. coin was
sold in a major auction. Price realized, $900.00! This piece next showed
up as lot 5450 of the Heritage Long Beach Signature Sale in June,
1998. Again it was offered as a genuine U.S. “pattern”, this time the
suggestion being made that it was some kind of die-trial, or set-up piece
(as is still suggested in Pollock’s latest pattern book). After receiving
multiple letters prior to the sale, informing Heritage as to the true
nature of the coin, it stayed in the sale, and Heritage claims to have
made an announcement before selling it that it was suspected of being
The coin still sold for $5,610.00 (!) to a dealer acting as an
counterfeit.
agent for a collector who submitted his bid to the agent thinking that
the piece was genuine. A knowledgeable friend informed the new
owner that the piece was bogus, and it was returned to Heritage as a
counterfeit for a refund! We are curious to see where this now infamous
coin will show up again!
Judd Appendix D lists the following U.S. Half Dollars as “False

Pieces”:
1809 - Brass
1813 - Brass
1821 - Composition Metal
1823 - Copper
1824 - Copper (Adams-Woodin #35)
1825 - Copper (Adams-Woodin #36)
1826 - Copper
1830 - Copper
1831 - Copper (Adams-Woodin #38) and composition metal
1 832 - Copper
1838 - Silver
The list of false pieces currently known is much, much longer. Keith
Davignon’s 1996 book catalogued 188 “die varieties” of contemporary

counterfeit capped bust halves. Since that time, another 75 or so new
varieties have been discovered.
Recently, there have been significant offerings of contemporary
counterfeit capped bust half dollars at auction by major dealers, with
the coins being properly represented as such. It seems that these coins,
which have been collected and traded for quite a while by a small group
of specialty collectors in an “underground” marketplace, are now gen-
erating more visibility and interest in the mainstream.
The idea of collecting contemporary counterfeit coins is not a new
development. An illustration of this fact is found in an auction catalog
of an early sale. The 1885 W. Elliot Woodward sale of the J. Colvin
Randall cabinet lists nearly 30 such pieces, including 10 early halves.
Among the pieces listed are an 1820, countermarked J.T.B., and cop-
per halves dated 1834 and 1838. Handwritten notations in one catalog
shows the prices realized for most of these “coins” to have been “5” (I
assume 5 cents).
As much as I dislike to see collectors stuck with anything

false, I hate to see these things destroyed by Treasury Agents;
they have for me some slight hint to the appeal of barbaric
copies of ancient coins. Primitive American Art of a most
amusing kind.
(Walter Breen, Sept. 1963 Coin World)
There are many people who feel that these coins are a fascinating bit
of criminal Americana and that they should be legal to be collected,
bought, and sold openly without fear of prosecution or confiscation so
,
Counterfeit Cupped Bust Half Dollars 133
long as they are properly represented. However, as we have seen, the
danger to deceive still exists. It is our hope that through educational

forums such as the Coinage of the Americas Conference, the collecting
fraternity will be made aware of the facts, and armed with this new
knowledge go forth to explore further a unique area of numismatics.
List of References
Aaron, Robert. Counterfeit Coins and Canadian Law. Numismatic Scrapbook

Magazine September, 1975.
Annals ofAmerica, Volume 5, 1821-1832, Steps Toward Equalitarianism; Volume 6 1833-

1840, Challenge ofa Continent. William Benton: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968.
Breen, Walter, Counterfeit Half Dollars. Coin World, September 20, 1963.
Burnham, George P., American Counterfeits - How Detected and How Avoided. W.J.
Holland, Springfield, Mass., 1875.
Carothers, Neil, Fractional Money, A History of Small Coins and Fractional Paper
Currency of the United States. Bowers and Merena Galleries, Wolfboro, 1988. NH
Coin Dies Abandoned in the Old U.S. Mint. The Numismatist, Dec. 1910: 258-259.
Colburn, J.G.W. (compiled by), Toledo, Ohio, 1880, The Life ofSile Doty, (reprinted
by Alved of Detroit, Inc. 1948; The Life of Sile Doty 1800-1876, A Forgotten
Autobiography).
Counterfeiting Was Once a Legitimate Business. Sunday Call, Newark, N.J., June 2,
1895. Reprinted in Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, August, 1942: 406- 407.
Daniel, Clifton, Editorial Director, Kirsiton, John, W., Editor in Chief, Chronicle of
America. DK Publishing, 1997.
Davignon, Keith R., Contemporary Counterfeit Capped Bust Half Dollars. Money Tree
Press, 1996
Davis, David, A Friday Surprise. John Reich Journal ,

Number 12 John Reich Collectors
Society, Ypsilanti, MI, July, 1990.
Destruction of the Dies of 1899. American Journal of Numismatics, January, 1900.
Dillistin, William H., Bank Note Reporters and Counterfeit Detectors 1826-1866.
American Numismatic Society, N.Y. 1949.
Doty, Richard, America’s Money America's Story, A Comprehensive Chronicle ofAmerican

Numismatic History, Krause Publications, Iola, WI, 1998.
James Martin Bell Papers 1768-1870. Duke University, Special Collections Library.
DuBois, William E., Account of Counterfeit Half Dollars of 1877, Assayer U.S. Mint,
Phila., P.A., Daily Papers, January 25, 1877. (Reprinted).
DuBois, William E. and Jacob R. Eckfeldt, (Assayers of the Mint of the United States),
A Manual of Gold and Silver Coins of all Nations. Philadelphia, PA, 1842.
Eckfeldt & Dubois, New Varieties of Gold and Silver Coins. Philadelphia, 1850.
(Reprint 1851).
Finkelstein, David. 1993. Obverse Die Dentil Analysis, Part 1: Capped Bust Halves,
1807-1819. John Reich Journal Number 22, October John Reich Collectors Society,
Harrison, OH.
Finkelstein, David. 1994. Obverse Die Dentil Analysis, Part 2: Capped Bust Halves,
1820-1836. John Reich Journal, Number 23, April. John Reich Collectors Society,
Harrison, OH.
Glaser, Lynn, Counterfeiting in America the History of an American Way to Wealth.
Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1968.
Hancock, Virgil and Spanbauer, Larry, Standard Catalog of United States Altered and
Counterfeit Coins Sanford , J. Durst Numismatic Publications, New York, 1979.
Hargreaves, Mary W., The Presidency ofJohn Quincy Adams, University Press of Kansas,
1985.
Karoleff, BradleyS., NLG, Bust Half Dollar Bibliomania, Self Published, 1996.
Kosoff, A., United States Pattern, Experimental and Trial Pieces, Seventh Edition, Western
Publishing Co., Inc., 1982. (Original Edition byj. Hewitt Judd, M.D.).
Leaman, Ivan and Gunnet, Donald, Edges and Die Sequences on Early Half Dollars.
American Numismatic Society Coinage of the
America's Silver Coinage, 1794-1891,
America’s Conference 3, New York, 1986.
McGrane, Reginald Charles, The Panic of 1837, Some Financial Problems of the
Jacksonian Era, University of Chicago Press 1924
Miller, Marianne F., Along the Counterfeit Trail. Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine,
August 1955.
Mossman, Philip L., Money of the American Colonies and Confederation, A Numismatic,
Economic & Historical Correlation. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies
20, New York, 1993.
Neuzil, Chris, A Reckoning of Moritz Ftirst’s American Medals. The Medal in America,
Volume Alan
2, M. Stahl, ed., American Numismatic Society Coinage of the Americas
Conference 13, New York, 1998: 17-118.
Timothy Pickering Papers. Ohio Historical Society.
Overton, A1 C., Parsley, Don, ed., Early HalfDollar Die Varieties 1794-1836. Third edi-
tion, Escondido, CA 1990.
Remini, Robert V., Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., New
York, 1967.
Riddell, J. L., M.D., A Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad, 1 845.
Schilke, Oscar G. and Solomon, Raphael E. America's Foreign Coins. An Illustrated

Standard Catalogue with Valuations of Foreign Coins with Legal Tender Status in the
United States, 1793-1857.
Smith, Laurence Dwight, Counterfeiting, Crime Against the People. W.W. Norton &
Co., Inc., New York, 1944.
Souders, Edgar E., Bust Half Fever, Money Tree Press Rocky River, OH, 1995.
Taxay, Don, Counterfeit Mis-struck and Unofficial U.S. Coins. Arco Publishing Co.,
Inc., New York, 1963.
Taxay,Don, The U S Mint and Coinage, an Illustrated History from 1776 to the Present.
Arco Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1966.
Temin, Peter, The Jacksonian Economy W. W. Norton

, & Co. Inc., New York, 1969.
Witham, Stewart, Johann Matthaus Reich, also known as John Reich, self published 1 993.
Witham, Stewart, Bogus Halves Deceive Merchants. Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine,

January 1970: 66-71.
Witham, Stewart, Rusty Dies, Mint Sports Abound in Half Dollar Patterns.
Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, November 1974: 14.
Personal Correspondence with:

An East Coast Collector
Horning, Dr. Charles
Kovach, John, Jr.
Logan, Russell
Meyer, Charlton, “Swampy”
Peterson, Dr. Glenn
Rulau, Russell
Souders, Edgar
Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust Type:
Charles III, Charles IV, Ferdinand VII
1771-1821
A Survey and a Die Study
John M. Kleeberg

November 7, 1998

138 John M. Kleeberg
Counterfeit 2 Reales: The Evidence for Their U.S. Circulation
Researchers have long suspected that counterfeit 2 reales are a com-

ponent of the United States circulating medium. Where and when were
these coins made?
One might think that counterfeit 2 reales were made in Mexico, but
this appears not to be the case. Early on I asked Clyde Hubbard for
help. Looking through his collection, he did not find a single counter-
feit 2 reales. Through the good offices of Ted Buttrey, the ANS was
given the fakes and counterfeits from the Pablo Gerber collection. The
Gerber collection contained over a hundred Mexican forgeries. It con-
tained only two counterfeit 2 reales (both Ferdinand VII, by the way:
variety 21B-Z2). I also showed the ANS collection of counterfeit 2
reales to Ted Buttrey, who said he did not see them frequently. John
Lorenzo got similar reactions when he asked dealers who specialize in
Mexican coins. In short, collectors of Mexican coins do not often

encounter counterfeit 2 reales.
Many counterfeit 2 reales have a provenance that leads back to New

York City. The biggest donation to the ANS was made by Abe Kosoff
in when he was a dealer in New York and before he moved to
1944,
California. Mike Ringo has turned up many in New York City. The
New York dealer Paul Bosco has also found many. Other numismatists
who have turned up counterfeit 2 reales are long-time collectors from
the New York City area, such as Emmett McDonald and Robert Blank.
Finally, an obverse die (87 A) links what appears to be a Mexico
reverse (M3) and a Lima reverse (L4). No Mexican counterfeiter would
make such a mistake. These coins were produced where Mexico and
Lima coins were commingled — the United States.
A similar argument that the counterfeit 2 reales were produced in an
area where Mexico and Lima coins were commingled is mismatched
assayers. Reverse die LI 2 combines a Lima mintmark with Mexico
assayers (TH). LI 4 does the same, and links an obverse dated 1795 to
assayers active from 1804 onwards. P4 has a Popayan mintmark and is
linked to an obverse, 10A, which uses a characteristic Popayan abbrevi-

ation for Ferdinand (FERDND), but has the Mexican assayers HJ.
Most counterfeiters are not numismatists. They pay little attention
to date, mintmark and assayer combinations. To them, one 2 reales is
Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust Type 139
much like another. They often used multiple, contradictory models for
their dies,and created impossible mules. These mules indicate that the
counterfeits were made where both Lima and Mexico pieces were avail-
able in almost equal numbers.
The likeliest place for this is the United States. Before the Civil War,
genuine 2 reales made up a significant proportion of the fractional sil-
ver in circulation in the United States, as I shall show in the next four
sections.
The Circulation of Genuine 2 Reales: The Evidence of Coin Finds
There are four types of evidence for circulation: coin finds; literary
evidence; coin vignettes on bank notes and scrip; and counterstamps.

Counterstamps proved to be the most fruitful evidence, but 1 will first
discuss the other three types of evidence.

Coin finds were not particularly helpful. Finds of Spanish colonial
dollars are so common that hoards of them are often inadequately
described, and hoards of 2 reales are considered even less remarkable.

The coins are often referred to indiscriminately as “Small Spanish
coins,” when they are mentioned at all. An inventory I have compiled
of coin finds in the Americas includes three hoards that contain 2
reales:Morgantown, West Virginia (1927); Natural Bridge, Virginia
(1959); and New Orleans, Louisiana (1982).
The Morgantown, West Virginia hoard (1927) is small: six 2 reales
and one U.S. half dollar of 1811. It does, however, indicate how
Spanish American 2 reales and Federal half dollars complemented each
other in the silver circulation (More Treasure 1927).
The 2 reales in the New Orleans (1982) hoard were never listed in
detail, but we know they were present in substantial numbers.

Approximately eighty percent of the hoard was foreign coins, and most
of those were Spanish-American 2 reales and 8 reales. The most recent
date in the hoard was an 1842 Federal quarter dollar (Cohen 1982;
Bowers 1997, 63-65).
The Natural Bridge, Virginia (1959) hoard contained 1,299 silver
coins; 129 were described as “Small Spanish coins.” The latest date in
the hoard is 1859, and the hoard is supposed to have been buried in
June 1864, just before John Hunter’s raid during the Civil War. Federal
quarter dollars were a substantial portion (534), as we would expect

from a hoard formed after 1853. I he Natural Bridge hoard indicates
that even after the weight reduction of 1853 and the redemption of
Spanish silver by the U.S. Mint in 1 857, Spanish fractional silver coins
remained a substantial portion of the circulating currency of the United

States: ten per cent of the silver coins (Treasure 1959).
The hoard evidence indicates that 2 reales were common in circula-
tion through the Civil War. All three hoards are from below the Mason-
Dixon line, but it would be unwise to generalize about circulation pat-
terns from such little evidence. This regional bias is contradicted by
other evidence, namely counterstamps.
The Circulation of Genuine 2 Reales: Literary Evidence
Literary evidence is also problematic. Contemporaries considered

Spanish-American 2 reales to be quarter dollars. There was no verbal
distinction between them and Federal quarter dollars. We cannot use
literary evidence as we did with the pistareen, which was described by
a distinct word (Kleeberg 1998, 1870-1871). One pistareen story does
indicate the circulation of 2 reales in Philadelphia in the early nine-
teenth century. The story, The Four Pistareens, revolves about the con-
fusion between pistareens and quarter dollars {Four Pistareens 1837, 29-
30). This indicates that 2 reales, not Federal quarter dollars are meant,
because only 2 reales and pistareens could be so easily confused.
There are several estimates of the number of Spanish fractions in cir-
culation in the United States (Carothers 1930, 78, 106, 143-144, 146).
The figures are in dollars, but since 4 reales were never minted in sig-
nificant numbers, the actual number of coins is at least four times the
dollar amount.
Date Dollar Amount Number of Coins Source
1 830 $5 million +20 million Sen. Finance

Committee
1850 $6 million +24 million
1857 $3 million + 12 million Snowden
1857-1860 $2 million +8 million Mint recoinage
Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust type 141
Carothers says that J. R. Snowden’s 1857 estimate is “undoubtedly

too low.” We have a range of estimates from $2 million to $6 million,
with the number of coins in circulation ranging from 8 million to 24
million. These figures confirm that before 1853, Spanish-American
fractions were a more important part of the U.S. silver currency than
any other coin, with the exception of the half dollar.

Another indication of the importance of the circulation of Spanish-
American silver is the evidence of denominations. Unfortunately we
cannot use denominations to track the circulation of 2 reales, because
their denomination is 25 cents; but the denominations 6*4 cents and

12*/2 cents do indicate the use of medios and reales.
1 have examined the issuers of Spanish-American and Federal frac-

tional denominations in the catalogues of paper money written by Eric
P. Newman and James Haxby (Newman 1997; Haxby 1988). divided 1
the issuers into three groups: those that only issue Federal denomina-
tions (i.e. 5 and 10 cents); those that only issue Spanish denominations
(i.e. 6*4 and \2Vi cents); and those that issue both. Eleven issuers issued
only Federal denominations; 38 issued only Spanish-American denom-
inations; and 22 issued both. This indicates that at least through 1840
(most of this scrip was issued during periods of crisis, such as the War
of 1812 and the Panic of 1837), Spanish-American coins predominat-
ed in circulation, compared with dimes and half dimes.
In the Far West, Spanish-American coins circulated for much longer
than in the East. Reports from Northern and Southern California in
the 1850s mention that 2 reales were frequently encountered (Cross
1927, 1:123-124). This is also indicated by the numerous Western
good for trade mirrors that use the denomination \2Vi cents. A break
down by denominations, from the catalog by Hal Dunn, is given in the
table below.
The prevalence of the Spanish-American denomination \2Vi cents is
very noticeable. Another denomination, 2*4 cents, interlocks the

Federal decimal and the Spanish-American octal systems. These pieces
could only have been issued after 1896, when the celluloid button was
patented. The denominations of the Western good for mirrors indicate
how prevalent Spanish-American fractional silver coins were in the Far
West, even in the first decade of the twentieth century (Dunn 1995).
Denomination Number of Issuers
2/4 cents 2
5 cents 15
1 0 cents 143
121h cents 187
1 5 cents 3
25 cents 3_
1 dollar 3_
Good for drink or cigar 39
The Circulation of Genuine 2 Reales: The Evidence

of Paper Money Vignettes
An interesting source is coin vignettes, which depict 2 reales. These

are attractive and actively collected. They have been catalogued by
Hatie (Hatie 1975, 1981-1982); I have supplemented his listing by
consulting Haxby (Haxby 1988). In theory, banks will circulate notes
with vignettes depicting coins that are familiar to their customers. If 2
reales are in widespread circulation in their area, a bank will be more
likely to use them in a vignette. But further research indicates that coin
vignettes are a security device used as stock engravings by bank note
printers. They tell us something about the practices of bank note print-
ers, but not much about coin circulation. Banks used vignettes almost
entirely randomly, depending upon what stock engraving appealed to
them at the time.
The following table provides a listing of issuers, distributed by state,
derived from Hatie. I have added four Canadian issuers: Wolfred

Nelson’s issues for the Distillerie de St. Denis; the issues for Henry’s
Bank and the Banque de Quebec; and W. & J. Bell’s issues from Perth,
Ontario (McQuade 1986a, b; Turner 1986; Charlton 1996, 172, 360).
Haxby includes three issuers of banknotes who were not listed in Hatie,
all from Baltimore, Maryland: the Bank of Baltimore (MD-15, notes
G12 and Gl2a); the Bank of Maryland (MD-95, notes G12 and
G12a), and the Union Bank of Maryland (MD-120, note G28).
Three printers (Robinson; Rawdon, Wright & Hatch; and
Manouvrier) produced most notes with vignettes of 2 reales. During
Counterfeit 2 Rentes of the Bust type 1 43
State or Province Number of Issuers
Alabama 1
Georgia 1
Maryland 10
Michigan 2
Mississippi 1
New York 3
Ohio 2
Pennsylvania 2
South Carolina 1
Tennessee 2
Virginia 1
Unidentified [London, Ohio?] 1
Ontario 1
Quebec 3
the period after the War of 1812, when scrip was used instead of coin,
the printer J. Robinson of Baltimore put coin vignettes of Spanish-
American coins on his notes. This accounts for the high occurrence of
coin vignettes of 2 reales in Maryland.
The second group of 2 reales coin vignettes has a complex history.
The best evidence available suggests that this design originated from
Canada. In 1837, four Canadian businesses issued notes depicting 2
reales in rapid succession. Edme Henry issued a banknote depicting a
2 reales of Mexico, assayers FM, in June 1837. This note is said to have
been engraved by Burton, Gurley & Edmonds of New York and print-
ed by Adolphus Bourne of Montreal (McQuade 1986a; Charlton 1996,
172). Dr. Wolfred Nelson issued a note for his Distillerie de St. Denis
on July 22, 1837 depicting a 2 reales of Lima, assayers IJ (McQuade
1986b). In August 1837, W. & J. Bell of Perth, Ontario, issued a note
depicting a 2 reales of Lima, assayers IJ (Turner 1986). This was print-
ed by Bourne and the Bells, in their correspondence, say that Bourne
engraved the notes as well. Bourne, however, was also an agent for the
engravers Burton, Gurley & Edmonds. The likeliest solution is that the
complex vignette was made by Burton, Gurley & Edmonds and the rest
of the engraving by Adolphus Bourne. The same vignette then turned
up again when the Banque de Quebec issued notes in October 1837.

This time it was not printed by Burton, Gurley & Edmonds, or by
Bourne, but by Rawdon, Wright & Hatch of New York (Charlton

1996, 360). Partnerships o) banknote engravers were very fluid in this
period, which may explain how a vignette that had begun by being
associated with Bourne/Burton, Gurley & Edmonds ended up with
Rawdon, Wright & Hatch. Finally, in the 1 840s Rawdon, Wright &
Hatch used this vignette for various U.S. issues. The Canadian notes
for Bell precede the U.S. notes. The Rawdon, Wright & Hatch engrav-
ing did not originate with a U.S. banker who had a 2 reales depicted
because it was a coin familiar to his clients; it originates with Canadian
merchants.
I he third group was printed by J. Manouvrier of New Orleans for
the Bank of Tennessee during the Civil War. Federal quarter dollars
almost certainly outnumbered 2 reales in circulation in Tennessee by
the eve of the Civil War. Tennessee wished to indicate that its notes
were as good as specie, but since it was in rebellion against the United
States, it did not wish to represent this with United States coin. So its
paper money depicted Spanish coins instead.

We cannot look at the evidence of vignettes and conclude, for exam-
ple, that 2 reales mostly circulated in Maryland. T here just happened
to be a printer in Baltimore who used that as a stock vignette for frac-
tional scrip. Vignettes do tell us, however, that banknote printers could
reasonably assume that 2 reales would be familiar to banknote users
throughout the South, the Middle West, and the Mid-Atlantic states;
and in Canada.
It is also interesting to see which coins from which mints and assay-
ers were depicted on these notes; Hatie, regrettably, does not identify
the mints and the assayers, nor does he illustrate all the notes, so we
cannot identify them for all the notes. The following table summarizes
the information available.
Vignettes, as one can see, can give a very misleading idea of what was
in circulation in the United States in this period. 2 reales from Mexico
were as common as 2 reales from Lima. But the vignettes suggest that
Lima 2 reales were the overwhelming majority, which they were not.
Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust Type 1 45
Mint and Assayers (with dates) Number of Issuers
Lima 1J [1787-1804] 14
Lima JP [1803-1823] 1
Mexico FM [1772-1801] 1
Mexico TH [1804-1813] 1
Mexico HJ [1810-1813] 1
Guatemala M [1785-1821] 1
The Circulation of 2 Reales: The Evidence of Counterstamps
The best evidence lor circulation is counterstamps. I compiled a cor-

pus of counterstamps on 2 reales from Gregory Brunk’s catalogue.
State Number of Issuers No. of Specimens
California 2 6
Colorado 1 11
Illinois 1 5
Iowa 1 1
Kentucky 3 4
Louisiana 1 1
Maryland 4 36
Massachusetts 8 21
Michigan 1 1
Missouri 1 1
New Hampshire 1 1
New Jersey 2 4
New York 32 137
Ohio 1 1
Pennsylvania 19 64
Rhode Island 1 1
Wisconsin 1 1
Genuine 2 reales circulated all over the United States. Unlike many
other early American series — e.g. large cents, which for many years
2
were more restricted to the east and in particular, New England —

reales were a truly national coin. Since they circulated until the 1870s,
they followed the pattern of settlement westward, to Illinois, to
Wisconsin, and even to Colorado and California. The South is some-

what underrepresented. Here we must supplement the evidence of
counterstamps with the evidence of coin finds, which are all from the
South. But there is a clear predominance of New York State, followed
by Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
It is also interesting to look at cities from which more than one spec-
imen is known. Here is the result from Brunk’s catalogue:
Name of City Number of Issuers No. of Specimens
Albany, NY 1 2
Baltimore, MD 4 36
Boston, MA 4 17
Brooklyn, NY 1 6
Hanover, PA 2 5
Louisville, KY 2 3
Monmouth, IL 1 5
New Brunswick, NJ 1 2
New York, NY 22 112
Newark, N] 1 2
Philadelphia, PA 14 56
Sacramento, CA 1 2
San Francisco, CA 1 4
Springfield, MA 3 3
Syracuse, NY 2 11
The city to which most specimens can be traced New York City;
is
followed by Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston. New York City has

twice as many specimens known as Philadelphia, and its pre-eminence
becomes even more pronounced if we include Newark and Brooklyn in
New York City’s count. The counterstamp evidence suggests that most
2 reales circulated in New York City, followed by the other large port
cities of the Northeast: Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston.

Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust lype 1 47
When Genuine and Counterfeit 2 Reales Circulated
2 reales, genuine and counterfeit, passed in and out of United States
circulation for more than a century. The story is a complex one, and the
was frequently interrupted by wars (1775-1781, 1811-
circulation
1820, 1861-1877) and depressions (1837-1840). My account relies on
Carothers.
In 1771 a secret debasement was carried out at the Spanish and
Spanish colonial mints. The colonial type was changed from the pillar
and globes type to one depicting the bust of Charles III. The first
American issues are dated 1772. Pillar type 2 reales continued to circu-
late to a small extent —we know from counterstamps and hoards
this
(Cohen 1982) —because Gresham’s law works with on less strength the
lower denominations. When the War of Independence broke out in
1775, the new bust type coins disappeared from North American cir-
culation. Paper circulated to the exclusion of coin. After the final col-
lapse of the Continental Currency in 1780, coins began to circulate
again (Carothers 1930, 37-41).
Many state mints were set up under the Articles of Confederation in
the period 1783-1789. It seems probable that some counterfeit 2 reales
were struck in this period, just as many counterfeit halfpence were.

Counterfeit pistareens certainly were struck in this period: we know
this from overstrikes (Kleeberg 1998, 1857-1861). In August 1789 the
copper panic occurred, and fractional scrip replaced state coppers and
counterfeit halfpence.
In 1795 the Anglesey Copper Company collapsed, increasing the
copper price. The weight of the Federal cent was reduced in response
(Breen 1988, 186). Copper was exported to Europe because of the wars
with France. Copper counterfeits become less likely during this period.
By 1800-1810, the availability of cheap zinc led to an expansion of

the U.S. brass founding industry. Die chains of several groups of brass
counterfeit 2 reales link up with coins dated 1797 (Group V), 1798
(Group VI), 1801 (Group II) and 1807 (Group IV). Since it is easy to
circulate a coin dated in the past, but difficult to circulate a coin dated
in the future, the dates on the coins provide a terminus post quem for
their manufacture. These die chains indicate that the coins were struck
after 1800.
In 1810 rhe Mexican War of Independence began, restricting silver
supplies. This led to a financial crisis in 1811, war in 1812-1815, and

another panic in 1819. Fractional scrip was used instead of coins
(Carothers 1930, 77, 79).
The 1820s and early 1830s are the likeliest date for the issuance of
some brass counterfeit 2 reales, especially the Ferdinand VII types.
In 1832, Dr. Lewis Feuchtwanger issued his coins in German silver.
Although he could not convince the mint of its utility, counterfeiters

soon learned that it was a good way to imitate silver coins (Bosco
1983). German silver counterfeit 2 reales would have been issued in the
period 1832-1837 and 1840-1843.

I he Panic of 1837 caused hard coin to disappear. Fractional scrip
and hard times tokens were used instead of coin through 1840
(Carothers 1930, 95-97).
In 1843, the New York banks reduced the price at which they would
accept 2 reales to 23 cents, reales to 1 0 cents, and medios to 5 cents. By
1848, banks and post offices throughout the country had adopted this
valuation (Carothers 1930, 102).

The weight of the Federal quarter was reduced in April 1853 (the
“arrows and rays type”). From this period onward it is more practical to
counterfeit Federal quarter dollars, instead ol 2 reales (Carothers 1930,

123).
From 1857 until 1860 the U.S. Mint redeemed Spanish-American
silver for the new flying eagle cents at par; other government offices
would take them at only 20 cents (2 reales), 10 cents (reales) and 5
cents (medios) (Carothers 1930, 138-139, 145-147).

In the summer of 1862 full weight Federal silver coin disappeared
Irom circulation because of the Civil War. Thereupon worn 2 reales
came into circulation as a substitute for a few months until the green-
backs depreciated further and the worn 2 reales were hoarded as well
(Carothers 1930, 162). From 1862 until 1876 paper fractional curren-
cy was used instead of coin. In 1 876 a little silver began to re-appear in
circulation after the Civil War period. In 1877 it became a flood
(Carothers 1930, 256-259).

One counterstamp indicates that 2 reales still circulated in New York
City as late as the eighteen-seventies. Counterstamps are usually
applied in one batch. We

can therefore assume that the date of the lat-
est host coin is the terminus post quern for the counterstamp. A coun-
terstamp Parisian Varieties, 16 ^

r
St. & Broadway, New York, appears
on a trade dollar of 1876, and also on a 2 reales (Brunk 1987, 134-135;

Brunk variety 30900). This indicates that 2 reales circulated in New
York City as late as 1 876.
In the West, Spanish-American silver circulated for even longer. 1 he
most common denomination encountered for Western “good for’ mir-
rors is the Spanish-American denomination of \2Vi cents (Dunn
1995). Yet these “good for” mirrors only began to be made after 1896.
The Limited Circulation of Federal Quarter Dollars
The importance of the Spanish-American 2 reales is indicated by the

relative insignificance of the U.S. quarter dollar. This was among the
most neglected of all regularly minted silver denominations. In 1794-
1836, fewer dollars were minted, but there were special reasons for the
suspension of the minting of dollars in 1803. The minting of half dimes
was suspended tor a longer period, but in periods when half dimes were
being minted, the mint made more half dimes than quarter dollars.
Until 1843, in every year but one (1835), the U.S. mint made fewer
quarter dollars than dimes. Until 1842, in every year (except for 1805)
that the mint made both quarter dollars and half dimes, the number of
quarter dollars was less. In the sixty-eight year period 1794-1857, half
dollars were not minted in five years; half dimes were not minted in
twenty-eight years; quarter dollars in twenty-one years; dimes were not

minted in fourteen years.
The
U.S. Mint was being sensible: it would “hit them where they
ain’t."The Mexican mint made many 8 reales and 2 reales, so the
United States Mint made few dollars and quarters. The Mexican mint
made few 4 reales, so the United States Mint made many half dollars.
Dimes and half dimes were not Mexican denominations, so the United
States Mint made those. Moreover, the merchants of the time would
turn to the United States Mint for the denominations they lacked.
They received many 2 reales and 8 reales from Mexico, but they lacked
half dollars, dimes, and half dimes, so it was those coins that they
ordered from the Mint.
—
The limited circulation of the quarter dollar is also shown by the

comparative rarity of counterfeit quarter dollars. So far, I have found
only three counterfeit bust quarter dollars in the ANS collection, one
each dated 1833, 1834, and 1835. This is in contrast to the great abun-
dance of counterfeit bust half dollars.
Before 1853, it was more profitable to counterfeit 2 reales than
Federal quarter dollars. As the three specimens in the ANS collection

show, a few people tried anyway. We also have literary evidence about
some early counterfeiting of Federal quarter dollars. Niles’ National
Register wrote on March 27, 1841:

COUNTERFEITS. The Philadelphia Sentinel says that
counterfeit American quarters of dollars are in circulation.
They are dated 1836, and are so well executed that it is dif-
ficult to distinguish them from the genuine. (Niles 1841)
These instances are exceptions. It was only the reduction of the
weight of the quarter dollar in 1853 that opened the floodgates to mas-
sive counterfeiting of the Federal coin.
Where Counterfeit 2 Reales Were Made
Many counterfeit 2 reales have a provenance that leads back to New

York City. It is a logical conclusion that, just as most genuine 2 reales
circulated here, so did the counterfeits. It is possible that these coun-

terfeits were not only circulated, but also made in New York City. The
city was more industrial in the nineteenth century than it is now. In
1849, for example, counterfeit large cents were being made in the city
(Julian 1972; Kleeberg 1996). It is likelier, however, that the coins were
distributed in New York City but manufactured in one of the industri-
al towns of the early United States, such as Belleville, New Jersey or
Lansingburgh, New York. Before coal was cheap and steam widely
used, industry in the early Republic congregated around waterfalls
another example is Fall River, Massachusetts. An obvious candidate for
the manufacture of counterfeit 2 reales not far from New York City is
Waterbury, Connecticut, a traditional center of brassmaking, with

waterpower from the Naugatuck River.
—
When Counterfeit 2 Reales Were Made
When were these coins made? Literary and counterstamp evidence

shows that genuine 2 reales continued circulating even after they lost
their legal tender status in 1857, well into the eighteen-seventies. So we

have a wide range of dates: from 1772 until 1880.
Counterfeit 2 reales can be divided into three rough chronological
groups on the basis of metal: copper, brass, and finally German silver.
German silver was not extensively used in the United States until the
1830s, so this group can be assigned to the years 1830-1853. After the
weight reduction in the federal quarter dollar in 1853, arrows and rays
federal quarters became so plentiful in circulation that counterfeiters
shifted to that, rather than 2 reales. So 1853 would be the cut-off date
for counterfeit 2 reales. The German silver pieces date to the 1 830s
probably within a very narrow span of years. The change in the gold/ sil-
ver ratio in 1 834 increased the value of silver in terms of gold, and sil-
ver began to disappear from circulation. Counterfeiters shifted to bogus

paper and evasive copper (Hard Times tokens) in the late 1830s, until
the weight reduction ol 1 853 made silver counterfeiting profitable once
more.
Some copper pieces are early. 77C-L11 is dated 1777, and has the
right assayers for 1780-1787, so it would fit into the heyday of state
coppers and counterfeiting in the 1780s. There are, however, many

copper pieces that are part of the middle series, the brass one, because
specimens are known in both brass and copper from the same dies.
Die links indicate that brass pieces, although bearing eighteenth cen-
tury dates, must have been struck in the nineteenth century: for exam-
ple, obverses 88A and 01 B are linked by the reverse PI The bulk of the
.
brass pieces were probably struck in the period 1800-181 1. Coin dis-
appeared from circulation for much of the next decade because of the
War of 1812. 1820-1830 is another possibility. But if the brass coun-
terfeits were made in the 1 820s or later, we would see more counterfeits
with the bust of Ferdinand VII. But Ferdinand VII counterfeits are rare.
As a working hypothesis, the brass counterfeit 2 reales — the heart of

the series —were made in Waterbury and distributed in New York City
during the expansionary economic periods of 1800-1811 and 1820-
1830. This is an educated guess, based on where the brass industry was
situated, the dates on the counterfeits, the provenance of the counter-
feits and the circulation patterns of the genuine coins.
Counterfeit 2 Reales and Blacksmith Coppers
Much interest in counterfeit 2 reales is because of a presumed con-

nection to the Canadian Blacksmith series, going back to Warren
Baker’s collection auctioned in the Taylor sale of 1987. Baker included
two counterfeit 2 reales, and his arguments lor including them among
the Blacksmith series are strong. But it would be a mistake to include
all counterfeit 2 reales in the Blacksmith series. Many Blacksmiths are
counterfeits of counterfeits: we do not include all counterfeit halfpence
in the Blacksmith series, even though Blacksmiths imitate them. We do
not include all Hard Times Tokens in the Blacksmith series, even
though a counterfeit of the Peck’s Machine Company token is includ-
ed. Blacksmiths are the bottom feeders of the counterfeiting chain: they
are fakes of fakes.
Most counterfeit 2 reales differ from Blacksmiths in several respects.
The weight is lower: counterfeit 2 reales weigh below 6 grams, brass
Blacksmiths weigh above that. Secondly, the edges are finished differ-
ently; the edges of Blacksmiths are squared off, while those of counter-
feit 2 reales often have an imitation of the circle and oblong edge dec-
oration of the genuine pieces. Thirdly, counterfeit 2 reales show a
sophisticated use of letter punches. Blacksmiths often have no inscrip-

tion whatsoever.
We can distinguish three bodies of material, depending on where

they were made and where they circulated. First of all, genuine 2 reales.
These are produced in the mints of Mexico, Zacatecas, Popayan, Lima,

Potosf, Guatemala City and Santiago. They circulate extensively, per-
haps even primarily, in the United States. Latin American mints were
geared for export, and just as 8 reales were sent to China, 2 reales were
sent to the United States. These are coins of Latin American manufac-
ture, which circulated in the U.S. and Canada.
Secondly, counterfeit 2 reales. They are most common in brass; they
are made using punches; there are numerous die links. They were made
in the United States, posssibly at Waterbury, in the period 1800-181 1
and 1820-1830. These are coins of United States manufacture, which

Counterfeit 2 Rentes of the Bust Type 153
circulated in the U.S. and in Canada.

Finally, Blacksmith imitations. These are extremely crude; they are
often made without punches; they have Canadian provenances. 1 hey
are counterleits of counterfeits. This category includes the pieces that
Warren Baker attributed as Blacksmith related pieces. Mike Ringo
found a remarkable copper counterfeit 2 reales overstruck on a large
cent, which was formerly owned by the Canadian collector S. S. Heal.
This piece could fairly be described as Blacksmith-related as well.
The Phenomenon of Mules

The marriages that link two mints indicate that the counterfeits were
made in the U.S., where coins from the mints of Lima and Mexico were
commingled. Counterfeiters of 2 reales not only created geographical
mules; they created chronological ones as well. The obverse of Spanish-
American coins bears a date; the reverse bears the assayers’ initials, who
only appear on a certain range of years. Genuine coins can be dated
within a range of years by the assayers’ initials on the reverse.
Counterfeiters often get this wrong, creating many wonderful mules in
the process. 77A is found with LI and LI 9, which has the assayers’ ini-
tials IJ, who were active 1787-1804. 94A is married to L7 and LI 8,
which has assayers' initials JP, who were active 1803-1823. This also
gives a terminus post quem for these coins; for example, coins with
obverse die 77A were certainly struck in 1787 or later; they could not
have been struck in 1 777.
77C is married to LI 1 , which has assayers’ initials MI, who were
active 1780-1788. 92A is married to L13, which has assayers PP, active
in Potosi in 1795-1802. 12A is linked to LI 6, with assayers active
1787-1804. 78A is linked to Ml, which has assayers FM, who were
active 1772-1777 and from 1784 onward, but not in 1778. 1791, the
commonest date for counterfeit 2 reales, does not appear on genuine
Mexican coins. 87A and 91 A are linked to M3, which has assayers FF,
active 1778-1784. These impossible mules add much to the charm of
the series.
The Role of Cast Counterfeits
Since bust-type 2 reales circulated for over a century throughout

North and South America, and since anyone with access to a genuine
2 reales can prepare a decent cast counterfeit, it is hard to figure out

where the cast counterfeits fit in. Keith Davignon was in a better posi-
tion than we are: he included cast counterfeits in his study of counter-
feit bust half dollars, but he could draw upon Overton’s die study of
genuine half dollars and link each cast counterfeit with a specific pair
of dies (Overton 1990; Davignon 1996). Genuine 2 reales were mint-
ed in such abundance that a die study is extremely difficult.
Cast counterfeits are important because they can tell us what gen-
uine 2 reales were in circulation. A census of cast counterfeit 2 reales
will give us a general indication of what 2 reales were in circulation in
the United States in that period. A few of these cast counterfeits may
not come from the United States, and others may not come from this
time period, but over all, with enough examples, the general picture
will be one of U.S. circulation in the period 1800-1850. We cannot say
for sure that any specific cast counterfeit 2 reales came from the United
States in that period; but we can be fairly sure that most of them did.
Many caveats remain. I am fairly sure that these counterfeits are cast,
and not struck. Most counterfeits can be detected by their base metal;
silver counterfeits can be detected by weight. I compare the counterfeits
with a coin I know to be genuine. If the device and letter punches

match closely, I consider the coin cast; if not, a die-struck counterfeit.
Other features (porosity) also play a role, bur a very worn coin can
develop a porosity that leads one to condemn it as a cast, when it actu-
ally is struck. But for one mint this method fails: the mint of Zacatecas.
This was a royalist mint during the Mexican Wars of Independence,
and coins thought to be genuine display so much diversity in dies, let-
ter punches, and device punches that it is not possible to determine

whether a Zacatecas counterfeit is struck, or merely cast from a bizarre
matrix. One assumes for now that the Zacatecas counterfeits (with the
exception of the obvious 1791 counterfeit 9 1 B-Zl and the 1821 coun- ,
terfeit 21B-Z2), are all cast from odd matrices; but this remains diffi-
cult to determine.
Distinguishing cast counterfeits is difficult. An example is a remark-

able, but very puzzling counterfeit 2 reales discovered by Mike Ringo.
This counterfeit, of which four examples are known, has an obverse
with Charles III and the date of 1776, and a reverse mintmark for
Counterfeit 2 Reales of the Bust Iype 155
Mexico; but the assayers are PR. These assayers are fine for Potosi' for
1776, but incorrect for Mexico. Yet the punches are an almost exact
match for coins of the period, and the coins have the porosity of a cast.
How can a cast mould have an assayers and mintmark combination

that is not represented by genuine coins? The most likely explanation is
that the counterfeiter cast the reverse mould from a Mexico coin: the
mintmark is a very close match for genuine coins, and the style ol the
numeral 2 (with a nearly closed loop on top) is known for Mexico, but
not for other mints in this year. When the assayers’ final initials came
out too weak, the counterfeiter added them by hand; but he copied a
Potosi' coin rather than one from Mexico. This is how a counterfeit that
appears in all other respects to be a cast, can combine a Mexico mint-

mark with Potosi' assayers.
Here is a list of cast counterfeits I have seen. Unless otherwise indi-

cated, the metal of the counterfeit is either brass or copper-nickel. The
condition of the coins is too poor for us to distinguish the two metals
further. Weights are in grams. Coins in the ANS collection are given
their coin numbers in parentheses:
1772 Bogota assayers VJ 4.934 (1944.95.2)
1774 Potosi' assayers JR 5.174, holed (1944.95.3)
1776 Mexico, but assayers PR, 5.385, 5.579, 5.846, copper (all MKR);
5.652 (Robert Blank)
1 776 Lima, assayers MJ, 5.969, silver (JL)
1777 Potosi', assayers PR, 5.501 (MKR)

1779 Mexico assayers FF, 5.363 (1944.95.6)
1780 Mexico assayers FF, 5.355 (0000.5.14)
1781 Mexico, assayers FF, 5.573 (MKR)

1787 Mexico, assayers FM, 5.062, lead (MKR)
1788 Mexico, assayers FM, 4.879 (1944.95.14) and 5.099
(1944.95.15)
1 56 John M. Kleeberg
[1789] Mexico, assayers illegible, 3.886, very thin and low weight sil-
ver (MKR)
1790 Mexico, assayers FM, 4.383 (0000.5.19) and 4.951 (0000.5.20;
holed)
1791 Lima, assayers IJ, 5.489 (G. Smith-JL), copper
1793 Lima, assayers IJ, 5.191 (0000.5.57), copper-nickel
1793 Guatemala, assayers M, 6.530 (MKR) (holed; jewelry piece?)
1795 Mexico, assayers FM, 5.468 (0000.5.42)
1796 Guatemala,
1800 assayers M, 4.690, silver (MKR-JL); missing chunk
from planchet
1797 Mexico, assayers FM, 5.558, lead (0000.5.41)
Guatemala, assayers M, 5.286 (1944.95.26)
1800 Lima, assayers IJ, 4.558, lead (0000.5.60); 4.829 (ES-JL)
1801 Mexico, assayers FT, 5.71 1 (0000.5.36) and 5.890 (0000.5.35)
1802 Mexico, assayers FT, 5.558 (0000.5.62)
1802 Mexico, assayers FT, 4.865, holed, silver (1944.95.31), possibly a
jewelry piece
1807/6 Mexico, assayers TH, 4.947, lead (MKR)

1808 Mexico, assayers TH, 4.652, (Skalbe-MKR); 3.988 (ES-JL),
5.630 (MKR-JL)
1813 Santiago, assayers FJ, 8.316 (1 969.222. 1112)
1815 Mexico, assayers JJ, 6.179 (1944.95.35) and 6.570

(0000.999.513; button shank attached), silver
1817 Lima, assayers JP, 5.017 (1944.95.40), 5-476 (1944.95.39) and

5.168 (1944.95.38)
1819 Mexico, assayers JJ, 5.433, holed (Skalbe-MKR)
1820 Zacatecas, assayers AG, 4.504 (1944.95.41)

1821 Zacatecas, assayers RG, 4.513 (Paul Bosco Auction 8/4/97:709-
JL)
1822 Zacatecas, assayers RG, 6.962 (1944.95.42; see commentary

above; may be a struck counterfeit)
Dates Illegible, range determined from the assayers and the royal bust:
[1801-1803] Mexico, assayers FT, 5.046 (1944.95.27)
[1776-1791] Potosi, assayers PR, 5.507, lead (Skalbe-MKR)
[1792-1800] Mexico, assayers FM, 5.202, lead (0000.5.45)
[1812-1821] Mexico, assayers JJ, 5.682 (0000.5.65)
Illegible Charles IV counterfeit, lead, 4.389 (Skalbe-MKR)
Coins Excluded from the Series
Some 2 reales forgeries have been excluded to simplify matters.
1) Cast counterfeits.
2) Imitations of 2 reales made for jewelry. There some imitations

are
of 2 reales that were never designed to circulate, but were made to use
as buttons or jewelry. These pieces often have handcut letters, impossi-
ble dates, and are holed at the top. Examples seen include:
1941.150.1, Charles IV, 1725 IJ, Lima, 4.753; holed and plugged.
Charles IV, 1808 IJ, Lima, 4.987; holed. Coins of Beeston, 3/1999-
John Lorenzo.
Mike Ringo has found a button that imitates the style of the 2 reales:
Bust of Charles IV, but obverse inscription: A. FERNAN-

DEZ BUEN ORDEN 442; reverse inscription
HISPAN.ET IND. REX B. DE PLA. (for baton de plata,
i.e. silver button). With button shank. The letters are made
with punches, not handcut.
3) Counterfeits that appear to be related to the Canadian Blacksmith

series. These pieces have Canadian provenances; they are very crudely
158 John M. Kleeherg
made; they are often aneipgraphic. Three pieces so far fall into this cat-
egory. Two pieces were in Warren Baker’s collection that was auctioned
as part of the Taylor sale of 1987, lots 1097 and 1098; one piece was
dated 1797, and the other 1804. I have looked through nearly two
hundred counterfeit 2 reales in the course of doing this die study. I have
yet to identify a die link to the two pieces in the Taylor sale. This is a
strong indication that Warren Baker was correct in including these

pieces as related to the Canadian Blacksmith series. If those pieces
turned up in abundant numbers in New York City, with die links to the
sophisticated brass 2 reales, we would include them in the regular 2
reales series.
Mike Ringo turned up a third Blacksmith 2 reales. It has no inscrip-

tion; it is very crude; it is overstruck on a U.S. large cent; it has a good
Canadian provenance, since it comes with an envelope from S. S. Heal
of Toronto.
I am, however, including some coins purchased in Europe. Both
John Lorenzo and Mike Ringo have turned up some remarkable vari-
eties from there. These coins are probably not part ol our regular series,
which consists of brass counterfeits made in the hinterland of New York

City in the nineteenth century. These pieces may be European coun-
terfeits. we keep in mind that these coins are something of a
So long as
special case, make a record of the varieties.

it is useful
Another counterfeit, which Mike Ringo turned up (94A-L18), bore
a Chinese chopmark. This piece is die-linked with a coin in the ANS
collection. The letters are fairly crude handcut letters, with backward
Ns, which seem to indicate that the forger was not wholly comfortable
with the Roman alphabet-i.e., this counterfeit was made in China.
I was able to take advantage of the expertise of the ANS volunteer
David Jen, who knows Chinese. Three of the chopmarks could be more
or less read. The two on the obverse are upside down relative to the nor-
mal orientation of the Spanish coin. The one on the left (holding the
coin upside down) which means “good luck.” Hie one on the
is “ji,”
right is “he,” which means “joining.” “Happy while United” would not
to be far off. The one on the reverse that is readable (a second chop-
mark is obliterated by the hole) reads “xian,” which is an intensiher,
meaning greatly, very, extremely.
The coin is holed at the top in terms of the orientation of the two
chopmarks on the obverse. This suggests that the coin was made into a
love token and probably worn around the neck.

Another coin that I know of, but do not include, is a brass counter-
feit of 1806 that 1 have not had a chance physically to examine (Anton
and Kesse 1992, no. 120).
Opportunities for Further Study
I have not done a die study of the counterfeit 2 reales with the
Republican Mexican design (cap and rays). But there are some mar-
velous varieties in that series too. John Krajlovich collects coins over-
struck on large cents, and Bill Noyes supplied me with a photograph of
one coin in his collection: a counterfeit 2 reales of 1827 overstruck on
a matron head large cent. A coin from the same dies, struck in copper-
nickel, is in the ANS collection. Mike Ringo turned up a third exam-
ple in copper-nickel. David Gladfelter has pointed out that the letter
punches resemble Hard Times tokens made in Belleville, New Jersey.

Much work remains to be done in this area. Collectors and dealers
will doubtless find more die varieties and die links, and this will help us
chain together some of the singletons. I have not studied the punches,
but a careful punch study, similar to Gary Trudgen’s classic arrangement
of the Machins’ Mills coinage, might clear up many mysteries. There
are some closely related series that might make good die studies as
well — counterfeit Republican 2 reales, counterfeit Federal bust quarter
dollars, counterfeit reales and medios, counterfeit fractional cobs
(although these lead one into the complicated Caribbean, Central
American and Argentinian coinage of the 1820s) and counterfeit pillar
2 reales. Imitations made for jewelry and buttons are worthy of a study
in themselves. The time required for the die study has meant I have not
had the opportunity to study in detail literary and historical evidence
of counterfeiting activity: newspaper reports and court records. This die
study should not be the last word in this field, but the beginning of
many further studies by other researchers.
—
M
The Numbering System
The numbering system has been adapted from that developed by

Eric Newman for Robert Vlack’s die study of counterfeit halfpence.
Spanish coins differ from British coins in that the date is on the
obverse, so this has led to a slight alteration in the system. The obverse
designation is the last two digits of the date, followed by the letters A,
B, C, in order as the dies are discovered. If a new obverse die of 1787
is discovered (three are currently known), it will become 87D. The
reverse designation is the initial letter of the Spanish colonial mint —
for Mexico, L for Lima, P for Potosf (and in one instance, for Popayan),
S for Santiago, plus a number, in the order that new dies are discovered.
If a new Mexico die is discovered, which is not unlikely, it will take the
designation Ml 6. All dies are illustrated at the end of this article.
Obverse Descriptions
71A. Impossible date. Ordinal is given as Charles II. TLA of GRATIA

are below the point of the bust (on genuine coins only IA are
below the point of the bust). The feet of the 7s in 1771 are fat.
The top serif of the S of CAROLUS touches the middle bar.

Found with: S3, S5. Group VII.
71B. I mpossible date. Ordinal given as Charles III. The G of GRA-

TIA is not a letter, but a circle with a cross punched in the mid-
dle. Stop after DEI. The bust might be called a baby head
well, more like a toddler. Found with: M5.
71C. The first 1and 7 of the date are distant from each other. The T
leans to the right and touches the first A of GRA1 IA. I he final
A of GRATIA is distant from the I. Found with: Ml 3.
73A. Letters and numbers clearly handcut. No stop after the ordinal.
The RA of GRATIA and the AR of CAROLUS are joined at the
feet. Large ball at the end of the curl of the 3. Found with: M 1 3.
74A. The 4 of 1774 is large. The diesinker did a good job of captur-
ing Charles Ill’s large nose. No stop after the ordinal; its numer-
als are long and thin; as are the other letters. 1 he final ol A of
GRATIA touches the bust. Found with: P2.
77A. The U ol CAROLUS is much lower than the L. CAROLUS is
punched in very unevenly, so that R and L appear higher than

the rest; the C is distant from AROLUS. The top of the U is
joined, the R has a curly tail. The first two 7s of the date touch,
and are distant from the 1. Found with: LI, L19. Group V.
77B. The 1777 is oddly cut, so that the top is thick and short. The D
in DEI is backwards. The ordinal is widely spaced. Found with:
Mil.
77C. Letters crudely cut by hand. The O of CAROLUS is closer to
the R than to the L. The G of GRATIA looks like a sickle.

Found with: LI 1.
78A. Ordinal of Charles II, who died in 1699. The U of CAROLUS

is low, and was originally punched in lower still. The first 7 and
the 8 of 1778 are double-punched. The curly tailed R of CAR-
OLUS is very close to the hair ribbon. The D of DEI is small,
the E is large. Found with: Ml. Group I.
79A. The top of the U is joined. The A and the R of CAROLUS are
distant from each other, and the bottom of the A is below the
bottom of the R. The D and the E of DEI touch. The E of DEI
tilts downward to the right, and is below the I. The upper left
serifs of the ordinal are weak. Differences in the strength of

striking may some times make it look like a different die variety;
compare the arrangement of the lettering and the denticles care-

fully. Found with: PI. Group II.
81A. The CA is distant from ROLUS. The O and the L touch. The
O is thick. The S of CAROLUS is low. Found with: L8.
85A. The letters and numerals are thickly shaded, as is characteristic
of mid-nineteenth century typefaces. The thick curves of the 8

and the 5 of 1785 are easy to recognize. The letters are hand-cut,
not done with punches. Found with: M10.
87A. No L in CAROLUS, hence the CAROUS variety, presumably

done on Friday afternoon or Monday morning, when the
diesinker’s mind was on his weekend carousals. The serifs of the
ordinal are joined, which is diagnostic for this group. Found

with: L4, M2, M3. Group III.
87B. Ordinal of Charles II. The top of the U is joined. The R of

CAROLUS has a curly tail. There is a stop between DEI and
GRATIA (diagnostic). The upper left serif of the I of DEI is
missing. Found with: L5, P5. Group IV.
87C. The bust of Charles III is much beakier: the nose is very point-
ed. The final 7 of 1787 is high. Often double struck, almost
never fully struck up. Found with: Si. Group VII.
88A. The top of the U is joined. The A and the R of CAROLUS

touch. The upper left serif of the I of the ordinal and ol the I of
DEI has broken off. On several examples the pellet between
CAROLUS and the ordinal does not show; it depends on the
angle at which they struck the die. CAROL and the 1 in the date
are often weakly struck. Found with: PI. Group II.
88B. Crude bust. The much closer to the A of GRA-

date, 1788, is
TIA than to the C of CAROLUS. The base of the I of DEI is

lower than the other two letters. TIA below bust. Found with:
L9.
88C. Handcut letters. Large stops. The stop between DEI and GRA-
TIA is closer to the G of GRATIA. The S of CAROLUS is lower
than the rest of the word. Found with: S4.
89A. The top of the U in CAROLUS is joined. 1 he C and 1 of I 789

and the dot between them are very close, and the stop nearly
touches the C. The D of DEI is high. Found with: L2, L3.
Group VI.
91A. Ordinal of Charles III, who had been dead for three years by this
time. The tops and bottoms of the ordinal join. 1 he S is distant
from CAROLU, and the G from RATIA. Found with: M3.

Group III.
9 IB. A beautiful die. The tail of the 9 long. The base of the U of is
CAROLUS is lower than the L. The diesinker did a good job at

conveying the fatness of Charles IV’s head. Found with: Zl.
91C. The top of the U is joined. The R of CAROLUS has a curly tail,
and touches the O. The final I of the ordinal is higher than the
other two. The stops around the date are near the bottom
instead of center height.The stop between S and the ordinal is
closer to the ordinal. The A of GRATIA is close to the date.

Found with: Ml. Group I.
92A. The 1 of 1792 is higher than the 7. The 9 is rather curly. The 2
is larger than the 9. The D of DEI is higher than the EI.
Ordinal: IIII. Found with: L 1 3.
92B. The DEI and GRATIA was misplaced so that it is

stop between
high and touches GRATIA. The right foot of the second A in
GRATIA nearly touches the bust. The stop between CAROLUS
and the ordinal is closer to the ordinal. The date is widely
spread. Found with: L10.
93-A I have at times called this the “Liberace head,” to continue with
the musical references; sometimes the head looks like Napoleon
Bonaparte. The I of DEI is closer to the stop than to the E. The
stop after GRATIA is closer to A than to the 3 of 1793. The 9
of 1793 is closer to the 3 than to 7. The R and O of CAROLUS
touch. Found with: L6.
94A. The lazy 4 variety; or, perhaps it is not that the 4 is lazy, rather
it is falling down drunk. The C of CAROLUS is much larger
than the other letters. Found with: L7, LI 8. Group VIII.
9 5A. Handcut letters. Ordinal of Charles III. The 9 of 1795 is closer

to the 5 than to the 7. The stop before CAROLUS is closer to
the C than to the 1 of 1795. The two stops either side of the
ordinal are very close to the Roman numeral. The 1 in 1795 is
fat, and gets fatter towards its bottom. The foot of the 9 is also
fat. Found with: L14.
97A. Very large head — the most distinct bust type in the series. You
can call it “Hercules head,” but the lips and the jaw make the
bust look like Elvis Presley, so I think “Elvis head” is an even bet-
ter name. Elvis turns up everywhere. My name for this die has
not met with universal approval. Paul Bosco’s comment is worth

quoting:
The “Elvis Head” variety, as dubbed by Kleeberg. It
would be some phrenologically-lit-

a public service if
erate-EAC type would make up a list of colonial-

sounding head names for Dr. John. The passage from
Mutton Head to Jefferson Head to Elvis Head is not
harmonious. (Bosco 1997, lot 705)
Ordinal of Charles III, who had been dead for nine years. The
middle I is higher than the other two in the III. Found with:
M4.
97B. The C of CAROLUS is lower than the A. Large CARO-

L in
LUS. Ordinal IIII. The D of DEI is low. The G of GRATIA is
closer to the stop than to the R. 1 he space between the C and

the date is smaller than the space between the S and the ordinal.
The lower ribbon points at O. Often unevenly struck up. Found
with: LI . Group V.
97C. No stop between DEI and GRATIA. The lower ribbon points at
R. S is higher than the ordinal. Found with: LI. Group V.
98A. The top of the U in CAROLUS

The S is distant from is joined.
CAROLU. The middle bar of the E in DEI is very weak, and on

the specimens examined I could barely make it out. Ordinal of
1
Charles III, who had been dead for ten years. Found with: L3,
M6. Group VI.
OIA. The Beethoven head. The G is distant from the R of RAT IA.
The C of CAROLUS is low. The S of CAROLUS, the stop, and
the first I of the ordinal all touch. I he first I of the ordinal is
low. The Is in the date are backward. Found with: M7.
OIB. The top of the U is joined. DEI is crowded together, GRATIA

is wide. The lower ribbon is blobby, and points at the O of
CAROLUS. Ordinal of Charles the third, who had been dead
for thirteen years by 1801. Found with: PL Group II.
04A. The lower right part of the bust ends in a point, which points
towards the stop after GRATIA. The right part of the 4 in the
date is heavy. The D in DEI touches the forehead. The right foot
of the R in CAROLUS and GRATIA is weak and underdevel-

oped. Both planchets I saw were porous cupronickel. Found
with: LI 2.
07A. Ordinal of Charles II. Stops between all the words. Curly tailed
R, and the top of the U is joined. The C is lower than AROLUS.
The final I of the ordinal is high. Found with: P5. Group IV.
08A. Crude, with the made by hand, not by punches. The D

letters
is a little higher than the rest of DEL The tops of the 8s and the
0 are open. Found with: Ml 2.
08B. Large stops. The R of GRATIA touches the A. The final I of the
ordinal (I III) is lower than the others. Found with: S2.
10A. Bust of Charles IV, but title of Ferdinand VII. Name of

Ferdinand spelt FERDND, a spelling used in the mints of
Nueva Granada (Colombia). The letters are cut by hand, not

punched in. Stop between DEI and GRATIA. Found with: P4.
1 1A. The D of DEI is distant from the other two letters; the E and I
nearly touch. The stop between FERDIN and VII is closer to
the V. Found with: LI 5.
12A. The two IIs in the VII for Ferdinand VII are missing their top
serifs. The right foot of the R in GRATIA is nearly joined to the
left foot of the first A. The top of the I of GRATIA also appears
to be missing its serifs. Found with: LI 6.
14A. Name of Ferdinand VII abbreviated FERDIN. Many examples

of multiple punching of the letters, R of GRATIA
notably the
and the second 1 in 1814. Found with: L17.
16A. The V is lower than the two Is in VII. The I in GRATIA is clos-
er to the A The I
than to the T. in FERDIN is closer to the D
than to the N. Found with: M8.
17A. Charles Ill’s who had

ordinal, been dead for almost thirty years
in 1817. Handcut letters. The bust has a large, round nose, and
an open mouth. There is a large space between the bust and the
date. The D of DEI is large. Found with: M9.
17B. Issued in the name of Charles III, who had been dead for near-
ly thirty years. The C of CAROLUS is larger than the A. The R
of CAROLUS is higher than the O. The date is much closer to

the C of CAROLUS than to the A of GRAI A. Wide date. The I
second 1 of 1817 is closer to the 8 than to the 7. Found with:
S6. Group VII.
18A. Issued in the name of Charles III, who had been dead for thirty
years. The A of CAROLUS is smaller than the other letters. The
top of the U is not joined, and the tail ol R is fairly straight.
Found with: Ml 4.
21A. Handout letters; very crude bust. The D of DEI is high. The
final 1 of VII is low. The stop between the first 1 of 1821 and
the F of FERDIN is closer to the F. The E of DEI appears to
touch the On the examples
I. I have seen, there is a die break in
the GRAT of GRATIA, starting below the base of the G, pass-

ing through the middle of the A and touching the top left bar of
the T. Found with: P3.
21B. Wide date. made with punches. The D of DEI

The letters are
appears to touch the hair. GRATIA is much closer to DEI than

it is to the date. The R and A of GRATIA nearly touch. The stop
between FERDIN and VII is closer to the N. Found with: Z2.
Reverse Descriptions
LI. The D of IND thick. The X touches the base of the pillar. The
is
stop between D and R nearly touches both letters; closer to it is
D. The foot of the lion in the upper right shield touches the cen-
ter oval. The R of REX is distant from the EX, and close to the
pellet, which nearly touches the D of IND, which for its part is
distant from IN. The S of HISPAN is closer to the I than to the

P. The tail of the R in REX is straight. The Lima mintmark is
expressed as a ligature MF. The inscription concludes MF.

2R.I.J. It should be distinguished from LI 9, which has two Xs
in the reverse legend; one in REX and one after the mintmark.
Found with: 77A, 97B, 97C. Group V.
L2. REX is crammed below the base of the left pillar; one result is
that the stop between IND and REX exists only as a tiny pim-
ple, even on well struck, well preserved examples. The tail of the
R in REX is curly. Found with: 89A. Group VI.
L3. This die is distinguished from L2 because the base of the left pil-
lar juts between RE and X. The stop between I and J (the assay-
ers’ initials) is very misshapen. A hook branching out from the
curve of the R of REX indicates where R was first punched in
too far; it was then repunched further to the left (or the right,
depending on your point of view) to allow space to put the E in.
Found with: 89A, 98A. Group VI.
L4. The left pillar points between the two feet of the X of REX. This
die is important because it means we have a die link between a
coin ostensibly from Lima, and a coin ostensibly from Mexico,
which means that the coin was minted in neither of the two
places, but rather a place where Lima and Mexico coins circu-
lated commingled, namely the United States. Found with: 87A.
Group III.
L5. The inscription has an unusual reading: .HISPAN.ET.IND.

REX.J.R.P.S. The upper left serif of the I of FIISPAN is missing.
The I of FIISPAN leans distinctly to the right. Stops between all
the words. A small dot is often visible on top of the final S.
Found with: 87B. Group IV.
L6. Assayers I|. The base of the E of ET nearly touches the right pil-
lar. The D of IND is closer to the stop than to N. The top of the
E of ET is higher than the T. Often not fully struck up. Found
with: 93A.
L7. Assayers The Ns of FIISPAN and IND are backwards. The

JP. I
nearly touches of the N of IND. The R is close to the top of the

left pillar. Found with: 94A. Group VIII.
L8. This is easy to identify by the retrograde inscription:
LR.HE.XER.DNITE.NAPSIH. Found with: 81A.
L9. The letters are unevenly spaced: HISPAN is wide. The D of
IND is large, and closer to the stop than to the N. 1 he top of

the 2 is a closed loop. The fleurs-de-lis in the center oval lean left.
The point of the base of the right column points to the stop
between HISPAN and ET; the point of the base of the left col-
umn points to the right foot of the X in REX. I he lion in the

Counterfeit 2 Rentes of the Bust Type 169
upper right quadrant leans forward more than the lion in the
lower left quadrant. Found with: 88B.
L10. Assayers IJ. ET is closer to the stop than to 1ND; 1ND is closer
to the stop than to ET. Handcut letters. 1 here is ample space

between the shield and 1ND. The D in IND is larger than the
other letters. Found with: 92B.
LI 1 . Letters crudely cut by hand. The E of ET nearly touches the

right pillar.The counterfeiter has misunderstood the R of REX
as an L: “Law of Spain and the Indies” is a nice choice for a crim-
inal to inscribe. Found with: 77C.
L12. The D in IND is large. Small Ns in HISPAN and IND. The T

of ET touches the right pillar. Found with: 04A.
LI 3. Assayers PP. The I of HISPAN nearly touches the top of the

right pillar. IND is crowded together so the letters nearly touch.
Large stops. Found with: 92A.
L14. Handcut letters. The stops are very large. There is a stop
between ET and IND. Assayers TH, which are incorrect for
Lima (they are assayers in Mexico). Found with: 95A.
L15. The E of ET nearly touches the base of the right pillar. The
point of the base of the shield points to the left foot of the N
(holding the coin upside down so that IND reads correctly).
Found with: 1 1A.
L16. Assayers IJ. The N of IND is smaller than the N in HISPAN,

and missing its top serifs. The top of the D of IND is mis-
shapen. The E of ET is slightly lower than the T. Found with:
12A.
L17. Large and prominent denticles. The A in HISPAN is double

punched. Assayers JP. The J of JP appears to touch the top of the

left pillar. Found with: 14A.
L18. Assayers JP. Backwards N. It can be distinguished from L7 in

that the I is closer to the T of ET than to the N of IND. The R
ofREX is higher than the rest of the word. The stop between
REX and the mintmark, MAE, is much closer to the mintmark.
Found with: 94A. Group VIII.
L19. Very similar to LI . On Ll , the inscription concludes MF.2R.I.J.;

on L19, it concludes MF.X.P.I.J. Found with: 77A. Group V.
Ml. The I of IND is missing the serif on its upper left (or lower
right, depending on how you prefer The D

to read the legend).
of IND is punched in backwards. No pomegranate. The E of
ET is a total mess, possibly from double-punching. A meaning-
less T follows REX in the inscription, but this part of the
inscription is usually not well struck up. Found with: 78A, 9 1C.
Group I.
M2. Our diesinker has got most ol the inscription right, but he has
omitted the mint and the denomination. The R of REX is dis-
tant from the EX. Found with: 87A. Group III.
M3. The diesinker has remembered to include the mintmark, but

uses a pellet above M for Mexico instead of an o. The assayers
are F.F. Found with: 87A, 91 A. Group III.
M4. This reverse resembles M2 in omitting the mint mark. It may be

distinguished thus: the assayers initial M nearly touches the rib-
bon in M4, it does not touch the ribbon in M2. The letter R of
REX is small with a curly tail in M4, a large R with a straighter
tail in M2, and in M2 the R nearly touches the pillar. Found
with: 97A.
M5. Easily recognized by the final part ol the inscription:

FMR.S.I.H. The N of HISPAN is lower than the A. Found

with: 71 B.
M6. This M2 and M4, lacks the mintmark. It may be dis-

die, like
tinguished from M2 by its use of the curly tailed R, and Irom

M4 because the M of the assayers’ initials MF does not touch
the ribbon; the M in M4 nearly touches the ribbon. Another
small dot next to the dot between HISPAN. ET is diagnostic, if
you are lucky enough to have an example that shows it. Found
with: 98A. Group VI.
M7. The mintmark HE, which indicates

is that the counterfeiter
could not tell Mexico and Lima apart — another argument in
favor of U.S. manufacture — and the assayers’ initials are TH,

which exist on genuine coins of 1804 and later, which gives us
a terminus post quem. The denomination is given as R, but there

is no 2. Found with: 01 A.
M8. Handcut letters. The Rs are joined at the bottom so they look
like Bs. On the example I saw, the D of IND touches the stop.
Assayers JJ. The E of REX is closer to the R than to the X.
Found with: 16A.
M9. Handcut letters. Assayers RM. There is a backwards J right after
REX. The E of ET is lower than the T. Found with: 17A.
M10. Assayers FM. The top part of the 2 is a closed loop. There is a
die defect at the S of HISPAN, which joins the left side togeth-
er. Found with: 85A.
Mil. The small M punch for the mintmark, Mo, has been re-used for
the assayers’ initials, FM. The right bar of the N of HISPAN is
tall. Found with: 77B.
M12. Assayers TH. Crude, with the letters made by hand, not by
punches. The foot of the lion on the lower left nearly touches
the line of the shield, but his two front paws are distant from the
line of the shield. Found with: 08A.
M13. Easily recognized by the assayers' initials: WF. Presumably the

counterfeiter was confused by one of the Mexico varieties from
1772 or 1773 that has the assayed initials FM inverted (Cayon
10778 and 10786). The letters are all handcut. The mintmark,
Mo, is also inverted. There is a stop between ET and IND.
Found with: 73A.
M14. The error in the inscription, HISAPN, is quite distinct. Found

with: 18A.
M15. The misspelling TIISAPAN is very distinct. The 2 of 2R looks

like a backward S. Possibly Mexico, but the mint and the assay-
ers are not legible on the only specimen I saw. If a finer example
turns up, it may end up by being re-attributed to another mint.
Found with: 7 1C.
PI. The 8 HP is diagnostic. The I of HISP is tall, and closer to the
H than to the S. A small scratch in the die goes from the crown
to the H of HISP. The pellets next to the final A are a charac-
teristic oval shape. Clashed dies. Found with: 79A, 88A, 01B.
Group II.
P2. The pillars are fat, and do look like cannons. The letters are tall
and thin. The top of the 2 of 2R extends nearly beyond its base
to the left. The left foot of the A of HISPAN is very close to the
ribbon. Assayers JR. Found with: 74A.
P3. No space between ET and INLT Large D in IND. Assayers PJ.

The I of HISPAN is closer to the H than to the S. Large P in
HISPAN. The X of REX nearly touches the left pillar. Found
with: 21A.
P4. In this case the P stands for Popayan, rather than Potosi.
Assayers given as HJ, which are actually a Mexican combination,
not one from Popayan; but the die does have the Popayan mint-
mark, and it is linked to an obverse that uses a spelling for
Ferdinand (FERDND) that was used in the mints ot Nueva
Granada. The final J is small. The letters are cut by hand, not
punched in. The castles look like rooks from a chess set, the
lions like cats or rats. The pomegranate looks like a cross. Found
with: 10A.
P5. Inscription: .HSPAN.ET.IND.RE_X.MP.J.G.P.

Easy to identify by the stops between ET and IND, the missing
1 in HSPAN, and the initials JGP. Corresponds most closely to
a Potosi' piece, although the MP resembles a MAE mintmark.
Found with: 87B, 07A. Group IV.
51. Inscription: .HISPA IND.REX.E. 1 .R.D.A.I.

The peculiar inscription should make this one easy to recognize.
Of the three in the ANS collection, not one shows the inscrip-
tion between A of HISPA and I of IND fully struck up. Found

with: 87C. Group VII.
52. The S of HISPAN is closer to the I than to the P. The top serifs
of the H are missing. The assayers appear to be DI. Found with:
08B.
53. Inscription: HISPAN ET. IND. REX E 1R. D. I.
Most recognizable by the assayers’ initials DI. The period after

the X of REX is placed low, rather than in the middle of the let-
ter. The base of the left pillar points between the two lower arms
of the X of REX. Found with: 71A. Group VII.
S4. Assayers DA. The right foot of the X of REX touches the base
of the left pillar. The D of IND is larger and lower than the let-
ters IN. Found with: 88C.

55. Denomination given as 1R, as on SI and S3. There is a J

between REX and 1 R. The left foot of the X of REX is close to
the base of the left pillar; the left foot of the E ol ET is close to
the right pillar. The right ribbon has a point at 3 o’clock, which
points between the P and the A of HISPAN. Found with: 71A.
Group VII.
56. The denticles are long, and touch the top of the N of IND. REX
is followed by a stop, and then the letter J. Punch linked with
S 1 ,
S3, and S5. The A of HISPAN is lower than the P. The lion
on the lower left is elevated above the ground, as if he suddenly
jumped. Found with: 17B. Group VII.
Zl. Mint mark Z, for Zacatecas, which did not commence minting
until November 1810. Assayers’ initials AG, which are proper
Zacatecas initials — but do not occur on genuine coins until
1813, and on genuine 2 reales, until 1814. The D is distant

from the IN of IND, and lower than the N. Found with: 9 IB.
Z2. Assayers’ initials RG. ETIND appears to be one word. The lions
lean markedly to the left; their rear hind leg is higher than the
front hind leg. The stop between HISPAN and El’ is closer to
the N than to the E. Found with: 2 IB.
Die Links
There are eight groups of dies, which die chain with each other. In
addition to these eight groups, I have found 29 other die combinations

which do not link with any other dies (singletons). Unless otherwise
specified, all coins have the die axis twelve o’clock (or fairly close to
that) and are made of brass; the brass would later be silvered when the
coin had to be passed.
All die-chained groups are tentatively dated to either 1800-1810 or

1820-1840, except lor Group IV, which is dated to 1807; Group VII,
which is dated to the 1830s; and Group VIII, which is dated to 1850
or later.
Abbreviations of Collections:
ANS = American Numismatic Society
ES = Ed Sarrafian
]L = John Lorenzo
MKR = Mike K. Ringo
PB = Paul Bosco
Group I
78A-M1. Weights: ANS: 0000.5.1 1, 5.899; 0000.5.10, 5.958;

JL: 5.866 (ex-R. August)
91C-M1. Weights: MKR: 5.483
Group II
79A-P1. Weights: MKR: 5.461, 5.815, 5.340; ANS: 0000.5.13,

5.500
88A-P1. Weights: MKR: 5.686; JL: 5.652 (ex- Warren Baker); ANS:
1944.95.16, 5.652; 1944.95.17, 5.671; 0000.5.18 5.486
(holed)
01B-P1. Weights: MKR: 5.614 (copper?); JL: 4.814 (ex-MKRatC4

1996); ANS: 0000.5.31, 5.679; 0000.5.29, 5.651 (9
o’clock die axis)
Group III
87A-L4. Weights: MKR: 5.699, 5.062; ANS: 0000.5.15, 5.147
87A-M2. Weights: MKR: 5.636 (ex-NYC jeweler), 5.478 (ex-NYC

jeweler), 5.494, 5.214, 5.682, 5.306 (holed and plugged),
5.390; ANS: 0000.5.53, 5.546; 0000.5.43, 5.618
176 John M. Klee berg
87A-M3. Weights: MKR: 5.423, 5.259, 5.169 (holed); ANS:

0000.5.16, 5.297
91A-M3. Note: this variety often comes with blotchy discolorations in the
brass planchet, apparently inherent in the rolled out brass
sheets.
Weights: MKR: 5.881 (decorated edge), 5.584, 6.078,

5.106 (cast?), 5.153, 5.495, 5.862 (ex-NYC jeweler, with
blotchy brass discoloration); JL: 5.719 (ex-Vicken
Yegparian); PB: 5.476, 4.992, 5.909; ANS: 0000.5.56,
5.665 (decorated edge); 0000.5.44, 5.527 (might be a cast);
0000.5.22, 5.281; 0000.5.21, 6.169; 0000.5.23, 5.204

(with brass discoloration); 1944.95.20, 6.039; 1944.95.21
5.835; 1944.95.19, 5.550
The MKR collection also has two coins, which I think may
be casts of this variety: one weighs 5.106, the other 4.834.
Group IV
I propose a narrower date for this group than for the others: 1807. The
counterfeiter clearly had access to a numeral “8 "punch, but chose not to use
it to make coins dated 1808; which suggests to me that he made his coins
in 1807, and not in 1808.
87B-L5. Weights: ANS: 0000.999.46123, 6.144; 1944.95.1 1,
5.262; 1944.95.10, 5.435
87B-P5. Weights: MKR: 5.765 (ex-NYC jeweler)
07A-P5. Weights: MKR: 5.859, 6.026, 5.809 (ex-Florida); ANS:

0000.5.30, 5.776; 1944.95.33, 5.566; 0000.5.17, 5.466;
Robert Blank: 5.370; Emmett McDonald: 5.221 (from a
junk box in 1954; pickled in acid); Paul Bosco Auction
8/4/1997:707: 5.623
Group V
77A-L1. Weights: MKR: 5.805 (ex-NYC jeweler), 5.789, 5.937,
5.187, 5.864; ANS: 0000.999.46196, 5.043;
0000.999.5.8, 5.710
77A-L19. Weights: MKR: 5.305, 5.294
97B-L1. Weights: MKR: 5.275; JL: 5.075 (ex EAN 1/95:718)
97C-L1. Weights: MKR: 5.450
Group VI
89A-L2. Weights: MKR: 5.583 (ex-NYC jeweler), 5.540 (ex-Florida)

5.323 (holed); JL: 5.528 (ex-ES)
89A-L3. Weights: MKR: 5.694 (ex-NYC jeweler), 5.597 (ex-NYC

jeweler), 5.71 1 (ex-NYC jeweler); ANS: 1944.95.18,5.710;
0000.5.54, 5.429; 0000.5.55, 5.714
98A-L3. Weights: MKR: 5.626; Paul Bosco Auction 8/4/1997:706:

5.332
98A-M6. Weights: MKR: 5.150, 5.995 (1 o’clock die axis), 5.466 (ex-
NYC jeweler), 5.382 (ex-Florida), 5.197; ANS: 0000.5.28,
5.944; 0000.5.59, 5.410
Group VII: The Santiago Group

(New York Area; Early 1830s)
All the reverses of this group use a mintmark and/or assayers initials of
the Santiago de Chile mint and erroneously
, uses the denomination 1R,
instead of 2R. Although not all of the coins in this group die chain with
each other (yet), they are punch-linked. The coins are struck in both copper-
nickel and brass. One ofthe coins is dated 1817. Since some ofthe coins are
struck in copper-nickel, this series from the late 1820s and early 1830s.
is
The counterfeiters used only three numeral punches: 1, 7, and 8, and re-
used them again and again. One example in the ANS, 0000.5.3, has a 9
o’clock die axis, which indicates that the counterfeiters may have been using
square dies. Square dies are known for counterfeiting Mexican pillar dol-
lars. Three of the ten specimens known have provenances to the New York
City area.
71A-S3. Weights: MKR: 6.762 (ex-NYC jeweler); ANS: 0000.5.4,

6.716; 0000.5.3, 6.532 (9 o’clock die axis)
71A-S5. Weights: MKR: 7.092 (copper-nickel)
87C-S1. Weights: MKR: 5.453 (copper?), 7.100 (copper-nickel, dec-

orated edge, ex-Paul Bosco Auction 10/25/1996:78); ANS:
1944.95.12, 7.228 (copper-nickel, decorated edge);
0000.5.40, 5.566 (copper-nickel, decorated edge);
1944.95.13, 5.951 (copper-nickel, decorated edge)
17B-S6. Weights: MKR: 5.809 (ex-August, decorated edge)
Group VIII: The Chinese Group
One specimen in this group, 94A-L18, bears large size Chinese chop-
marks. Rose (Rose 1987, 13-14) argues that large size chopmarks were
applied in the second half of the nineteenth century. That would date this
group to after 1850.
94A-L7. Weights: 1944.95.23, 6.158 (probably high zinc content

brass - tutenague - decorated edge)
94A-L18. Weights: MKR: 6.500 (probably high zinc content brass,
tutenague; holed; with Chinese chopmarks)

Singletons
(Dies Which Do Not Die Chain)
Three criteria can provide a terminus post quem for these coins: the actu-
al date on the coin; the assayers' initials, where they are active later than the
date on the obverse; and the use of copper-nickel, which provides a termi-
nus post quem ofabout 1830.
71B-M5. Weights: MKR: 5.689, 5.523; JL: 5.518 (ex- Warren Baker)
71C-M15. Weights: JL: 5.009 (ex-Spink’s, 1995, privately)
73A-M13. Weights: ANS: 0000.999.48094, 6.287 (1 1 o’clock die axis;

copper)
74A-P2. Weights: ANS: 0000.5.5, 5.029 (copper)
77B-M11. Weights: ANS: 0000.5.50, 5.015 (6 o’clock die axis; cop-

per-nickel)
77C-L11. Struck in copper. Assayers MI only begin in 1780, which is the

terminus post quem.
Weights: MKR: 6.534; ANS: 0000.5.9, 6.704
Another example: Anton-Kesse 121.
81A-L8. Weights: ANS: 0000.5.52, 6.201, 0000.5.51, 6.262
85A-M10. Terminus post quem: 1830, because of the use of copper-nickel.

Weights: ANS: 1944.95.9, 5.537 (copper-nickel)
88B-L9. Weights: MKR: 4.856 (silvered copper), 5.903 (copper)
88C-S4. Terminus post quem: 1830, because of the use of copper nickel.
Weights: MKR: 5.964 (copper-nickel), 7.334 (6:30 die axis,

copper-nickel), 5.238 (copper-nickel)
91B-Z1. Terminus post quem: 1830, because of the use of copper nickel.
Weights: MKR: 5.883 (gorgeous EF, decorated edge),

5.307, both copper-nickel; ANS: 1944.95.22, 5.403 (cop-
per-nickel, decorated edge)
92A-L13. Terminus post quem: 1795 (assayers PP were first active at

Potosi in that year).
Weights: MKR: 5.179 (1 1:30 die axis; copper)
92B-L10. Weights: MKR: 5.206
93A-L6. Weights: MKR: 5.865 (ex-Skalbe, copper), 5.766 (ex-
Slcalbe, copper); ANS: 0000.5.24, 5.721 (copper)
95A-L14. Terminus post quem: 1830, because of the use ofcopper-nickel.

Weights: MKR: 5.022 (copper-nickel)
97A-M4. Weights: MKR: 5.810, 5.298 (ex-NYC jeweler), 5.940,

5.480 (ex-NYC jeweler, 1 o’clock die axis), 5.931 (ex-
Florida), 5.770, 5.732; JF: 5.106 (ex-ES 5/96), 5.193 (ex-
MKR, C4 1996; neat flan clip, similar to one seen on a
1784 counterfeit halfpenny in the MKR collection), 5.466

(ex-Anton); Paul Bosco Auction 8/4/1997:705: 5.751;
ANS: 0000.5.58, 5.430, 0000.5.27, 5.292, 0000.5.26,
5.224, 1995.32.2, 5.547, 0000.5.25, 5.395
01A-M7. Terminus post quem: 1804 (assayers TH).

Weights: MKR: 4.135, 4.825, 5.346, 5.074 (1 o’clock die
axis), 5.628 (ex-NYC jeweler), 5.921, 5.251 (ex-MS, 9/91),

5.055; JF: 5.938 (ex-ES, holed), 5.569, 5.673 (ex-MKR),
5.511; ANS: 0000.5.32, 5.634, 1944.95.30, 5.156,
0000.5.33, 5.525, 1944.95.29, 3.652 (holed), 0000.5.34,
5.217, 1944.95.28, 5.303
04A-L12. Terminus post quem: 1830.

Weights: MKR: 4.700 (copper-nickel), 5.723 (copper-nickel)
08A-M12. Terminus post quern: 1830.

Weights: ANS: 0000.5.61, 5.542 (copper-nickel)
08B-S2. Terminus post quern: 1830.

Weights: 1944.95.34, 6.250 (copper-nickel)
10A-P4. Weights: MKR: 4.988 (ex-Skalbe, copper), 6.485 (ex-
Gredesky, copper), 5.844 (brass); ANS: 0000.5.38, 6.700

(copper)
1 1A-L15. Terminus post quem: 1830.

Weights: MKR: 5.586 (copper-nickel); JL: 4.513 (holed,
ex-ES 1996); ANS: 0000.5.64, 5.609 (11 o’clock die axis;
copper-nickel)
12A-L16. Terminus post quem: 1830.

Weights: MKR: 5.122 (ex-Skalbe, copper-nickel, holed),
6.778 (copper-nickel, 12 o’clock die axis), 6.273 (copper-
nickel); ANS: 1944.95.37 4.849 (copper-nickel)
14A-L17. Weights: MKR: 7.360 (ex-Skalbe, copper, reeded? edge);

ANS: 1997.118.4, 7.215 (ex-Paul Bosco Auction
8/4/1997:708, copper, possibly reeded edge). Published in
the ANS annual report for 1997, p. 32, figure 39.
16A-M8. Weights: MKR: 5.768 (ex-Skalbe, possibly silver, decorated

edge)
17A-M9. Terminus post quem: 1830.

Weights: ANS: 1936.107.8, 4.918 (copper-nickel, holed)
18A-M14. Weights: ANS: 0000.5.37, 5.673
21A-P3. Weights: MKR: 6.552 (ex-Belgium, silver, holed), 6.492

(silver, decorated edge)
21B-Z2. Weights: ANS: 1996.28.35, 5.258 (six o’clock die axis),

1996.28.36, 5.189 (decorated edge)
Acknowledgements
Mike Ringo generously made his collection available for extensive
study for a period of several years; his contribution to this study is very
great. John Lorenzo was new varieties for
also very helpful in lending
study. William C. Noyes made photographs of many of the varieties

during an earlier stage of this project. Paul Bosco found some new vari-
eties, and always brought them to my attention and supplied me with
the weights. Robert Blank and Emmett McDonald also found some
pieces in their collections, which they let me study. Clyde Hubbard and
T. V. Buttrey helped with advice about the matter from a Mexican
aspect, as did Eric P. Newman. David Jen translated some Chinese
chopmarks. I am not the only person to have collected information
about these pieces. Ed
and Jim Skalbe have been identifying
Sarrafian
varieties and collecting examples for many years before me. have had I
access to their work and their collections after they were acquired by
other collectors, so I know that many discoveries of die links are not
original with me.
List of References
Anton, William T. and Bruce Kesse. 1992. The Forgotten Coins of the North American
Colonies. Iola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications.
Bosco, Paul J. 1983. An “1814” Nickel Coin. Paul Bosco Numismatic Quarterly ;
Fall/Winter: 1 , 5.
Bosco, Paul J. 1996. Auction Catalogue (First Long Island Coin Expo), October 25. New
York: Paul J. Bosco.
Bosco, Paul ). 1997. Auction Catalogue (Hal Walls Collection), August 4. New York: Paul
J. Bosco.
Bowers, Q. David. 1997. American Coin Treasures and Hoards. Wolfeboro, New
Hampshire: Bowers and Merena Galleries, Inc.
Breen, Walter. 1988. Walter Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia ofU.S. and Colonial Coins.
New York: Doubleday.
Brunk, Gregory G. 1987. American and Canadian Countermarked Coins. Rockford,

Illinois: World Exonumia Press.
Carothers, Neil. 1930. Fractional Money. A Histoiy of the Small Coins and Fractional
Paper Currency of the United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cayon, Adolfo, Clemente, and Juan. 1998. Las Monedas Espanolas. Del tremis al euro.
Del 41 1 a nuestros dias. Madrid: Juan R. Cayon.
Charlton 1996. The Charlton Standard Catalogue of Canadian Bank Notes. Toronto:
The Charlton Press.
Cohen, James H. 1982. New Orleans Hoard Yields O-Mint Treasures. Coin World 23,
1180 (November 24): 1, 3.
Cross, Ira B. 1927. Financing an Empire. Flistory of Banking in California. 4 volumes.

Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company.
Davignon, Keith R. 1996. Contemporaty Counterfeit Capped Bust Half Dollars. Rocky
River, Ohio: Money Tree Press.
Dunn, Hal V. 1995. Catalog of Western Good For Trade Mirrors. Granada Hills,
California: Koppenhaver Press.
The Four Pistareens; or, “Honesty is the Best Policy.” 1837. Philadelphia: American
Sunday-School Union. Reprinted, 1998, in The Colonial Newsletter 109: 1879-1886.
Hatie, George. 1975. Illustrations of Coins on Obsolete Paper Money issued in the
United States. The Numismatist 88, no. 4 (April):739-759 and no. 5 (May): 985-1009.
Hatie, George. 1981-1982. Illustrations of Coins on Obsolete Paper Money issued in

the United States: A Supplement. The Numismatist 94, no. 12 (December): 3307-3323
and 95, no. 1 (January): 50-65.
Haxby, James A. 1988. United States Obsolete Bank Notes, 1782-1866. Iola, Wisconsin:
Krause Publications.
Julian, R. W. 1972. New York Coiners Plague Hobby with Bogus 1848, 1849 Cents.
Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine 38, no. 436 (June): 528-532.
Kleeberg, John M. 1996. The Strawberry Leaf Cent: A Reappraisal. In John M.

Kleeberg, ed., America’s Large Cent, Proceedings of the Coinage of the Americas
Conference, No. 12. New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Kleeberg, John M. 1998. “A Coin Perfectly Familiar to Us All:” The Role of the
Pistareen. The Colonial Newsletter 109: 1857-1877.
McQuade, Ruth. 1986a. Henry’s Bank. The Canadian Paper Money Journal 22, no. 1
(January): 14-16.
McQuade, Ruth. 1986b. Dr. Wolfred Nelson - Owner of the St. Denis Distillery. The
Canadian Paper Money Journal 22, no. 3 (July): 68-73.
More “Buried” Treasure Unearthed. 1927. The Numismatist 40, 5 (May): 299.
997. The Early Paper Money ofAmerica. 4 ^ edition.

C
Newman, Eric P. 1 Iola, Wisconsin:
Krause Publications.
Overton, A1 C. 1990. Early HalfDollar Die Varieties 1794-1836. Third Edition. Ed. by
Donald L. Parsley. Escondido, California: Donald L. Parsley.
Rose, F. M. 1987. Chopmarks. Dallas, Texas: Numismatics International.
Treasure Unearthed. 1959. The Numismatist 72, 5 (May): 543.
Turner, Larry. 1986. The “Shinplasters” ofW. & J. Bell, Perth, Upper Canada, 1837-
1839. The Canadian Paper Money Journal 22, no. l(January): 4-13.
Obverse Dies
79A 81A 85A
87A 87B 87C
88A 88B 88C
89 A
91A 91B
A B
186 John M. Kleeherg
98A 01 01
'
f
John M. Kleeberg
LI 0 L12
'v
-- fcJSSf *
m n'j' r ; . ; 'Sj
5
John M. Kleeberg
M10
M12 M13 M14
M 1
The Counterfeit Spanish Two Reales:
Canadian Blacksmiths or
North American Tokens
John P. Lorenzo

November 7, 1998

9
194 John P. Lorenzo
Introduction
Counterfeit Spanish-American two reales have recently become of

great interest to collectors of coins of the North American colonies.
Anton and Kesse, in their work, “The Forgotten Coins of the North
American Colonies,” include these coins because they were both pro-
duced and circulated in the colonies (Anton and Kesse, 1992, plates
AK-121 and AK-141).

These crude, bust-styled two reales pieces with reverse pillars of
Hercules produced in imitation of Spanish colonial issues, occur with
the busts of Charles III, Charles IIII, and Ferdinand VII. Michael
Oppenheim, in his excellent catalogue of the Warren Baker Collection
of Canadian Blacksmith tokens with the Frederick Taylor sale by
Bowers and Merena in March, 1987, describes these issues as follows
(Bowers and Merena 1987, lots 1001-1130):

There are a number of reasons for the attribution of
counterfeit two reales as Canadian Blacksmiths. First, colo-
nial Spanish pieces were very common in early 1

C ^ centu-
ry Canada. Second, a very rare Blacksmith plated in “Coins

of Canada”, combines a State of Chihuahua copper with a
copy of a Canadian colonial bouquet sou die. This acknowl-
edged Blacksmith indicates the possibility of other
Blacksmiths using colonial designs. Third, the style of the
two examples of counterfeit two reales in this collection is a
very crude Blacksmith style, and shows no trace or an
attempt at silvering, that is, they do not seem intended to

pass as two reales pieces. Fourth, both were found on sepa-
rate occasions among early Canadian tokens.
J.J. Rodriguez in his book, Catalogo de Los Reales de a Dos, identified
similarly styled two reales which he designated as imitations of pieces
of two, struck in different metals, silver plated and used as buttons in
certain parts of America (Rodriguez 1965, 191). All examples, howev-
er are not similar in character to the Baker pieces or to the specimens
listed in Tables 1-3 below which are all Blacksmith-styled two reales.
This writer contends that the coins listed in Tables 1-3 are
Americanized, that is, their origin seems to be either Lower Canada or

Counterfeit Spanish Two Reales 195
the New York area. The fascinating initial observations to this writer
about these counterfeits were their longevity with the same style, simi-
lar metrological properties (the two reales are generally thinner and
slightly larger in diameter) and the same planchet colorations shared by
both the brass two reales and the Blacksmiths, indicating a probable
common planchet source.

Humberto Burzio in his book (Burzio 1958) has identified two
counterfeits and calls these Blacksmith-styled two reales a 1774 bronze
and a 1781 silver-plated bronze.
This paper will build further upon these very instructive insights by
Anton, Kesse, Oppenheim, Burzio and Rodriguez. Specifically, the
inventory of two reales in Tables 1-3 below prompts this writer to these
observations:
• Two reales are known to be struck in German silver. X-Ray
Fluorescence (XRF) analysis performed on the 1771 example con-
firmed this composition. R T. Craddock of the British Museum com-
municated with the writer that German silver was not produced
commercially until the 1 820s at the earliest unless they were using
the Chinese pai tong, which is most unlikely. German-silver compo-
sition is roughly composed of 55% copper, 30% zinc and 15% nick-
el. This 1771 example and Craddock’s statement that German silver
was unavailable for mass production until 1820 indicated one of the
most dramatic backdating phenomena in North American numis-
matics. This 1771 piece, although produced after 1820, is dated three
full reigns back.
• In light of Craddock’s statement that German silver was not available
until 1820, the counterfeit two reales would be contemporaneous
with the Canadian Blacksmith coppers.
• The rwo reales struck in brass occasionally show signs of being sil-
vered after striking. Refer to Table 1 (nos. 2, 5) and Table 2 (no. 24).
The silvering may actually be German silver, since no trace of true sil-
ver was found in any of these plated specimens. More XRF analyses
are required in this case.
• It is possible that the counterfeit two reales were first produced in
German-silver and later struck in brass.
• XRF analysis has confirmed that all coppery specimens analyzed were
toned brass pieces.
196 John P. Lorenzo
The writer will now provide an overview of the three Spanish mon-
archs whose coins these counterfeits imitate: Carolus 111 (1759-1788),
Carolus 1 1 1
1 (1788-1808) or IV (during 1789-1791 which is defined as
the transitional period) and Ferdinand VII (1808-1833). A few words
should also be added on the definition of “Blacksmith.” R.W.
Mclachlan, in his article “The Money ol Canada from a Historical
Standpoint,” defined Blacksmiths as follows:
The Blacksmiths, so called from their unfinished and
rough appearance, were imitations of halfpenny tokens of
George II and George III, worn almost smooth, which at
the time formed the only legal currency. They were
impressed with a faint outline of the king’s bust and a sim-
ilar figure of Britannia or a harp for a reverse, without any
inscription. Many varieties were struck from dies more or
less worn and rusted, some of them so much so as to be
beyond all recognition. In one case a worn and rusted die
was employed, conjointly with the discarded die of a United
States trade token, to strike an additional supply, producing
a strange mule variety. This variety is currently known as
Wood 29 (McLachlan 1915).

McLachlan’s definition of Blacksmiths rings true for the Howland
Wood Blacksmith varieties. However, when one examines any of the
Blacksmith-styled counterfeit Spanish two reales there is no sign ol die
polishing to simulate a worn coin after its immediate striking.
Nevertheless, the specimens metrologically do show very similar prop-
erties to the counterfeit Blacksmiths as cataloged by Howland Wood

(Wood 1910). A comparison of the properties is seen in Table 4. The
writer simply does not know of any other counterfeit series showing
similar crude workmanship and metrologically similar planchet stocks
than these two series (Blacksmiths and two reales).
Atkins 478: A Birmingham Connection
On several Blacksmith-styled counterfeit my collectiontwo reales in
an upside down V is in place of an A or an upside down A in place of

the letter punch V exists with the vertical bar intact. One example of
the former is no. 2 of Table 1, the 1771 Carolus III two reales. Atkins
may supply us an answer to these occurrences (Atkins 1892). The so-

called accidental die engraving error is no accident in the opinion of
this writer. To illustrate this point let us examine Atkins 478 a
Birmingham, England Evasion copper in which we see an obverse des-
ignation of GEVRCV ATOETE. As indicated above we see an exam-

ple of this later puncheon substitution in which the upside down A’s
have been substituted for the V’s.
We therefore see this interchanging puncheon style of the A and V

letters on only the following series based upon my observations:
• Counterfeit Blacksmith-styled two reales
• Counterfeit imitation English and Irish halfpennies of both George
II and III
• Birmingham England Evasion (Atkins series) coppers

Tentative early evidence based upon these puncheon similarities
noted above indicate that this was a practice employed by Birmingham

diesinkers of this time. It is possible therefore that an emigrated
Birmingham England die sinker(s) may be responsible for all three of
these series in a major or minor capacity. The Evasive series appears to
have been struck for a fairly long time. This series is followed probably
by the two reales and the Canadian Blacksmiths, which seem to be
struck approximately during the same 1820-1835 period, based on cur-
rent XRF evidence.
The dates on counterfeits of course give us no real clue as to when
they were struck. All you can say about a 1787 Blacksmith-styled two
reales is that it was probably not struck before 1787.
Further research is needed on possible English die engravers who set-
tled in Lower Canada or New York during the 1810-1830 period.

Metrologically, Tables 1-3 indicate the two reales are similar only to the
Canadian Blacksmiths and the two reales seem to have similarities in
their method of manufacture.
Interestingly, Atkins lists theHowland Wood 33 example as an
Evasion variety (Atkins 273). Some people consider this a Blacksmith
while others treat it as an Evasion, l ire point is that there is some over-
lap in these two series.
Robert Willey has pointed out (Willey 1981) that not a single
Blacksmith resides in the cabinets of the British Museum indicating the
strong probability of their North American origin. Another argument
198 John P. Lorenzo
for their North American origin, that has been previously investigated
and written about extensively, is their muling with the discarded Troy,
N.Y. United States Starbuck/Peck storecards.
However, circulating contemporary counterfeits did not circulate
extensively in Lower Canada prior to 1810. The dated Tiffin tokens are
one of the earliest recorded contemporary counterfeit specimens.
Historically, New York is one of the probable areas where reales of both
genuine and of the contemporary counterfeit nature would be free to
circulate and accepted by the local people.
Series I: Carolus III Two Reales- An Overview
Charles III reigned from 1759-1788. It was therefore surprising to
see an example as early as the Richard August example of 1727 which

is struck in German silver. All the numeral punches when they appear
as 2R as with the August example in this series feature the two as swan-
like in appearance possibly indicating a singular engraver and/or mint-
ing location. Metallic compositions in this series include: German sil-
ver, German silvered brass and brass. Brass was always the most com-
mon composition found within this series. This is then followed by
German silver and then German-silvered brass in terms of increasing
rarity. Refer to Table 4 for actual specifics on metallurgic rarity.
Preliminary studies of reverse die sharing identify different obverses

with a similar reverse, indicating a single manufacturing facility.
Series II: Carolus IIII Two Reales- An Overview
On reviewing specimens of this monarch Table 2 does not really

revealany other notable metallurgical differences that was not already
observed with the Carolus III series. One interesting year was the 1801
issues. Of the six specimens seen by this writer, five show a retrograde
date (i.e., reversed). Only one example of the six specimens showed the
numerals not cut backwards! This was the only year in this series
exhibiting this retrograde date phenomenon.

One other peculiar observation was with no. 32 of Table 2. This
specimen shows a faint 8 which reads as 8R. This is probably nothing
more than a crude Santiago mintmark (S). The other fascinating coin
in this series is the Gary Smith coin with the reeded edge and the
Roman numeral IV instead of 1111. Richard August explained this phe-

nomenon as during the transitional years of Carolus during 1788-
1791, the Roman numeral 1111 is replaced with the IV on the genuine
examples. This practice also was followed with these contemporary
counterfeits in this series. The ANS has the only other Roman numer-
al IV transitional piece.
Series III: Ferdinand VII Two Reales- An Overview

The series demonstrated more bust and letter punching crudeness
than the previous two series. The series does decrease in overall quality
with all of the specimens seen of this series. Cast specimens are also seen
with a higher frequency in this series than the other two series. The
most notable coin I have seen in this series is the Michael Ringo 1814
two reales. The coin is very different than the other Blacksmith-styled
two reales in this series, but in my opinion still falls under the same
grouping. The coin has English style lettering on both sides and it has
the same peculiar concentric circling as seen only on certain Blacksmith
varieties. The writer has felt for some time now that this was some form
of grinding device the die sinker utilized after engraving the coin to
simulate the diagnostic trait of Blacksmiths to look worn immediately
after striking. Oddly this coin possessed these concentric circles but did
not show any signs of intentional die maker’s wear. These concentric
may have been placed to also show signs of wear on this speci-
circles
men and offer a further argument that these pieces were made concur-
rent with the Blacksmiths of Lower Canada during the 1820-1840
period.
Thornhill, Toronto, Canada
In Mehl’s Numismatic Monthly ,

a Canadian collector responds to
MeMs earlier request to determine the location of the Riseing Sun
Tavern Blacksmith token (Wood 24). In response, this anonymous col-
lector indicated the following (Canadian Blacksmith 1917):
You have asked me a hard question and one that has puz-
zledme for many years. Both Toronto and Montreal claim
home of this honest and industrious blacksmith. I can only
speak of the Toronto man. Some eight miles north of the
200 John P. Lorenzo
old city limits there is a town called Thornhill. One of

Toronto’s main business streets today is Yonge Street, and it
extends as far north as Lake Simcoe

some forty miles away, -
passing through Thornhill, Richmond Hill and several

other towns away. (Writer’s note: the time of this response
was January 1917.)
Yonge Street is a long succession of hills, about a mile
south of Thornhill is a stretch of road known as Hog’s
Hollow. Right on the Hog’s back on top of the hill, on the
east side of the road, there was before and after 1 837 a tav-
ern, an old two-story wooden clap-borden building with
large stables attached to it, and this tavern was known for
many miles around as the Riseing Sun Tavern. It was
destroyed by fire some time between 1855 and 1860. A few
hundred feet north of it was a pottery, and close to it was a
blacksmith’s shop. Local tradition says this was a blacksmith
who made the tokens with the reverse of the Riseing Sun
Tavern were made for use of this very tavern. I have spoken
to old men who have known this district from childhood
and heard this story from parents and elders. One thing is
certain, there was a great scarcity of copper coins during this
period. Some years ago I was speaking to an old man in
Toronto from Ireland, arriving therein 1837- He told me

that a few days after his arrival, he picked up at Yonge Street,
then a country road, a strip of copper some four inches or

so long and about a full half-inch wide-the thickness of a
cent today. This was divided into six pieces-roughly square,
by chisel cuts-fully half way through. On showing it to a
neighbor he was told that it was used as money, being worth

three pence (six cents). If the purchase amounted to less
than that amount, the pieces required were broken off, and
readily accepted as good money at that time.
The purpose of this article was to illustrate the significance of the

Tavern. In my opinion, the copper mining plantation was in close prox-
imity to the Riseing Sun Tavern. In most colonial mining operations of
any ore, a tavern was the most common place for social gatherings other
than of course the church. 1 strongly believe that an undocumented

mining operation was in close proximity to this tavern. Additionally, 1
believe not only was there a blacksmith dispensing these Blacksmiths at
this tavern, but probably other individuals who either mined or struck
these tokens. With the enormous amount of varieties it seems to be
more of a multi-individual operation than a single blacksmith. 1 he
copper Blacksmiths also display a remarkable purity, similar to the
Birmingham evasive halfpence. All this seems to be a tall order for one
individual even if the copper was imported from England.
I use the term plantation because it was a common term utilized to
describe an organized mining operation isolated from major urban cen-
ters. A very instructive article was written by Rutsch (Rutsch 1974) on
iron foundry and mining operations in colonial New Jersey. He
describes the plantation settlement as follows:
The typical iron plantation in New Jersey contained the
machinery for producing iron from the mine to the casting
house, sheds for storing charcoal and limestone, barns for
storing horses and oxen, houses and workers, a farm for the
support of all, and a store which recorded wages against
commodities purchased by the workers that were not pro-
duced on the plantation. Schools and churches were found
on larger more enlightened, or more remote plantations.
Although the ale brewing houses found in English iron set-
tlements were not part of the American scene, much fre-
quented taverns sprang up near each plantation.

1 he overall infrastructure of the plantation should not have been
much different in colonial New Jersey than in Thornhill, Toronto
(Lower Canada). Further research is needed into possible mining oper-
ations in the vicinity of the Riseing Sun Tavern.
R.W. McLachlan’s Canadian Hoard Article
Probably the largest hoard of Canadian coppers ever found occurred

at the Bank of Montreal at Quebec, where three boxes containing about
12,000 old coppers were discovered in the vaults (McLachlan 1889-
1890). The bulk of the hoard was made up of Tiffin, Harp, Ship and
Colonies, and rude imitations of English George II and Irish George III
202 John P. Lorenzo
halfpence, and possibly several examples of British Evasion coppers.

The Wood 33 Blacksmith, Vexator and even CANIDA coppers were
found in the hoard. However, not a single counterfeit Spanish reales of
any denomination was reported in the hoard. McLachlan describes the

hoard as being coppers which were struck and freely circulated in
Lower Canada during the years of 1810-1837. What was more inter-
esting as pointed out by McLachlan is that no outside coins other than

the imitation British and Irish halfpence were discovered in the hoard
(not even from Upper Canada such as the Brocks and Sloops).
McLachlan then concludes that it seems very little interprovincial com-
munication existed with Lower Canada and that these pieces did not
circulate extensively. McLachlan concludes that due to a worn 1834
George Orde token within the hoard, and allowing time for importa-
tion of the dies into Canada, and the commencement of the new
coinage, the deposit is no earlier than 1837. He further indicated that
between the years of 1830 and 1837 the issue of these light anonymous
tokens continued to increase and that they formed the bulk of the cir-
culating specie in this area of Lower Canada. Traders often received five
or ten dollars daily. The accumulations in the tills of large retailers
became so cumbersome that a feeling of uneasiness arose. These retail-
ers (or hucksters as they were known) controlled the economy and it
was probably they who declared the bulk of currency of Canada illegal.
When the financial troubles brought about in the United States by the
suspension of the Bank of the United States extended to Canada, specie
payment, such as it was, consisting of what was considered good of the
coppers, with Spanish, Lrench, and other foreign silver coins more or
less worn, was suspended. This, followed by a rebellion, which broke
out in the district of Montreal, made it necessary to ship the specie to
Quebec. The significance of not finding a single counterfeit reales of
any denomination is explainable possibly due to the singular fact that
these reales were freely acceptable in circulation. You can not argue rar-
ity since four Vexators were found within the hoard. R.C. Willey has
reported viewing 50 Vexator specimens (Willey 1966)! At least six to
eight times this number exist for this type of counterfeit. I he writer
feels these are of a Lower Canada or possibly of a Colonial New York
origin. Kenneth Scott in this next section may give us another clue that
favors this area.
A Kenneth Scott Reference
One interesting reference in the Kenneth Scott counterfeiting series
was located. In Scott’s Counterfeiting in Colonial New York (Scott 1953,
118), he states that in the New York Gazette or the Weekly Post-Boy on
February 4, 1762 the paper printed a warning that counterfeit dollars
of the Cobb kind, made of bell metal (i.e., brass) and silvered over had
appeared in New York
City and could not easily be distinguished rom f
the genuine. Weymans New York Gazette on February 8 repeated the

caution of the false dollars and added that counterfeit four shillings,
two shillings and one shilling milled pieces were in circulation in the
city. They were of a very base metal, had the appearance of true ones,
but would break at once if an attempt was made to bend them.

Although the time period is not applicable to these Blacksmith-
styled two reales, the reference is interesting in terms of the counter-
feiting practice of silvering brass. The same type of counterfeiting prac-
tice is seen in this two reales series with the German-silvered brass spec-
imens (refer to Table 4). The only conclusion the writer is bringing out
that this silvered brass practice did not originate in this series when
attempting to counterfeit the popular Spanish reales specie. Colonial
New York may be another possible minting location and circulation
arena even during the 1820s as Spanish reales along with foreign gold
were still acceptable.
Gilfoil’s Blacksmith Coppers
Since the coinage operation of these coppers occurred some time

between 1764 and 1774, the British private was more than likely strik-
ing imitation British halfpence. The dated specimens of Carolus III I
and Ferdinand VII simply eliminate William Gilfoil from this picture
(Trudgen 1987).
English Importation?
The probability that these two reales were struck in England for use
in the colonies is not a very high possibility. The quick recall of the
Spanish dollars in 1797 and the insulting couplets composed upon
their appearance (Mathias 1962, 26-27) suggest that the circulation of
204 John P. Lorenzo
Spanish coinage in England was resisted. 1 his is to be contrasted with

the New York area in which the reales were freely accepted and appre-
ciated by the general population. Additionally, XRF analysis tentative-
ly indicates these as Americanized coins because of the impurity of the

brass alloy. Counterfeit two reales and the Canadian Blacksmiths indi-
cate more metals in the alloy composition indicating a poorer refining

method during the planchet production process. As more specimens are
analyzed, more definitive our conclusions will become based on
homogenous trace alloy compositions and their probable geographical
origins.
In other words, trace alloy metal compositions do provide the

numismatist with distinctive fingerprints and if a large enough data
base is created, possible grouping of non-copper metals may be indica-
tive of a similar minting operation and/or geographical location.
Conclusion
With contemporary counterfeits, no confirmed conclusions on

when, who and where can be made with a 100% confidence level. We
can make some general observations:
• The contemporary counterfeit Blacksmith-style two reales exist in
three metals: brass, German silver and German silvered brass. Copper
was not confirmed for any two reales, since all analyses indicated
some form of a copper-zinc (brass) alloy composition. Refer to Table

4. The rarity of occurrence increases as one proceeds from brass to
German-silver to German-silvered brass.
• The German-silver issues occur with the same general frequency lor
each of the three monarchs. It seems to be a haphazard striking ol all
three of these base metals, with no particular pattern.

• No die engraver or minting location was confirmed during this study.
The probable mint location in the opinion of the author might be

Colonial New York based on the popularity of the reales in this area
during the early nineteenth century. Additionally, the occurrence of

similar reeded brass eight reales circulating in the mid eighteenth cen-
tury in Colonial New York does strengthen this mint identification.
• Another mint location might be Lower Canada. Since German silver

was not available to the world market until 1820 these may have co-
circulated with the Canadian Blacksmiths since they are metrologi-
callv very similar. The comparison of Wood 13, a brass Blacksmith,
and a brass wo do show a

reales similar make-up, however more
cross-comparisons of Blacksmith Wood 13-18 and brass counterfeit
wo reales are in order before any real conclusions can be developed
on a possible similar origin.
Birmingham, England is unlikely as a source, based on the impurity
of the brass planchets, the total non-occurrence of any wo reales in
the British Museum, the presence of around 50 in the ANS collec-
tion, and the slight collectible availability of this coin in and around
the New York area today. This is of course the opposite occurrence
with most George II and George III English or Irish halfpence which
have been predominantly imported over the last 50 years.
The absence of any specimen in the Montreal Bank hoard could

mean one of wo things: either counterfeit wo reales did not circu-
late in Canada, or they still circulated readily at a time when the cop-
pers which made up the Montreal Bank Hoard were rejected and set
aside.
Examples of counterfeit 2 reales: a) Charles III, Lima, probably brass; b) Charles IIII,
Mexico, brass; c) Charles III, Santiago, probably a German-silver alloy composition.

i • — 1 — '
' 2 1 ,
«
206 John R. Lorenzo
iL
<N E t>£)
e g vr\
L vq £ "d w3
u E W) E 
00 CO
vo
u T
iL
Cl
aj
-a
O
£ > _o
to •— N
z E
d
<N OT to XT
VO E
<L*
03
to c Sb — K 3

C co 00
\6 - A. O
. X< t\ c
0 O c _2
03
O (N 1-1
c -c
X
"
to CO t\
£ c Lt
o3
to
to
c CL
L>
§b 10
mm; CL
u. rt c 03 to CL
co 0
co
CO 0
C 03 0 rt
g
u S> U
03 U-i "T3 Ui r-3 rt
,
a
u ..
E
o
g < CQ u (U
u,
aj pP o3
Ti O CQ CN _Q
L-
^
cQ -a
 CL
<o co fc CO in CO CO c co H z co £ co
03
> co ’
CO co
QJ
Cl
PL
*
PL w tu Pp
* Z ZV z
£3 O e. > X w O* o
ZL Z 5* z
§0 Q Q Q Q Q Q
Z Z Z Z Z Z
i ~ss H
-X
H cC
X
H x
z* #
hr H
#"*
H »—
°0 a w uj *_ pj *
s
PL) U3
£ &>
oi ZX
*
Z c^
CL,
(N < IN
c- t. X t s r 1^ i CN 1
dk
— ^2 w
LO LO ?S CO CO CL co
X
£ X§ oZ
1
* *
*
X *
(N
v
5y QC x
Cl
N
t=3
~R s < -< =< S < H < S < *“ < r S 3 < s <

R * X
co H
r”
2- <j~)
H Jo H Jo H Jo H 00 H Jo H CO H lo H co H
5 D 3 D X PS d
O O Q
u> P S 32 32 32 D 5 32
O O
O o
§3 2 LU Q< 9H
t,
V s a
L E §3
s?
CrC S-,
< tu < tu H
Iso O U
~R
*
Q
* *
Q
* *
Q
*
U
*
Q
* *
Q U
* *
Q
#
U
*
Q UQ
* * #
Q u
# *
c
0 tN CN CC) xf VON VO In vO In IN
CN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN tN IN
IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN
°q
Q •— 1 •— • 1 •— 1 ' 1 •— 1 •— 1
O — 0
£) c: p d
h bO
3 0 O 0 3 I
C < Z
o3
< J
.feo
CL
h-3
Cl z -5
z^ CO >—3
CL I &•
0i < c ^ C ^ £ u3 cd
~i (N co VO3 K 00 Cv
— > < ) « i
II!
of o .H
E -o « & o
27.3mm not £ 2 3
—
thick;
no
a
punchedlC
NO u t'- c brass
c
is
rev.
type, C\
on

<L>
(N C o _Q t A <N (N (N
in Reales CO 1“ co 2 CO o
V3
CO r un 3 CO
8 u £ U E u CL u on U CJ
JZ u
78.7gr., 9gr.,
SPECS: SPECS: SPECS: uj *C uj 5 UJ “O UJ N; UJ UJ SPECS: SPECS:
2R,
no
C- c —
rv t/j
c CL VT\ Cl
CO s Cl
co
84. reales
on uj CO u- co cd CO 00
s up
?/FPA*X
V LP 2 # 0*/F
T*/F*M' c
wear o x u. 2 *HP*/ *A*X
Z 2
Q^ Q Q
Z
CJ
2 Z *
Z R)
H CS u
f— *
*
H
u^ *
f—
#
H (no
UJ <N
-
Uj
>
X x.
tu cS
rs
CL) UJ
*
* * * * pp
ZL z* z
’H1SPAN*ET*IND
*HISPAN*ET*IND *HISPAN’ET*IND
Z o' *HISPAN*ET*IND *HISPAN*ET*IND
REX*8R*T*F*M*
< I <C (N
* rf"
£2 <
Ch f
<
CP
2 <
CP
*REX*0*R*F
*REX*HP*A‘X
X % CO X
ZX
REX**H*A*X*
« %
SJ [pi
to — X PO *REX*M*F
% Z I a- is X k X
* < * * * *
< K <; H < L<

H So H So H T h lo
*CAROLUS*III *CAROLUS*IIl
3
cc
Z “5
_i a
Z;$
_j cc 3^ D— 22.
*CAROLUS*III *CAROLUS‘III
*CAROLUS*II ‘DERGRATIA *DEI*GRATIA
a oci oci OO—

at
OOL
os
O
at
*DEI*GRATIA *DEI*GRATIA *DEI*GRATIA
uj < ui < uj < tu < uj <

Q
*
U Q U
* *
Q
* *
UQ
,
(N CO l/N NO r\
1778 1779 1780 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co 1788 1788
[\ r\ (\ r\
T—t •— r—* —" •— 1
T— 1
c
ri Coin
eg on C3
August 'c B cd
> on op t- Anton-Kesse
> o <u <u H

o CO o < < c oo cd
141)
c co (Plate
o ° z ^J
Z 5^o 2 El
ANS ANS
R. OJ <u
cd cd < UJ
JPL
c K
11. 12. 13.
o Z O V/N
— 1
00
s5 CN
— o
(N
^J
CN
(AK 23. 141
/ * )
208 John R. Lorenzo
c
s &< £
£ b •r o u -a
XT M i— r*
SIS
c
^ CZ VO 9 <u be
JO
3 3 GN
CQ
_Q
J< 2 p cl (N so
bQ
rM o
Cl.
o
o -C (N bD
| -a ^ <u u
(“O
I 5
r< C •
_ 60
O
00
to
<u • bD °°<£ o •
M
rt
C ^ ^ODJJ
Vj
-Q
00
£ 2 o
Uh
r\ <u <U O
e"°
i-i t/j E £ £ E 2 a- CL
C OS
XT
00
l
r-*
2
E-£ __ £ S so £
4-1
u Q-
o u oCL
c
CO
xr -Q 3 3 -a "O
<n 2 CO
c5 — l/-\
Ui u u. U XT
cd o£ u- aj Gn -C G\ GN bD bD rt "O 00
N o
CQ C M o CN
Tl'o
CO
x.S
co
x.S
3 2
-Q O U 2 (N
CO C LO 'w cd lo 8 -Q -O _Q _Q lo LO
U _j£ U'p U 2> U 2 u £ -2 e 1 E U u
OJ u PJ _o r t 1
P-) o “ W PL)
eo 15
11
lo H
e- e- c
OD _g oo .5 oo oo
CL- c
XS E 2 -§ C-
lo
Q-,
LO
Listing
Reales
H
*
X
Mint. PL £-•
pj pj PL) pj wr
(1788-1808) 2x <d uu
* * 2x
Two
Q Q Q* Q Q Q
Spanish
Z2
_ * Z Z, zr Z z; Z :
sr ^
*
Reign
CL * tJP
1
> - <
z* * ST T l
r
_l
1
f—
UJ X
1
H X/ H H L_|
Sc,
f— 0^ H
wr H
«: EPS
<L
C^
* rN
r 00 ^
r t i
o-i oo r OJ S 1
oj r
*
oj L 4 1
(IV)
o z
Uh
ZL z^ Z5
< S < f- s? <C 2
zS Z pj z^
*
Zed
< !N
REX
*I*P*J
<? <?
< f eo 1
Counterfeit II
’L
g
CU
X &5X 00 X fex
</o &5X Z2X gx oo X fex
*,
;x
3 *
II
JL X s X S ?s *5S
* * #
xS
# *
X S *X *£ #X #S
* *
aj PJ
2:
CAROLUS
PQ * >— -It >—- * t— «
r< Z<
I
<
i
r < r< r< zr

X co x bn C CO X bn ^
sr
Table co X CO X CO X CO bn rz
o D5L
of
-4 2 -J L -J -j s 2 - d J2 1
<L
l)
§9 go go go go go g? gc5 go
Coinage o 5s ?S 5g 3g 5§ ?s 5§ 3§ 3§ 3|
Bust o
GN GN GN GN
<N
Gn
CC)
GS
Xf
Gs
VC\
Gn
SO
G\
hv
Cs
r\ h- r\ h- t\ r\ t\ (\
Series:
2 O O CO
d E OD 3
bfl
LO C 5b
C q 3 o C
Second nJ
b 2 2 < LO C o c
hJ
.bo Oh ANS
— LO
d z Z £ PJ
PJ O. 2 2 < c
o
B. CT) xr K 00 GN 3 2 ^ X
, . 1
CN
"O fc
CN n3 -a o
%
03 UZ CQ 2 &P § ?
J*
"5 uz
_c ~o uJ c
E
E T3 SE-Cl «-*
_
 c
(N
QJ U S o £ l
> <N 5"°
c
oi —E 
• CO
(N E (N CN c
<N cQ CN UJ °
<N O
V
CN CN
.. *U
co - co co H CO CO CO CO 'Os co
9 2-
U^ Uw)
H a U
UJ
J u
nj
a
V
U
UJ
U
UJ
c U 2 U
UJ UO UJ
LT
u
]
N.J
UJ -q
co
UJ Ll 3 UJ 00 £
O- 00 Cb C-, 'vr CU rt cu cu 2 C-. r- Cl -5 CU c
7 )N CO CO t\ CO ~0 CO CO -O co .£ CO co CO 03
o
c 12 5- h CL
u-<
53 2 uJ
1
X Cl * O * w^
i s 2 a Z zb Z*
e£
Q Q Q Q Q Q
S
^
z
-
s Z
?
!=
Z — Qz?r
—1 *
ix
to * — * Z
Zcl
*
cu
<
.
Hpj
1
* * * * l— 1
* 5T *
H
UJ <N
H oC
UJ CN
f-j b2 E at
t— * (
H
* * * * 5^ PL * * F'X'
zb Z£ zb Z w z,y z5 z& Z,N ^
< z <z < 2
CL *
CL 5
<Z
< Z CL *,
<z
CL *,
<2 <
CL f, < 00
CL f.
UJ
x,x do x
—n
c
— —
pj UJ UJ
CO CO OS CO ?s
— UJ — UJ — UJ
i>s
Z
*
ZcC x2
cC
* * * * *
z 2 Z b Z at
* *
Z at z 2 XZ
„
}~~l
—^ * 1—1 -»
—*
p~i
— *
l~~l
—1 *
J**~]
< «<
t
r< r r< < r< < r
2? §5 25 29 Q 29 29 29
UJ
5 s 51 5 s 5 s 5 s 51 Uh 5 s 51 51
t\ 00 CN o
o
r-l r—
O <N ro
o o xr
o
ir\
o o
no 00 CO
CN
r\
CN CN
r\
CN
co
o
OC 00 00 00 00
o
00 CO 00
o
CO
o
00
1—1 —l
’
c c
00 00
<u
< < o zz
<u rrs C
cn
a C3
CO oo
o c -j <N rt
(N
cu cu
cd cd z I CQ 00
•a
 ^ co
!
D
— i
INSTEAD
O 28.2mm;
<8
.. o ^ t
U AN
oo p co ^ co
u
W ^ PJ u
u
PJ
copper??
-S (IIII);
SPECS:
d, c-
taJD a % is co is
t: co in
C
•d
c/3
23
8
(Wear)
cS
I
-d
Q Q Q
<N Z *>“ z
“ Z
£-*
Oh 00
0O ’-h H
w X
»
H
PJ
H
pj
# *
§
00
* pi
z z *REX*M*8*R*I*I
*HISPAN*ET*IND
u <
o-
L § <
»
k2
£Xuj co l—
CTj
<
_Q
rt
Qfe *z
>B COD<f!
H 1 zSi 2 *DEI*GRATIA
‘FERDINWII
*DEI*GRATLA
Qu
c£ JL
uj tq PJ U3
§
<
§0
o pl, Q U
0
CO G\
3 o o
co co
1812
1813
°q
.5
I
<X> <u
c 3
o CD
* v* z 13
<
K .§o
id
CO
pj
ANS
None
U I 6. 7.
t — ^ «
Counterfeit Spanish Two Reales 21 1
c c
IE 03 d 03
y ,
o O -S
•-
2 J3u o/c
E
h
"o
E C
vi
« ^H
,
3 c w g c c u- t>
qj U- u «« U "O 3 ;- rt
E bX)-r C
OfiJ§ O cb 00 t-
o to c o to E xr E . to
“O w
qj
<N 03 =~>S to -X
i—
ro c — Z
C ocJ2 c o Ji
E.E^-£ — ob 03 o qj
to
•
2 c ^ | u
u
E _c
E
(N
c
-
5
i
o o 03
JJ -a E o qj ,
c\ '• * * *-•
^

• E O “S'
'
5 bflc" u “"C K on cv -a K c *t>

c VO 73 (N
OHS
to
c
-C uJ E
^ ^
o .3
^ —
q
*
O o T3
2 JJ _c -c u
^ *
* uu J
to
U
(N
LO
U
5 *
tO
U
. . u—
to
U
o c
* E° _c •-
rt
« •
u.
o
w u ^ c^-a
C "3
Cu
-a
g u rt S-o
c
u
Jr,
•
pj
cx
2 ‘u UJ «
£-Z g. a* —
53 UJO oo
c- - Z 5
< 3 g to .3 <
H 5$ a,< UJ g-
03 1/5 -J— to to to Vi to ‘to ts
O O
w tu <
Q Q 9 * Q Q
Z Z z e- Z Z
Hj -1
^02 H
w U
* fco
* < * I—
ZuJ zr Z w z^
<
* z^
<
*
<
—2*
^x s^x 2 X i
zs ?s T 02 »
UJ
FS z* yat
—< — <; - < —< —<

>h >b >H
z2 Z z5 k2 z^
z Si
nO
H * 5F 5F 5F 5 F
w«Q O w
Q w
T
IL}
UJ r 1
u- Q u. u. i-u ED
^r VO
*—
r\
•—
o
(N
(N
CN
00 00 CO 00 00
o o
OJj OX)
c c
to to
5 5 z z
to
z
s 2 < < <
00 Cn
o
• 1
r—,
— CN
212 /o/?« 7?. Lorenzo
NT 0.16/ND
1808
1.86/2.13
d 64.3/58.9 7.24/6.55 0.96/1.65 2.21/2.51 15.3/20.8
CO
T2#31
d
ia>
c 0.04/ND
0.09/0.13 0.28/0.23
26.71/26.2
1.81/1.13
1801
a
lx T2#18
6'lZ/Z'OZ
£
-s
CO
§ CN
J 1797
81.2/79.5
ro 13.2/15.03
1.07/1.33
J
CQ
£ T2#12
ND/0.04
wo
5 .§
lH
u OO
to a xr
£ -a 0.03/ND 0.13/ND
d
u 33 -**4
« 1791
T2#3
0.21/0.26 73.5/72.5 25.1/25.7 0.13/0.16
wo
2.40/1.76
 Tl#21 ro/ro
6 0
o I'
U 1
u tH
u 1°
C
8
0.03/ND
1 68.5/67.7 31.4/31.9 0.54/0.48 0.13/0.16

0.10/0.12
s 1771
Tl#3
a
_o
E •a
8
•c
<u
co
I* 8 OO
rn
*'-<
K *N d
i '
*fc
^
0.19/0.27
59.9/58.8 27.1/27.3
12.4/13.13
d
XT
<u
ND/0.09
d
3rt
i
H a
iOJ
i?
Ref.
1
_o
4 3
<u
Specimen
Table
Metal
Au
£ N
u,
U-
<U Cu Zn
z CO
C
£ Mn Mo
CL-
Co
<
OX)
3 |5
.
0.11/ND
76 1 o
— a _o
u
^ J5
cs
S.
"
97.1/93.2
85.2/84.2 13.9/14.2
1 ^ j
w 2
u 2
S
E 2
0.04/0.03
(U
1/9
_c -a
2 S E
0 ND/0.12
E
S
C QJj
^ qj C
qj
60
QJ
E -£ 13
u 1!
0.09/ND to
c
qj
y
——
.
Atkins
99.3/91.3 0.46/0.54
/4
0.11/ND H J o
U
•- -d
^ _Q
86.0/85.1 12.9/13.9 0.16/0.09 V ti
tO
QJ CO
to (—* to
ND/0.6
qj 5 u n °
u w _c .2 cl
ft ws
s -s c- to "O
3 72 o 2P c
. ‘w TO
o J±; rN io ,
<n
'ST l/"\ E 3
CO
C
TO >
QJ CL
3
> r<S
c\
VTN
O 73
>N
TO
-
C -2 qj
to
CN
0.18/ND 0.48/ND
* -S ° 2 iS
Coppers
CN NO 0.03/0.03
85.8/86.1 13.2/13.3
X | 2 E
GN O UW ND/0.13 ND/0.11
_Q E ^ -1
c
H c ’c
-a
o «
C
*-*
e*
QJ
“>
>. 2
Evasion qj *- /-C
416 o
•
— cl u<
0.83/0.55
2 s .E T3
Atkins 92.8/96.5
TT
t7 jo "S
E
V Wood
a.
a.
ND/0.5
'*'
°
to
S = -
Birmingham o E § .2 ? 'o
U U
’2
TO tO CO
w "c co .S
-S Sd Jd o -c o
2
u
Cu N S s O r3
S' 3 O
The 1 NT
C _Q
'“ O E p -c
>s 8.2 0
2. 5
£Q
Wood
98.8/98.29
C5
VTN
C
o
Jr
CL
.2 "O to
o
ND/0.14
d <u xO w
TO
E
Qj
£ -C
% U
J$ -E
OJD
§
“
s -fi E £
u #•1 rt u
C
u Specimen
Metal
Z £ Cu Zn C <U
N
u.
o
o E
JJ 3
_C
Uh CO C\ CL ’
to geological
~Z) to QJ QJ qi
* "rt LC _C fcO
e2
3
cr
H H . .
c
to qj .
2 2 _£
w
O w qj OX) ticular
^
Z 2 c
C -2
T3 to
214 John R. Lorenzo
Summaries
Metrology
and
Metals
Planchet
(cont.):
4
Table
.
Counterfeit Spanish Two Reales
 -£
~ o, -O of
£ c oo
o c/3
^
0 -2 _3 qd -C
-5 £ £
o/j £ £
.0
>> r3 c /3
tr;
CN y:
c -o P
- CJ
M
o o
CJ
o & O
£
0:5
<d rt
O — cross-comparison
series.
o- ^ CQ J=
£
CQ
in
 t- c
)
u
r:
on
these
"O
EU
c
E
SO
r-’
1)
Q. CN
!—
Zr u.‘ 00
00 00
in
a Cj
On CN
in
q
in
00 oc CO
a
"a
00 00
~ m
r-
V)
rn cn CN
CO CO co
&
£ 3
u c
! <u
C3
m
O
o
i CQ -2
0 3
I <U
t
u r
-1
c_ -
i — ’
216 John P. Lorenzo
Table 4 : Metallurgy and Metrology Comparisons of the Canadian

Blacksmiths, Evasions and the Spanish Two Reales
Observations and Comments

1. The abbreviation of elements is as follows: Au-gold, Va-vanadium,
Zr-zirconium, Fe-iron, Cu- copper, Zn-zinc, Ni-nickel, Sn-tin, Bi-
bismuth, Mn-manganese, Mo-molybdenum, Pb-lead, Co-cobalt
and Ag-silver. Brass is a Copper/zinc alloy and German silver is a
copper, zinc and nickel alloy. It has a dull silvery appearance and
emits a bell sound when struck. Compared to German silver, silver
has a higher pitch when the ring test is performed.
2. The counterfeit two reales do exhibit an alloy which is similar to the

brass specimens of the Canadian Blacksmith brass series indicating a
similar source for the planchets. Unlike the Canadian Blacksmith
varieties of Wood 1 and Wood 2, no copper alloy was found within
the counterfeit two reales series based on the limited analyses per-
formed. The writer did analyze two specimens that he thought
resembled copper but the XRF analysis indicated the coins to be of
a brass alloy composition. Luckily, this series did contain brass spec-
imens which could be compared to the known brass series of

Canadian Blacksmiths (i.e. , Woods 11-18).
3. Some of the alloy compositions were indeed remarkable: in particu-
lar, the 1808 Carolus III piece with a trace of gold (approximately 2
%!). Silver slag ore usually contains traces of gold, but this level of
gold is remarkable even for silver slag and could well be a distinct
fingerprint signature of this alloy. However, it is hard to imagine a

counterfeiter spiking a counterfeit with this level of gold!
4. The purity of the copper in the Birmingham Evasion coppers was

expected. There will be a problem on trying to differentiate
Americanized and British George II and George III counterfeits il
many have copper levels this high. The writer expects struck English
import counterfeits to be around 98% copper, whereas Americanized
issues such as Machin’s Mills Coppers the copper level may be lower
due to poorer refining methods. The other non-copper metals may
also be indicative of fingerprinting certain groups of copper togeth-

er as further analyses are performed and data bases are cross-com-
pared.
5. The observation of the purity of the Canadian Blacksmith varieties

of Wood 1 & 2 indicate a very refined minting operation with a
diesinker of much experience. The idea that a blacksmith of limited
resources was involved by himself in the striking of this highly
diverse series does not seem probable. Perhaps mining ore data near
Thornhill, Toronto or other areas of Lower Canada will one day cor-
relate to some degree a confirmation of this minting location.
6. High bismuth contents in copper coins (i.e., 0.1-1. 2%) have been
confirmed as a fingerprint for copper production in late eighteenth
century southwest Britain (i.e. values indicated by the Evasions and

some of the brass two reales). Roughly from 1750-1850 southwest
Britain dominated the copper market (Craddock and Hook 1997;
Day 1973; Day 1990; Day 1991; Wayman, King, and Craddock
1992). It seems probable that copper ingots imported from England
could produce this effect of a high bismuth value which we have
recently been seeing in some State Coppers such as in the New Jersey
series. Analysis of ingots from shipwrecks (Craddock and Hook
1997) from the 1820s show they were using fire-refining methods
that were good at removing the sulfur and iron from the metal, but
the arsenic contents remained high and the bismuth even more so.
Even small quantities of bismuth, as little as 0.02% would cause

severe embrittlement in the copper, the workers simply lived with
the problem never understanding the cause (Craddock and Hook
1997).
7. The coins in this study were not cleaned prior to their analysis by
XRF. Due to the small population of the specimens analyzed and the
monetary and time restraints on the availability of a XRF instru-
ment, the coin surfaces were not prepared. However the variability
of results have shown to be small even with an environmentally
active metal as copper (Munro-Hay, Oddy and Cowell, 1988).
Munro-Hay has shown that a lack of surface preparation does
impose some variability; but these were fairly low (0.4-2. 2%) on the
218 John P. Lorenzo
analysis of twelve gold coins of a gold/silver/copper alloy. Since the
analysis of the coins presented in Table 4 is only a quick snapshot of

the make-up ol these series of coins, a larger population of course is
recommended for future studies.
8. The XRF instrument works by placing the instrument’s probe on the

surface to be analyzed and then the surface is briefly exposed to a
radioisotope source. The atoms of the elements in the material are

caused to fluoresce and emit X-ray characteristics of that element.
The detector then separates the refracted excitations coming from
the sample into energy regions, and from a measurement of the
intensity in each region, determines the metallic concentrations.
9. The 1771 dated German silver example that is defined as having an

alloy composition of copper/zinc/nickel has an interesting history as
detailed in Howard-White’s book (Howard-White 1963). The his-
tory of German silver is valuable in determining the probable emis-

sion time period of this contemporary counterfeit group, therefore
its history is worthwhile to review in detail. According to the Annual
Register of 1775, one J.B. Blake of Canton sent over to England,
from the mines of the Chinese province of Yunnan, a specimen of
what was described as the ore paaktong. He sent the sample in the
hope that efforts would be made in England to produce a metal
equally white and pure, but with more ductility than that made by
the Chinese.
The Swedes also heard about the white alloy and had succeeded
in securing specimens. In 1776 Gustav Cronstedt’s work on the clas-
sification of minerals published a treatise on the new material, from

which the following was written:
Mr. Bladh, who has several times visited the East Indies,
has brought this metal with him from there, wrought and
mixed, as well as rough and unmixed.... With the blowpipe,
Mr. Bladh had only tried a little of it on coal, but enough to
show that it contained nickel.
...By melting the rough metal with hepar sulphuris, 1
got
two separate metals, one that was red and forgeable was real
copper, and the other was greyish white, brittle and with a
fracture like that of steel. When further experiments were

made, the last mentioned metal turned out to be real nick-
el containing a little cobalt. In this condition the rough

metal comes from the mines and the country down to
Canton in the form of triangular rings, with an exterior

diameter of 8 or 9 inches and with a thickness of about 1 1 /4
inches. Consequently, must have been smelted from cop-

it
per ore containing nickel, which I dare say is to be formed

there. Some alloying experiments would certainly show in
what proportion that these metals ought to be mixed in
order to form a real pak-tong. My intention was to make it
of Swedish nickel....
In the same year, 1776, von Engerstrom published the following

analysis of the alloy: Copper (40.6%), Nickel (18.75%),
Zinc(31 .25%), and no figures were given for the impurity con-
stituents, which totaled 9.4%.
A few years later a statement appeared that those who imported
into Europe white copper from China or Japan were sure of a ready
market and that a domestic imitation made by some ingenious man-
ufacturer was envisaged.
40 years later, A. Fyfe, a lecturer in Chemistry in
In 1822, nearly
Edinburg, examined a basin and ewer made in this white copper. Its
cost in China was one-quarter of its weight in silver and according
to Fyfe, when held in one hand and struck with the fingers of the
other, the sound is distinctly heard at the distance of an English mile.
The assay he made was Copper (40.4%), Nickel (31.6%), Zinc
(25.4%) and Iron (2.6%).

That there was a ready market for this the alloy occurred to sev-
eral people, for in 1823 an enterprising Birmingham manufacturer,
E. Thomason, made such a material synthetically, using ingredients
of this proportion: copper (40.0%), nickel (31.0%), zinc (26.0%)

and iron (3.0%). In a letter which Thomson wrote in that year to the
Society of Arts, he said that his product is easily cast into large things
such as equestrian and other statues, columns, capitals, entablatures
and pilasters. Its hardness, he added, is so great as almost to resist

impressions from a violent blow of a hammer.
220 John P. Lorenzo
In 1823 Keferstein, Brandes and Muller had analyzed ores from

the Henne mine at Suhl in Saxony, from which, for some 60 to 80
years previously, a white copper alloy had been made, and Frick had
determined how much nickel was needed to de-color completely the
copper and how much to make the metal ductile.
In the same year a technical society in Prussia (Verein zur
Beforderung des Gewerbefleisses) offered a prize to anyone who
would erect, in Prussia, a factory for making an alloy approximately
to the composition determined by Fyfe, resembling silver in appear-
ance, and saleable at a price not more than one-sixth that of silver.
Apparently there were no entries for the competition, but it was at
this number of people in Germany started

juncture that a to manu-
facture commercially a locally made version of pai-thung.
J.R. von Gersdoff was one of the first to publish information on
the composition of alloys suitable for particular uses: for example,
for spoons, ladles and two-pronged forks, an alloy consisting of 25
parts nickel, 50 and 25 parts zinc was recommended;
parts copper
for knife- and fork-handles, candle snuffers, and sugar tongs, alloys
of 22 parts nickel, 55 parts copper and 23 parts zinc were preferred;
for plates and wash basins the recommended alloys were 20 parts
nickel, 60 parts copper and 20 parts zinc. It was stated also that addi-
tion of 3 % of lead to alloys of the last mentioned type produced a
material suitable for casting items such as candlesticks, spurs, bells

and horse harness.
Somewhere between 1826 and 1830, P.N. Johnson, the founder
of the business which later became Johnson, Matthey and Company,
of London, visited the Erzgebirge mining district of Saxony, and see-

ing there for the first time the German equivalent of the pai-thung,
he decided to embark upon its manufacture in Great Britan.
Another English firm early in the field was F. and S.R. Topping of
London. But the name which will always be associated with the
commercial development of nickel (German) silver in England is
that of Charles Askin. Living in Birmingham, Askin had become

friendly with his neighbor, one Brook Evans, a woolen draper, and
in 1 824, he decided to pay a visit to the mining districts of Germany
where he learned of German silver.
During 1833 a partnership ensued between Askin and two mem-

bers ol the Merry family; a plant was set up at Sherborne, Ladywood,
Birmingham, and it was there that the first commercial production
ol ductile nickel (German) silver took place in England. Later that
partnership was dissolved and Askin joined up with his old friend
Brook Evans. By that time the market for the alloy was expanding
and operating from George Street Parade, Birmingham, the new
firm, Evans and Askin, concentrating on the production of nickel
(German) silver and lost no time in establishing itself as a reliable
source of supply.
By the way, during the 1820s the chief use of nickel was in the
manufacture of nickel (German) silver, an industry which was estab-

lished on a large scale in Berlin in 1 824 and as described above car-
ried over to England by Askin in the 1830’s.
These German silvered counterfeit two reales were probably made

between 1830-1840 and this period does tie-in the whole series
including the brass reales being made concurrently with the
Canadian Blacksmiths during the 1820-1840 period.
Reference List
Anton, William T., Jr. and Bruce P. Kesse. 1992. The Forgotten Coins of the North
American Colonies, lola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications.
Atkins, James. 1892. The Tradesman Tokens of the Eighteenth Century. London: W.S.
Lincoln & Son.
Bowers & Merena Galleries. 1987. Frederick B. Taylor Sale; Warren Baker Collection
of Canadian Blacksmith Coppers, March 26-27.
Burzio, Humberto. 1958. Diccionario de la Moneda Hispanoamericana. Santiago De

Chile: Fondo Historico y Bibliografico Jose Toribio Medina.
Canadian Blacksmith. 1917. The Canadian Blacksmith Copper Token. Wood 24. The
Riseing Sun Tavern, Mehl's Numismatic Monthly, 7, 1 (January): 1-2.
Craddock, Paul, T. and Hook, Duncan R. 1997. The British Museum collection of
metal ingots from dated wrecks. In Artefacts from Wrecks. Dated Assemblages fi-om the
Late Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution. Ed. by Mark Redknap. Oxbow
Monograph 84. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
222 John P. Lorenzo
Day, Joan. 1973. Bristol Brass. Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles.
Day, Joan. 1990. Brass and Zinc in Europe from the Middle Ages until the 19
c ^
Century. In 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass. Ed. by P. T. Craddock. British Museum
Occasional Paper No. 50. London: The British Museum.
Day, Joan. 1991. Copper, Zinc and Brass Production. In The Industrial Revolution in
Metals. Ed. by Joan Day and R. F. Tylecote. London: The Institute of Metals.
Howard-White, F.B. 1963. Nickel. An Historical Review. New York: D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc.
McLachlan, R.W. 1889. A Hoard of Canadian Coppers. The Canadian Antiquarian

and Numismatic Journal Second Series, 1, no. (July): 27-34.
, 1
McLachlan, R.W. 1915. The Money of Canada from a Historical Standpoint. The
Numismatist 28, no. 12 (December): 421-426.
Mathias, Peter. 1962. English Trade Tokens: The Industrial Revolution Illustrated.
London: Abelard-Schuman.
Munro-Hay, S.C., W. A. Oddy, and M. R. Cowell. 1988. The Gold Coinage of Aksum:
New Analyses and their Significance for Chronology. In Metallurgy in Numismatics 2: 1
-
16. Special Publication no. 19. London: The Royal Numismatic Society.
Rodriguez, J.J. 1965. Catalogo De Los Reales De A Dos Espaholes. Madrid: Altamira
Talleres Graficos, S. A.
Rutsch, S. Edward, The Colonial Plantation Settlement Pattern inNew Jersey: Iron
and Agricultural Examples. A paper presented at the Fifth Annual New Jersey History
Symposium, 1973. New Jersey Historical Commission, Trenton, 1974.
Scott, Kenneth. 1953. Counterfeiting in Colonial New York. Numismatic Notes and
Monographs, No. 127. New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Trudgen, Gary, A. 1987. Gilfoil’s Coppers. The Colonial Newsletter 7 6: 997-1000.
Wayman, M.L., J. C. H. King, and P. T. Craddock. 1992. Aspects of Early North

American Metallurgy. British Museum, Occasional Paper 79. London: 1 he British
Museum.
Willey, R.C. 1966. Num lllos Vis Capere? Canadian Numismatic Journal. II, no.
3(March): 90-93.
Willey, R.C., The Colonial Coinage of Canada, 19: The Blacksmith Tokens of Lower
Canada. Canadian Numismatic Journal, 26, no. 7 (July-August): 306-312.
Wood, Howland. 1910. The Canadian Blacksmith Coppers. The Numismatist 23, no.
4 (April): 97-106.
Adding Insult to Injury: Altered Notes
of The Southern Bank of Georgia
Richard G. Doty

November 7, 1998

226 Richard G. Doty
Most of the papers presented at the 1998 Coinage of the Americas

Conference focus on just that — coinage, although, in this case, coun-
terfeit coinage. But we do well to remember that through most of the
colonial period and the first eighty years of the independent nation, the
economic basis of this country was firmly based on thin air, on paper
money. It would not be until the middle of the nineteenth century that
the discovery and exploitation of precious-metal deposits would be
married to improved productivity by the public coiner, yielding enough
American coins for most commercial needs. Until that time, we would
be dependent on currency; and since the Constitution of 1787 had pro-
hibited the states from emitting bills of credit (and had been silent on
whether the new national government could do so), that left the pro-
duction and distribution of most of America’s circulating money to pri-

vate banks.
It has been estimated that, between 1782 and 1866, some eight
thousand banks and related fiscal institutions circulated their own
notes. These institutions varied in fiscal plausibility, which meant that
their products fluctuated against each other —and against specie, when
specie was available. Regardless of solvency, the products of each insti-
tution were also liable to forgery. This threat had become apparent
within twenty years of the appearance of the private bank note, and it
led to a battery of anticounterfeiting deterrents. The leader in the cru-

sade against counterfeits was Jacob Perkins, of Newburyport,
Massachusetts, who had devised ways of mass-producing identical steel
plates (from which identical notes could be printed, in any number
desired) by 1804. He created a single basic design, distinctly homely
but nearly impossible to replicate without his special processes. He con-
fidently assumed that bankers would flock to his doors, all in pursuit of
his new, identical notes. They indeed came, but not with that objective
in mind. What the bankers wanted was customized paper money, print-
ed from the new steel plates. And that was what they got.
Jacob Perkins went to work for Murray, Draper, Fairman &
Company in 1815. There, his new processes for mass-production ol
steel engravings were married to the artistic excellence of his
Philadelphia employers. When the technical brilliance of Asa Spencer’s

geometrical lathe was added to the equation, the American bank note
Altered Notes of The Southern Bank of Georgia 227
was poised come of age. Perkins happily retired to London at the end
to
of the decade. The printers got down to work. 1 he bankers got what
they wanted. And forgers got a free ride for the next half-century.
The fakery problem was composed of several elements. First, when

the earliest banks were established and became going concerns, they
naturally came to the attention of ambitious businessmen and public-
spirited citizens alike. More banks were established: by 1810, there were
dozens of note-issuers, and by 1830, hundreds. All of them would

require currency. Second, as we have seen, the bankers rejected Perkins’s
safe but trite designs and opted for monetary individuality —which
they could now obtain. When we combine these two factors with two
others — a widespread illiteracy and unfamiliarity with fiscal documents
of any kind, including currency, and the possibility of notes unwitting-
ly created by genuine printers for fraudulent purposes —we begin to see
the possibilities for mischief inherent in the nineteenth-century
American private bank note.
The mischief could take several forms. First, there were “spurious
notes” — purported issues from nonexistent banks or notes bearing
designs or denominations unconnected with the fiscal institution
whose products they purported to be. There were also “counterfeit
notes” —which could be illicit representations of genuine notes or of

spurious ones. There were “raised notes”, whose values had been aug-
mented by those skilled with the pen or the paste pot. And there were
“altered notes”, which form the subject of this paper.
In the case of the altered note, one acquired a genuine (or a spuri-
ous, or even a counterfeit) bill from a distant bank —one which had
likely failed or never opened, and whose products could therefore be
acquired for a few cents on the dollar. The original name of the bank
and the town and state of issue were all carefully erased, and new ele-
ments were substituted for them. One could effect the switch with a
pencil or a pen; by the 1850s, the work was more likely to be accom-
plished by typeset or intaglio printing. The crucial element was the
choice of bank name and place of issue, and this was something of a
minor art. You would want
to choose elements which were comfort-
ingly close to where you circulated your note, which sounded vaguely
familiar. But they must not be too close or sound too familiar, for your
228 Richard G. Doty
target must have no way of checking on them. Close scrutiny must be

avoided at all costs. If this meant that you took what you could get for
your altered note, so be it: it was likely to be far more than what you
had paid for it. As with all counterfeits, it only had to pass muster once.
After that, it was someone else’s problem.
This paper is specifically concerned with The Southern Bank of
Georgia, which was established in 1856. That is virtually all we know
about this institution; we are not even certain whether it was a “real”
bank or a simple scam, set up to circulate as much paper as an area
would accommodate prior to a hasty, nocturnal departure. The proba-
bility is that it was a genuine bank but undercapitalized, as were so
many of its sisters, South and North. We know two more things about
it; real or bogus, it was definitely defunct by 1859; and its notes were
altered more than those of any other nineteenth-century private bank,
anywhere.
We shall never know all the reasons behind this popularity, but two
considerations quickly come to mind. First, runs of serial numbers sug-
gest that the amount of notes which the bank placed or hoped to place
in circulation was optimistic, to put the best face on it. Bainbridge had
a population of less than a thousand in the 1850s. When 1 see a range
ol numbers hinting that rather more than fifty thousand dollars worth
of currency was circulated or at least printed for circulation in this
southern hamlet and its environs, I smell fraud. But a deliberate or acci-
dental overproduction, coupled with a quick failure and an effective
demonetization, would mean that those skilled at alteration would have
had a wealth of raw material with which to work.
The other consideration is this: none of the design elements
employed on the notes of this bank would have been terribly difficult
to alter. The Southern Bank of Georgia’s currency looked “right”. It fea-
tured two colors, with black predominating. A second color, first red
and later red-orange, was added as a “protector”, to guard against alter-

ation. But the second color was not an integral part of the design; it
would not discourage a skilled forger. And each of the vignettes on each
of the notes had been used before, and would be used again, on hun-
dreds of other notes, from banks good and bad spread across the
Republic; in other words, they had been chosen for their familiarity by
the original, licit issuer, and they appealed to the later, illicit one as well,
and tor the same reason. When we combine availability, vulnerability,
and familiarity of design elements, we have, 1 think, an adequate expla-

nation for the popularity of the currency of this particular bank among
the criminal community.
The Southern Bank of Georgia issued six types of notes —two one-
dollar bills, two twos, one five, and one ten. Designs on the one- and
two-dollar bills were changed early in 1858, possibly in response to a
recognized problem with alteration. Those on the fives and tens were
left unchanged, perhaps because the bank went out of business before
any decision on new notes could be taken. Certainly the fives and tens
bearing the designs of 1856 were altered, just as were the lower mem-
bers of the series. Let us examine the six types, beginning with the orig-
inals and continuing with the ingenious ways in which they were
debauched, and insult added to injury.
1. Bainbridge, GA, Southern Bank of Georgia, $1, 1858.
The design of 1856 for the dollar featured a small vignette of cotton
picking at the left, another of a Native American hunter and his quar-
ry at the center, and a portrait of a young woman at bottom-right. The
bank’s name was rendered thus: SOUTHERN BANK in one line, in
heavy block letters, and OF GEORGIA in much smaller italics imme-

diately beneath. A large openwork ONE in red was positioned over the
denomination —but not over most of the name of the bank. This
design was asking for trouble, and its request was soon honored (fig. 1).
V
230 Richard G. Doty
Herewith a rogue’s gallery of alterations, all reposing in the

Smithsonian’s Numismatic Collection. Other variants almost certainly
exist, both for this note and for the other five types upon which I am
reporting. In our first alteration, the name of the bank and town were
erased and replaced by new, printed elements; the Southern Bank was
now the “Sussex Bank” of Newton, NJ (fig. 2). This alteration was quite
2. Newton, NJ, Sussex Bank, $1, 1858 (altered).
deceptive and would have fooled almost anyone. The same could not
be said for the purported issues from the “Merchants Bank” or the
“Danbury Bank”. The new printing was suspect on the former (fig. 3),
and part of the red protector was erased on the latter (fig. 4).
We proceed to the first type of two-dollar bill. Here, we see, left-to-
right, Native Americans overlooking a bustling scene of “civilization” as
'
- 1
4//. WAV
UiyjiMjfy' 'C<.
T'nJ,! iXnt- -
3. New Haven, CT, Merchants Bank, $1, 1861 (altered).

DANBURY BANK
"V A A4
pAMiUJfyS
'
>x
ifbs'^y $U'-h .
4 .
4. Danbury, CT, Danbury Bank, $1, 1859 (altered).
defined by whites; 1
a portrait of Andrew Jackson; a seated figure of
Liberty, with an oval shield displaying a cotton plant; and the state
arms. A red TWO occupied the same position on the note as did the
red ONE of the dollar bill —with similar consequences (fig. 5). The
“Sussex Bank” is again represented — this time on a slightly less perfect
product, but one likely from the same stable (fig. 6). The “Sussex Bank”
alteration was far more successful than many of its fellows, however.
The “Beverly Bank” alteration was crude, the lines of new printing
being off-center to one another and to the other elements of the note,
(fig. 7) A “Passaic Bank” bill was cruder still (fig. 8), as was the alter-
ation for the “Andover Bank”. The quality of work on the latter was
232 Richard G. Doty
THE SUSSEX BANK

'J.V
n si>' G’c
*
'Zs /s, S1 r~Jr
'
j r
i
* ; r p ,
YJlliLX
flF fttVKRlTV'
S V^' "< -
""/T* >*
7. Beverly, MA, Beverly Bank, $2, 1859 (altered).
iK
/ 1
PASSAIC COUNTY CAN!.

I'M KH8UN, O.v Dl’IA'
8. Paterson, NJ, Passaic County Bank, $2, 1860 (altered).

downright inept and must have been easily detected at the time (fig. 9).
But the two-dollar bill lor the “Merchant’s Bank” was very fine work
indeed, down to the thoughtful inclusion of a state seal at lower-right,
whose depiction was mandatory on all genuine New York state notes at
the time (fig. 10).
The Southern Bank of Georgia’s five- and ten-dollar bills were very
similar to its ones and twos. All were printed by the same company,
9. Andover, MA, Andover Bank, $2, 1860 (altered).
Itlmtats fikuifc Tlkimi

ilJi.YS V u ,
. o
10. Albany, NY, 'Merchant’s Bank, $2, 1860 (altered).
which did business as Bald, Cousland & Co. in Philadelphia and as

Baldwin, Bald & Cousland in New York. The five-dollar note bore
fancy medallions with V’s at either end, a genre scene of a father with
—
234 Richard G. Doty
his two children in the center; the red “protector” (which is how the
nineteenth century generally referred to the bar of contrasting color
something of a misnomer, in the case of this bank!) now occupied the
space where the denomination was spelled out, which meant that the
value of this note would have been very difficult to alter. But the forg-
ers were more interested in the bank name and the place name, of
course, and these were still very vulnerable (fig. 11).
Three alterations bear this out. Purportedly coming from the

“Mechanics Bank” (fig. 12), the “Clinton Bank” (fig. 13), and the
12. Burlington, NJ, Mechanics Bank, $5, 1860 (altered).
“Newcastle Co. Bank” (fig. 14), it is probable that they all really came
from the same place — a back-alley printery in a large Eastern city. But
if these three notes were all products of the same hand, the fourth
—
13. Clinton, NJ, Clinton Bank, $5, 1860 (altered).
14. Odessa, DE, Newcastle County Bank, $5, 1862 (altered).
appears to be an “orphan”, an alteration unrelated to the proceeding

three — or to any of the others in this report (fig. 15). Note that in all
four cases, the dates were altered as well as the bank and place-names
and that the Southern Bank of Georgia thus gained an unexpected new
lease on life.
The Southern Bank of Georgia’s ten-dollar bill appears to have

received less attention than any other denomination — at least, accord-
ing to the testimony of the National Numismatic Collection. The orig-
inal was a throwback to the one- and two-dollar notes, with the red
protector in the same position as seen on those two lower denomina-
tions. The design featured a fancy medallion with an “X” at upper-left,
236 Richard G. Doty
15. Fall River, MA, Pocasset Bank, $5, 1863 (altered).
a “TEN” at lower-left, and a “10” at tipper-light. A seated figure of

Agriculture made up the primary vignette, with a smaller portrait of a
female with grain to the right and one of George Washington at the
bottom (fig. 16). We only have one alteration of this note (although
others likely exist — the work would have been no more difficult than it
was for the ones and twos), but it repays careful scrutiny. It purported
tx-v
.} sjji f" .
/ // /// //////// /
SOUTHERN BANK
JBfTJ
to come from “Abraham Becker’s Bank”, doing business in South

Worcester, NY. In place of the small oval vignette, the state seal was
substituted, and the forger did a fairly neat job of it (fig. 17). He had
more trouble with the erasure and replacement of the bank name, how-
ever, and he probably chose the new one and its odd placement to cover
Altered Notes of The Southern Bunk of Georgia 237
//
ABRAHAM ’
BECKfcmft
17. South Worcester, NY, Abraham Becker’s Bank, $10, 1858 (altered).
as much of the original title as possible. But he made two mistakes: he

erased part of the “E” in “TEN” —and the real name of the fiscal insti-
tution whose wares he mimicked was “Abram Becker’s Bank.” But he

might have replied that he needed the extra letters in the name to cover
his tracks.
In 1858, the Southern Bank of Georgia changed its printer and

changed the designs on its one- and two-dollar bills. As mentioned, this
may have been a response to alterations of the members of the earlier

printing; if so, it was not particularly successful. But in any case,
Danforth, Wright & Co. of New York and Philadelphia now had the
contract and would retain it for the life of the operation. What would
they do with it?
They would increase the use of the second color, which was now dis-
played on fancy medallions at upper-left and upper-right, as well as on

an ornate bar with the denomination in white in the case of the dollar,
and as freestanding “Barnum” lettering, spelling out the value in the
case ol its two-dollar counterpart. For the dollar, they would comple-
ment this treatment with a tiny but detailed scene of cattle being dri-
ven near a viaduct, over which a train was passing. That took care of the
lower-left. A large central vignette of a milkmaid with cows occupied
the center, while a sentimental image of a young woman appeared at
lower-right (fig. 18). All of these vignettes were “stock”: they appeared
on a number of other notes, and they were an accurate reflection of the
view of women held by male bankers and businessmen of the period. 2
238 Richard G. Doty
For the companion two-dollar bill, the bankers chose and the print-
ers supplied a plowing scene in a circular frame at lower-left, a harvest-
ing scene for the main vignette, and two cherubs, representing
Commerce and Agriculture, for the lower-right image (fig. 19). For
both denominations, the date was now engraved directly on the plate,
and hence on the note: presumably, this would discourage activity in
one aspect of alteration. Or would it?
The forgers responded to the new challenges with efforts of varying

plausibility. Their most successful attempts may be found on yet anoth-
er note from the “Sussex Bank” (fig. 20) and one from the “Bank of
Orleans” (fig. 21). Both alterations left the original date as it was. The
crooks responsible for the “Bank of Brighton” bill altered the date by
erasing the last two digits and applying two new ones by hand (fig. 22).
jr'r sat-.
THE SUSSEX BANK

'//M *
OM/,.,,/ <r*. iiJtiri'ua
a?, ,
j/e
~ L*>
.?*(<- A* .JF, rV
$ 1 I tfi
BANK iRasbprch
OF ORLEANS
it
!r
-- //,///„#
/
X
vril&teftoaftut w
21. Irasburgh, VT, Bank of Orleans, $1, 1858 (altered).
-*
-civ-’-
y/'r'
. 5- r
it? L .M
'
-
'
BANKx^jxiuaiwucf
OF BRIGHTON v
a
A',///.,,/ i
^ Mf^ -7
, *
V
'
StCHU^l ,-v^
-
VS*
22. Brighton, MA, Bank of Brighton, $1, 1861 (altered).

240 Richard G. Doty
This note was denounced; perhaps its unmasking was due to the mis-
placement of the new town name, which was poorly aligned with the
rest of the printing. Those who created the “Highland Bank” (fig. 23)
and “Farmers Bank” (fig. 24) notes had considerable difficulties with
the fancy color bar, which in each case had to be partially obliterated in
order to make room for the new name of the town. The “Farmers
Bank” was a particularly poor effort, and it too was exposed and con-
demned.
GH LAN D BANK a? sas jjsAizxj:

//////"/// __ //" /'
z
7 7
xaa ®iia
7 •**>., r
Y
23. Hudson City, NJ, Highland Bank, $1, 1858 (altered).
24. Mount Holly, NJ, Farmers Bank, $1, 1858 (altered).
The people responsible for the “Brighton Market Bank (fig. 25) and
the “Waterbury Bank" (fig. 26) alterations adopted another approach
to the problem of the color bar, positioning their black printing well
v .
BRIGHTON MARKET BANK
„ wP * m %
25. Brighton, MA, Brighton Market Bank, $1, 1861 (altered).
,V
WATER BURY BANK
'
///// /,///
('"Afeflnra.
,-. ?
^
« u .
r
->. >y s • * - » —
26. Waterbury, CT, Waterbury Bank, $1, 1858 (altered).
27. Jersey City, NJ, Bank of Jersey City, $1, 1858 (altered).
242 Richard G. Doty
beneath and away from it. The purveyors of the “Bank of Jersey City”
dollar attempted the same thing, but with far less success (fig. 27). Yet
this note escaped detection, while the two proceeding were turned in.
The bill from the “Beverly Bank” is in a class by itself: the forger
changed the name of the bank, but left the name of the town unaltered
28. Beverly, MA, Beverly Bank, $1, 1858 (altered).
(fig. 28). Perhaps he felt he had worked hard enough for a dollar!
The two-dollar bill with the design of 1858 lacked some of the pro-
tection against alteration found on the one; felons responded accord-
29. Newton, NJ, Sussex bank, $2, 1858 (altered).
ingly. Those responsible for the “Sussex Bank” (fig. 29) and “Western
Bank” (fig. 30) alterations left the engraved date as it was; the “Western
Bank” note must have been very deceptive, lor the workmanship was
y/f 4031
Jk
WESTERN RANK
, j/ ',////'//''/
WO AGUIARS
HHILABEI.PfMA,
^ '
30. Philadelphia, PA, Western Bank, $2, 1858 (altered).
excellent.For the “Bank of Brighton” note (fig. 31), the forger altered
the date by erasing the “58” and replacing it with a “60”, inked in by
hand; the same party may have been responsible for the “Bank of
Brighton” dollar bill, seen earlier. In any case, the replacing of half a
date by hand-written numbers would have occasioned no concern at
the time: partly handwritten dates were currently more common on

private bank notes than complete, plate-printed ones. The “Gloucester
>'BANK OF
.. or
BRIGHTON
itrjoaa'a'Oif
,,
ttOUAKS
/ // t// ,/t S MASSACHUSETTS
y
w 1
'
-
:
t.
31. Brighton, MA, Bank of Brighton, $2, 1860 (altered).
County Bank” bill bore an 1861 date, created in the same way; this
note, too, would have been deceptive (fig. 32).

The same remark would not apply to notes from the “Bank of
Commerce” (fig. 33) and the “Shelburne Falls Bank” (fig. 34). The era-
sure on the former was fairly obvious, while the poor alignment on the
244 Richard G. Doty
ary 9568
GLOUCESTER COUNTY BANK

/7 . TtJB \Y JJU13JSX
"'"/"'AVi® milk&S
,
/ // /// /////// / WOODBURY
,
;
32. Woodbury, NJ, Gloucester County Bank, $2, 1861 (altered).
34. Shelburne Palls, MA, Shelburne Falls Bank, $2, 1862 (altered).
hitter would have also inspired suspicion. This positioning problem also
distinguished the two-dollar bill oi the “Mount Vernon Bank”; but we

must applaud the neat substitution of one engraved date for another in
the case of this note (fig. 35).
j're 205H i
'-v. f
. d r *
:
sfe ** n 8 -i
MOUNT VERNON BANK

ust 'uvawutf
' /-"f/-'/TWeBOJLU«S
,/,///,///,/ Massachusetts
W" S"""
K/v / v >/, -
, //
Agm
35. Boston, MA, Mount Vernon Bank, $2, 1862 (altered).
But the award for enterprise must surely go to the party or parties
responsible for another note on “Abraham Becker’s Bank”. Here, a third
color has been added to the other two, while a New York State seal has
been squeezed in at the top margin. But the forger ran out of room for
the new town name, and his abbreviation of “SOUH” for “SOUTH”
was infelicitous, to say the least. He also misspelled the name of the
banker — twice (fig. 36).
36. South Worcester, NY, Abraham Becker’s Bank, $2, 1858 (altered)
It is almost certain that other altered notes exist on this bank; and
there must be many alterations on issues of other institutions which
246 Richard G. Doty
remain unknown at this time. But we do well to remember that what
amuses us today would have meant minor or major economic annoy-

ance to those who handled such notes a century and a third ago.
By on notes from the defunct
the time of the final alterations
Southern Bank of Georgia, the days of rhe private banking system itself
were numbered. New, harsher political and economic demands would
shortly create a new, national paper currency, one which stressed con-
sistency over individuality. The work of the nineteenth-century forger

was rendered more difficult if not impossible —but the largesse for the
twentieth-century scholar and collector was diminished.
Endnotes
1
The identity of the Native American as onlooker rather than participant is a con-
stantly recurring theme on obsolete currency and will be treated more fully in my forth-
coming book on nineteenth-century numismatic imagery. Pictures from a Distant

Country.
2
For more of this sort of depiction, see my article “Surviving Images, Forgotten
Peoples: Native Americans, Women, and African Americans on United States Obsolete
Banknotes,” in Virginia Hewitt, ed., The Banker’s Art: Studies in Paper Money ,
(London: British Museum Press, 1995): 118-131.

Nineteenth-Century Counterfeit
Detection Devices
Emmett McDonald

November 7, 1998

248 Emmett McDonald
Nineteenth-century counterfeit detection devices are basically scales
which will weigh a coin against a fixed standard with no weights need-
ed. In addition they usually have gauges that will measure the thickness
and diameter of the coin. The reason for this is one could make a coun-
terfeit of a base metal that will weigh correctly but in order to do this
the coin will be oversize due to the lower specific gravity of base metals
compared to silver or gold. For a coin to pass all three tests-weight,
diameter, and thickness-it must be made of a precious metal.

These detectors will of course also guard against clipped under-
weight genuine coins.
Weighing coins using fixed weights on a balance scale dates from
antiquity. This was also done in nineteenth-century America but to a
very limited extent. Coin weights for U.S. coins are rare.
Examples of counterfeit detectors exist from Byzantine times (since
ca. A.D. 1000). They were made in Europe for many years before the
American Revolution. The single most common counterfeit detector is
the English sovereign rocker— first made shortly after the introduction
of the gold sovereign in 1817.
A Dutch patent was issued in 1829 for a rocker-style weighing
device very similar to many of the devices discussed here. Obviously the
“inventors” of these devices did not discover something new. In the
U.S. it may have been new; but on a world wide basis this is old stuff.
United States patents were issued for many of the devices we will dis-
cuss. A. George Mallis has made an extensive search for patents on

these devices and published his finds in the May 1974 and July 1980
Numismatist. In some cases they are easy to find; in others very diffi-
cult. Eric P. Newman presented a a paper at the 1990 convention of the

American Numismatic Association which covered many pieces. After
32 years of searching, there are some of these that I still do not own
today. But there are two devices that you will see which are not in Eric
Newman’s video presentation.

There are not many publications in this field. Gerard M.M.
Houben’s 7 he Weighing of Money, published in 1982 in Zwolle in the
Netherlands lists many U.S. devices, including one in the ANS collec-
tion of which neither I nor Eric Newman owns examples. 1
This paper will be a survey of the field, based on my collection to

Nineteenth-Century Counterfeit Detection Devices 249
date. Each device is pictured and further described to indicate details oi

operation and workmanship.
John Allender, U.S. Patent no. 13840, November 27, 1855.

All brass construction.
Type 1. Marked: J. ALLENDER, PATENT PENDING

U.S. 1, 2 Vi, 5, 10 and 20 dollars can be checked. After the release of
the $3 coin in 1854, a bushing for the Type 1 device was made which
allows the $3 coin to be checked in the $5 pan.
Type 2. Marked: JOHN ALLENDER PATENT NOV. 27, 1855.

U.S. 1, 2 Vi, 3, 5, 10 and 20 dollars can be checked.
Thickness and diameter gauges are in the center of the pans. A brass
counterweight (often missing) is necessary to operate this device when
weighing the $10 and $20 coins. It is inserted in the pan for the $1
coin. The pan for the $1 coin has a step design for the small size (1849-
1854) and large size (1854-1889) varieties. The coin is laid flat in the
appropriate pan. If it is the correct weight, the device will tip and touch
the table.
A photocopy of the U.S. patent issued to John Allender on

November 27, 1855 is reproduced on the following pages.
' :
250 Emmett McDonald
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

JOHN AT.MBNDER, Ofc' NEW I/JNOON, CONNECTICUT.
BALANCE FOR DETECTING SPURIOUS COIN.
Specification of Letters Patent No. 13,840, dated November 27, 1855.
To a l whom moy
concern:
it weight J is made in the form represented
Be if known that I, Jonx Alluxdkx, of and provided with a projection K fitted to
yew London, in the county of New Lon- the cavity IT, and when placed in said 50
don and State of Connecticut, have invented cavity the lever C will weigh a ten dollar
5 n new and useful Apparatus for Proving gold piece in the cavity L or a twenty dollar
Genuine and Detecting Spurious Coin: and gold piece in the cavity M, each of which
I do hereby declare that (he same is de- cavities are made just large. enough to re-
scribed and lvprv-cnlcd in the following ceive the genuine gold coins of the denomi- 55
specification and drawings, nation named, and both of them are in Ihe .
jo To enable others skilled in the art to short and heavy arm of the lexer O. There
make and use iuv invention I will proceed is a slot directly across the center of each of
to describe its construction and operation, the cavities in which tin: coin is weighed
referring to the drawings in which the same just large enough to let the genuine coin co
letters indicate like parts in each of the pass through freely by its own weight so as
15 figures. to prove the coin by its size ns well us !U
Figure 1. is a plan. Fig. 2, a section of weight.
Fig. cut through the center.
} . Fig. 3. a This apparatus can be made and sold
plan a ndsection of the weight. cheaper than any other that will perform 65
The nature of my invention consists in a the same service with the same facility, and
20 lever of a proper size and weight, with a will be found a perfect protection to prove
fulcrum a proper distance from its center, genuine mid detect spurious coins which artf
which lever is provided with cavities in each either larger or lighter than the genuine.
arm of a proper size to receive the genuine I am aware that balances for proving 70
Coin arranged at such distances each side of coin have been made with two levers hung
25 the fulcrum as to weigh the smaller coins upon one fulcrum so arranged as to weigh
upon the lighter arm without additional all the coins upon one side of the said ful-
weighty and the heavy coins two or more crum. and when the larger coins were
on the heavy arm with one weight, in one weighed the lever in which the small ones 75
position, on the lighter arm. arc weighed is turned to the opposite side
30 In the accompanying drawings is the. A of the fulcrum. Therefore I make no claim
base of a stand provided with Two pillars to instruments constructed with more than
It B which arc perforated to receive the one lever and to weigh upon one side of
pivots A A of the weighing lever C, which the fulcrum only, but W
mav be mode in the form represented or Whftt I do claim as my in'-ention and de-
35 sucli other form as may be desirable, the sire to secure by Letters Patent-, is—
short arm Dbcingr made of sufficient weight A single lever of such n size and weight
to weigh a five dollar gold piece if it is and provided with cavities or countersinks
placed in the cavity or countersink E which arranged at such distances each side of the 85
is made just largo enough to receive the
fulcrum, as to weigh the smaller coins upon
genuine coin, or the three dollar gold piece the lightest arm, without additional weight,
40
in the cavity F, or the two and a half dollar and the huger coins two or more on the
gold piece in the cavity G,or the one dollar heaviest arm with one weight, in one posi-
gold piece in the cavity H, all of which cav- tion on the lighter arm.
ities are in the lighter arm I. These cav- JOHN ABLENDER.
45 ities are all made pist largeenough to receive Witnesses
t he genuine coin and it is weighed without C. PmxcE,
additional weight on the heavier arm. The G. 0. Stii.umax.
-
-VjJ . £i’
v.W-W ;
J. AllENDER.
Coin Tester.
No. 13,840. Patented Nov. 27, 1855.

252 Emmett McDonald
H. Maranville First type. U.S. Patent no. 16930, January 13, 1857.
All brass construction. Telescope slide controls the counterweight for
the coin which rests on an oval pan. Only the coin diameters are
marked for checking; thicknesses not given. Four classes of coins can be
weighed:
Foreign silver. England 1 shilling, France 2 franc and France 5
Iranc.
Foreign gold. France 20 Iranc and England 20 shillings (sover-

eign).
U.S. silver. 5, 10, 25, 50 cents, and 1 dollar.
U.S. gold. 1, 2 Vi, 5, 10 and 20 dollars.

Stamped on the reverse of the device is MADE BY C. E. S APLES,
1
Worcester, Mass. H. MARANVILLE’S PAIENT JAN. 12, 1857,

CLINTON, O.
J. A. Thompson U.S. Patent no. 187936, Feb. 27, 1877.

Single piece of nickel plated brass construction.
Stamped on left arm: GOLD AND SILVER COUNTERFEIT COIN
DETECTOR. PAT’D FEB. 27, 1877. U.S. STANDARD. BERRIAN
M’F’G CO. N. Y.
U.S. gold 2 1/2 , 3, 5, 10, and 20 dollars; U.S. silver 25, 50 and 1 dollar
can be checked. Horizontal slots are nests to weigh the coin. Vertical
slots are thickness and diameter gauges. When a proper weight coin is
inserted into its appropriate slot, the device will tip on the “Z” shaped
bend with the right side hitting the table.
254 Emmett McDonald
J. W. Sutton. U.S. Patent no. 188982 Mar. 27, 1877.

Single piece of nickel plated brass construction.
Type 1 checks U.S. 50, 25, and 10 cents.
Type 2 checks U.S. 1 dollar, 50 and 25 cents.
Stamped on face: PAT’D IMP’D JULY- 1-79

A fulcrum is created by inserting a pen knife or string through the
appropriate pie-shaped hole. A coin is then inserted in the appropriate
edge slot and if it is the correct weight, it will balance. The edge slots
are also thickness gauges. The diameter is checked on the concentric

rings on the face. This device was unpublished as of the conference
date.
Kronenberg U.S. Patent no. 195 451 Sept. 25, 1877.

Cast iron box with brass top and a moveable brass slide.
Two types are known:

Type 1: coin is checked on its edge.
Type 2: coin is checked on its back. Stamped on Type 2 face: PAT
APP’D FOR COIN DETECTOR
U.S. 50 and 25 cents can be checked.
When the appropriate coin is laid in the proper slot its diameter is
checked and if its weight is correct the bottom will drop as a slide and
the coin will slide through the device and come out of the lower right
hand slot. The two notches on the top are thickness gauges.
256 Emmett McDonald
H. Maranville Second type U.S. Patent no. 203,057, April 30, 1878.
Nickel-plated brass construction.
Stamped on face: H. MARANVILLE AKRON, O. DIAL COIN
TESTER PAT APR 30-78
I he coin is placed flat against the end stop on the right side. Its diam-
eter is checked on the appropriate marks. Then the dial is turned so that
the proper denomination shows at the vertical opening. If the coin is
the proper weight the whole device will balance on the fulcrum. The
thickness of the coin is checked in the V shaped slots on the edges.
U.S. silver 10, 25, 50 and 1 dollar; gold 1, 2 Vi, 3, 5, 10 and 20 dollar
coins can be checked.
A photocopy of the U.S. patent issued to H. Maranville, April 30,

1878 is reproduced on the following pages.
:
United States Patent office.

HARVEY MAUANYILLE, OK AKRON, OIUO, ASSIGNOR TO illMSKI.F AXI>
.SAMt'KTi )). STEWART, OF SAME I* EACH.
IMPROVCMENT IN POSTAL-SCALE: ANO COUNTERFEIT-COIN OCTECTtR.
.•$;u-eilW.-\tioji forming part of Ullfn I’.ilont Xo. U03.O3*, April HO. !<£; appUcAtimi filoil
March 7, lrti*.
To all tchom it mat/ c*»i erm : serves as an index in adjusting the disk.
Be it known tli.it I, Hakvby Mak ax VU.UK. Upon the opposite side of the cross - bar I)
of Akiun. in the comity of Summit and State there is a plate, K. which is provided with
of Ohio, have invented a new ami useful I in two lips, e j\ against which to place the coin
prOYcmeni in Scales, of which the loilowing in measuring the diameter. Tho lip c is riv-
is a specification eted to tho bar 1). and the lip f is at l ight an-
Figure 1 is h plan view of my im pro red gles to i;.
antics. Fig. !2 is a longitudinal vortical sec- Uponthe face of the plate F
there are two
tion. —
sets of graduations one set, $, for silver coin,
Similar letters of inference indicate cor no- and the bthorset, /r, for gold coin. The gradu-
sponding parts. ation* for silver coin range from five cents to
The object of my invention i* to provide .one dollar, and’gradua lions for gold coin range
scales for text in" coin and weighing small ar- fiom one to twenty dollars.
ticles.more es|*eeially coin and mail maiter; |
In the edges of tlm plate F, opposite the lip
and it consists in a beam having upon one end J\ two V-shaped notches, i j, are formed. The
a graduated rotating «ki^k, which carries the notch i. which is for the measurement of the
counterpoise, and upon tlnj other end a scale thickness of silver coin, is graduated for five,
for measuring Ihe .diameter and thickness of ten, twenty-five, fifty cents, and one dollar.
coin, and a pivoted platform foe receiving tho Tho notch j is graduated for the measurement
coin or packages to be weighed. of the thickness of gold coin, the graduation*
Referring to the drawing, A A arc stand- being for coins ranging from one to twenty or
ards projecting perpendicularly from the base fifty dollars.
J;, and C is a beam attached to a cross- bar. 1>, The end of the beam C projects upward
the edges of which ary V -shaped and have a through a notch edge of tho plate
in the 'Outer
bearing in apertures in the standards A. F, arul to it is riveted a bar, k t whose upper
A disk, K, is pivoted to the beam <.'. and edge is V-Shaped. A stirrup, /, having aper-
carries oh its under surface a weight, 1. The tures fur receiving the cutis of the bar k, i*
beam is bent, or oflVet to permit of turning the supported by the said bar, and has attached
disk, and the upper face of the disk is pro- to it, below the pivot, a box, ui for containing
vided with three sets of graduations one set. — shot or sand for adjusting the scale and for
t
for gold, one for silver, and one for mail mat- keeping the stirrup in a vertical position. A
ter. disk, «, is attached to the upper end of the
The outer circle, c, 00 the disk
graduated is stirrup, for receiving coin or other articles to
for gold, the first graduation being for one be weighed.
dollar, the second for t«o and one- ha If dol- "When it is desired to weigh an article, tho
lars, the third for five dollars, the fourth for disk E is turned until the proper graduation
ten dollars, tho Gfth for twenty dollars, and appears at the indicating -bar <1, when the
so on. The second circle, c , is graduated for 1
weight b will be in the proper imsition to coun-
silver, the first graduation being for five cents, terbalance the article. Coin is measured as
the second for ten cents, and so bn. The third to thickness by the V -shnpctl notches i j and ,
and inner graduation, c3 , represents weights its diameter is measured upon tho scales g M
corresponding to certain rates of postage, the by placing them against the lip f.
find or zero graduation representing a pack- A block, G, is placed under the bcainC, and
age having a weight requiring one three -cent in it there are two screws, o, one each side of
stamp, the second graduation representing a the bar D, for limiting the motion of the beam.
weight that requires two thrcc-ceut stamps, The advantages claimed for xny improved
tlio tim'd three thrce-ccnt stamps, and so on. scale are that it is convenient, simple, and ac-
An arm, <7, is attached to the beam C, and curate, and, as all of the parts arc connected
extends ove r the upper face of the disk E. and together, none of them cau become lost.
Having thus described my invention, I t he com in nation of

the graduated dis*.
claim asnew and desire to secure by l.cltet>> 1
-.
and plates l-\ supported on lu arn C, tho fo
Patent— mcr having wcigltt J,, imd tho latter n »tim.
1. In scale*, the beam C, having an up- as and for the purpose specified.
wanlly-convex middle bond that supiwU on llAliYEY MARAXVnXE.
a pivot the disk K, and concavities on each '' dn esses:
side that allow the passage of a weight, &, as Oeo. Allrn*,
set forth. (i. S. Scott.
258 Emmett McDonald
H. MARAN VILLE.
Postal-Scale and Counterfeit-Coin Detector.
No. 203,057. Patented April 30. 1878.
WITNESSES: ~ INVENTOB;
BY
ATTOBNEYS.
Rocker ca. 1870s.

Cast iron base and counterweight, brass pans.
U.S. 50 and 25 cents may be checked. Thickness and diameter gauges
are in the center of the pans. The coin is laid flat in the appropriate pan.
It it is the correct weight, the device will dip to the right and touch the
table.
Rocker ca. 1870s.

U.S. 50 and 25 cents may be checked. The vertical coin holding slots
will measure the thickness only. It the coin is the correct weight, the
device will tip to the right and touch the table. This device was unpub-
lished as of the date of the conference.
260 Emmett McDonald
Rocker ca. 1870s.

All brass construction, sheet iron end plates on fulcrum. Square end on
base.

II it is the correct weight, the device will tip to the right and touch the
table.
Rocker ca. 1870s.

All brass construction, brass end plates on fulcrum. Round end on base.
If it is the correct weight, the device will tip to the right and touch the
table.
262 Emmett McDonald
Scales by J. A. Thompson and William Harrison. U.S. Design patent

D-12795 Feb. 28, 1882.
First Type: Stamped J.T. MCNALLY-INVENTOR.

Nickel-plated brass beam, cast iron “A” frame, mounts on wood base.
U.S. silver 20, 50 cents and 1 dollar ;

gold 1, 2 Vi, 3, 5, 10 and 20 dol-
lars may be checked. The coin is placed in the appropriate slot which
will measure its thickness and diameter. If ir is the correct weight, the
device will tip and touch the table. In order to weigh the gold dollar a
special counterweight must be inserted in the hole at the end of the
device.
Second Type: Stamped FAIRBANKS & CO.

Brass beam, cast iron base.
Coins checked and operation similar to First type.
264 Emmett McDonald
Third Type: Stamped THE FAIRBANKS INFALLIBLE SCALE CO.,

BALTIMORE, MD, USA.
Nickel-plated brass beam cast iron base.
Coins checked and operation similar to first type. This device is mount-
ed in a custom-made oak wood sample box with a printed label, giving
details of the operation and background of the device.

Rocker ca. 1850s

Stamped K& G. HOWARD PHILA.
U.S. gold 5, 2 V2 and

,
1 dollar (small type 1849-1854) may be checked.
Thickness and diameter gauges are in the center of the pans. If the coin
is laid flat in the appropriate pan and it is the correct weight, the device
will tip and touch the table (ANS 0000.999.49940).
Boxed Set of German Coin Weights Made in Berlin ca. 1880.

A weight for a U.S. 1 dollar gold is included along with weights for 10
and 20 marks gold dated 1871. Individual weights made to be used on
a balance scale for U.S. coins are very rare, whether of U.S. or foreign
manufacture.
266 Emmett McDonald
Individual Brass Weight for U.S. 5 dollars

Made to the old tenor-weight standard of 1795-1834. The only other
information on this piece is in the March 1933 Numismatist where ,
similar pieces are described. It is unknown if this is of U.S. or foreign

manufacture.
Endnote
1
Subsequent to the date of the conference, Eric P. Newman and A. George Mallis pub-
lished their excellent reference manual, U.S. Coin Scales and Mechanical Counterfeit
Coin Detectors, which appeared in the spring of 1999. It includes copies of the U.S.
patents and extensive information available nowhere else. Much not previously pub-
lished background information on many of these devices is included. It has become the
standard reference for this series.
Reference List
Mallis, A. George. 1974. Counterfeit Coin Detecting Devices of the United States. The
Numismatist, May:835.
Mallis, A. George. 1980. Counterfeit Coin Detecting Devices of the United States. The
Numismatist, July: 1588.
Appendix Is
A Counterfeiter s Arrest Proves the

Circulation of Massachusetts Silver
Shillings as Late as 1784
Eric P. Newman

November 7, 1998

268 Eric P. Newman
To establish a date when counterfeit coins were being made for cir-
culation proves that genuine pieces of such coin were then in common
circulation. Evidence has recently come to light confirming that
Massachusetts silver shillings dated 1 652 were circulating extensively in
New England in 1784, at least 100 years after their last original pro-
duction. A counterfeiter with good business judgment would not
undertake to produce counterfeits of genuine coins if the genuine coins
were not in common circulation.
In the New York Journal dated May 13, 1784, p. 3, published by
Elizabeth Holt (widow of John Holt who was the printer of the Colony
of New York paper money dated September 2, 1775 and State of New
York paper money dated March 27, 1781) is the following report:
The public will beware of counterfeit DOLLARS,
dated 1782. They appear to be well made, and a person who
is not cautious would be apt to receive them for good. The
composition is supposed to be chiefly copper and antimony
— they are very brittle, and on ringing them the sound is
shriller than that of good dollars. The marks by which they

may be known are as follows; the C in CAROLUS appears
to be rather larger than the other letters in the word, and the
U is a little lower than the L before it; on the other side of
the counterfeit dollars of that date, the words El. IND.

appear like one word thus ETIND. And in the word REX.
the X apparently lower than the RE.
is
A young fellow by the name of Queen, was lately detect-
ed at Sturbridge, with eight of those dollars about him, and

a number of utensils for counterfeiting New-England
shilling pieces, etc.
It would be of great public utility, if people in general,
would be more cautious about how they receive money; and

upon detecting counterfeit money, endeavor to trace where
it came from, that those pests of society, who employ their
time in this infamous business, may be brought to the pun-

ishment which their crimes merit.
While the primary emphasis in this news report relates to the coun-
terfeit 1782 Spanish American 8 reales pieces, known as Spanish dol-
A Counterfeiter’s Arrest 269
lars in the United States, the reference to “counterfeiting of New-

England shilling pieces’ is most important. New England shilling
pieces can only mean Massachusetts silver shillings dated 1652. I he

counterfeiter was caught in Sturbridge, Massachusetts, with “utensils”
to counterfeit Massachusetts silver shillings. The word “utensils” when
used in connection with base metal counterfeiting of silver coins indi-
cates tools, instruments or vessels but when identifiable as containing a
coin design they must include dies, molds, or patterns for sand mold-
ing.
It is not indicated what type of Massachusetts shilling is involved,

whether it is a NE type (1652), a Willow Tree type (1653-1660), an
Oak Tree type (1660-1667), a large planchet Pine Tree type ( 1 667-
1674), or a small planchet Pine Tree type (1675-1682).
The probability is that it was a small planchet type, but that deter-
mination does not lessen the impact. The small planchet speculation is
based upon the publication in many American coin chart manuals dur-
ing the 1845-1857 period of illustrations of the small planchet Pine
Tree shilling type valued at 16 cents and no other Massachusetts types.
In 1784, and in the periods of economic stability before then, the
money of account shilling of New England was valued at 6 shillings to
the Spanish dollar. At the same time the money of account shilling of
New York was only valued at 8 shillings to the Spanish dollar and the
money of account shilling of the mid-Atlantic states was valued at 7
shillings 6 pence to the Spanish dollar. These valuations made the
Massachusetts silver shillings dated 1652 a convenient coin for com-
mercial transactions in New England, but a very inconvenient coin for
use in nearby states to the south. Thus the location of the counterfeit-
er in Sturbridge, Massachusetts, fits into the New-England area sce-
nario where Massachusetts silver coins would normally be preferred for
circulation if available. T hey would be preferred over Spanish-American
2 reales, 1 real, or Vz real coins, which did not fit well into the New
England money of account system in small transactions.
Another important matter in the report concerning eighteenth-cen-

tury counterfeiting in America is the description of the material used to
counterfeit silver coinage: “the composition is supposed to be chiefly
copper and antimony.” The desired percentage of each such metal in
270 Eric P. Newman
the melt mixture has to produce a silvery color, a weight close to the
genuine coin, a good resemblance, sufficient strength and a ringing
sound. Copper and antimony when properly mixed have an unusual

advantage in having a substantially lower melting point than copper,
enabling casting to be more easily done. While the melting point of
pure copper is 1100 degrees Fahrenheit, the eutectic of a blend of 32%
by weight of antimony reduces the melting point to 645 degrees
Fahrenheit. There is a second eutectic of a mixture of 77% by weight
of antimony with copper which reduces the melting point to 528
degrees Fahrenheit; thus the counterfeiter has many choices to make in
balancing color, weight, appearances, brittleness and sound.

The report in stating “on ringing them the sound is shriller than that
of good dollars” indicates that a common but often unreliable test to
see whether a coin was genuine or counterfeit was to spin it on a table
top or counter top. This century old practice is still used today, along
with balancing the coin on your finger and tapping it to sense a vibra-
tion. Biting a coin or other methods to test its brittleness is not com-
mented upon in the report.
The above comments as to counterfeiting refer only to counterfeits

made to circulate along with genuine pieces and not in any way to forg-
eries, reproductions or fantasies made to sell to or to deceive collectors
or other numismatists (many of these are listed in Newman 1959).

It is refreshing to have such a small news report furnish a plethora of
historical information.
Acknowledgements
The assistance of Mike Ringo, Peter Caspar, and John Kleeberg in
the preparation of this article is sincerely appreciated.
Reference List
Barnsley, Edward R. 1978. The First Recorded Trial of Counterfeiters in America.

Colonial Newsletter 5 1 : 628.
Breen, Walter. 1988. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia ofU.S. and Colonial Coins.
New York: Doubleday, Inc.
Newman, Eric P. 1959. The Secret of the Good Samaritan Shilling. Numismatic Notes
and Monographs, No. 142. New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Appendix 2:
Flowing Hair and Draped Bust
Counterfeit Half Dollars in the ANS
Collection
John M. Kleeberg

November 7, 1998

.
Counterfeit capped bust half dollars have been ably catalogued by

Keith Davignon. Less well known, however, are counterfeit flowing
hair and draped bust half dollars, although they have been discussed
several times before (Ford 1950; Taxay 1963, 151-153; Breen 1988,
200). Taxay says that a piece was also mentioned by Woodward, but I
have been unable to trace this reference. Sometimes collectors whose

hope overcomes their skepticism publish these flowing hair counterfeits
as new varieties (A U.S. Half Dollar of 178-? 1916; Lovi 1962). Judd’s
Appendix D, “False Pieces,” lists the 1787 and 1878 counterfeits;
another one listed, “ 1 877 false piece, half dollar, brass,” might be by the
same maker, since the number is an anagram of 1787 and 1878 (Judd
and Kosoff 1982, 267, 279). A catalogue of those in the ANS collec-
tion follows. The flowing hair dollars are clearly all by the same maker
— the style is unmistakeable, and if enough examples turn up, they will
probably die chain with each other. So far, three obverse dies and two
reverse dies have been identified:
Obverse die 1 Date 1787. 8 stars on the left, 6 stars on the right.
Obverse die 2. Date 1 7 87(?) . 8 stars on the left, 7 stars on the right.
The point of the eighth star touches a denticle.
Obverse die 3. Date 1878. 7 stars on the left, 8 stars on the right.
Reverse die A. The dexter wing of the eagle protrudes only a little
beyond the wreath. The left foot of the M of AMER-

ICA is very close to a leaf.
Reverse die B. The dexter wing of the eagle protrudes much more
beyond the wreath. The D ol UNITED is distant
from the E.
No example of obverse die 2 is known in the ANS collection; I have

identified it from an illustration in the Numismatist for April 1916 (fig.
1), which shows 2-B. At that point the coin was owned by E. E.
Shepardson of Somerville, Massachusetts.

Two of the ANS pieces were published by John Ford in the Coin
Collector’s Journal for November 1950. In this article, Ford published a
1787 piece owned by Oscar Schilke of Beacon Falls, Connecticut (also
published in Taxay 1963, 152). Its dies are also 1-A. Schilke first dis-
played this at the New York Numismatic Club meeting of June 9, 1950
Fig. 1
(New York Numismatic Club 1950). Schilke obtained it from an elder-

ly man who claimed it had been in his family for many years. The coin
came wrapped in a piece of paper, with nearly illegible handwriting,

which Ford read as follows:
Limpsten [?] Wednesday, May 19th 1813 - this day rec’d
of John Cram of Unity, one half dollar piece - of the United

States Coin dated 1787 - and inclosed the same within this
paper - Francis Chase & Chs Way present at the time -
Attest - Abner Chase
The Schilke coin also has two scratches in the left field which look
IC or JC, which would fit nicely with John Cram.
like initials -
Ford presumed that Limpsten and Unity were towns in New

England. There is no town named “Limpsten” in the gazetteers. There
are, however, two towns named Unity: one in Maine and a smaller one
in New Fiampshire. The 1810 census for Maine shows an Abner Chase
living in Lemington, in Washington County. The correct reading for
“Limpsten” must be “Lemington.”

Abner Chase was aged 26-44 in 1810. Fie was living with a free
white female aged 26-44, presumably his wife; and two free white males
aged 1-9, two free white females aged 1-9, and one each aged 10-15
and 16-25, presumably their children (1810 Census, 681).
The index to the 1810 census for Maine shows a Francis Chase liv-
ing at Portland, Cumberland County; five listings for John Cram, in

Gardiner, Bernick, Parsonsford and Sanford; and no listing for a
Charles Way. None of The 1810 Census only listed
these names fit.
heads of families, so it probably does not list men other than Abner
Chase. Our “John Cram,” who passed a counterfeit half dollar, proba-
bly gave a false name anyway.

The evidence of the paper signed by Abner Chase is convincing. It
shows that 1787 counterfeit brass half dollars were circulating in Maine
in 1813. This fits in very nicely with my dates for the brass counterfeit
2 reales.
Taxay’sargument (Taxay 1963, 153) that because these counterfeits

are not listed in Riddell they are more likely to be fakes of the late nine-
teenth century than circulating counterfeits, is not convincing. We
know from Davignon that there were many, many circulating counter-
feits that Riddell missed. Riddell listed 37 varieties; Davignon expand-
ed the number to 188. The flowing hair counterfeits have many char-
acteristics that are more suited to counterfeits than fakes made to fool
collectors: they are in base metals; they show severe wear; they are often
scratched up, in an attempt to pierce the silvering.

The die axis of all these coins is the correct 6 o’clock. All except for
the 1806 cast counterfeit are silvered brass. All except the 1806 cast
have edges lettered and decorated with a passable imitation of FIFTY

CENTS OR HALF A DOLLAR.
Catalogue
1947.125.6, 1787, 13.315 g. Dies 1-A.

Gift of Milferd H. Bolender, 1947.
1942.3.14, 1787, 14.347 g. Dies 1-A. Gift of Way te Raymond, January

1942.
1947.125.5, 1878, 13.385 g. Dies 3-B. Gift of Milferd H. Bolender,

October 1947.
Published in (Ford 1950, 112).
1989.99.265, 1878, 11.213 g. Dies 3-B. Gift of R. Byron White, July

1989.
1896.30.1, 1809, 12.764 g. Gift of Edouard Frossard, June 11, 1896.

An impossible date. 9 and 6 are easy to punch in upside down. Many
of the impossible dates created by counterfeiters (e.g. the 1969 evasive
halfpenny in the Ringo collection) involve 9 and 6 punches. Published
in (Ford 1950, 1 12).
Research by Walter Breen shows that a brass half dollar of 1809 has
appeared twice before at auctions. These auctions have no plates, but
this is probably the ANS piece. I suggest the following pedigree for this
coin:
J. Colvin Randall-Ebenezer Focke Mason, 10/28-29/1868:819

(realized 7 cents)-William Fewsmith-Ebenezer Locke Mason, 10/4-
7/1870:2435 (realized 10 cents)-Ebenezer Locke Mason-Edouard
Frossard, 6/1 1/1896-American Numismatic Society.
0000.999.52756, Cast counterfeit in copper of 1806 hall dollar,
Overton 120, 9.649 g. Provenance unknown. Edge: smooth.

Reference List
Breen, Walter. 1988. Walter Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia ofU.S. and Colonial Coins.
New York: F. C. I. Press, Inc./Doubleday.
1810 Census. National Archives. Records of the Bureau of the Census. Third Census
(1810), Population of Maine: Washington County. Consulted on microfilm: M252, Roll
12 .
Davignon, Keith R. 1996. Contemporary Counterfeit Bust Half Dollars. Rocky River,
Ohio: Money Tree Press.
Ford, John Jay, jr. 1950. Numismatica Americana. The Coin Collector’s Journal 17, 6
(November-December): 1 1 1-1 12.
Judd, J. Hewitt and A. Kosoff. 1982. United States Pattern, Experimental and Trial
Pieces. Racine, Wisconsin: Western Publishing Company, Inc.
Lovi, Art. 1962. Lovi Reports Unlisted Coin in U. S. Half Dollar Series. Coin World 3,
106 (Friday, April 27): 28.
Mason, Ebenezer Locke. 1868. Auction Catalogue (Collection of J. Colvin Randall),

October 28-29. Philadelphia.
Mason, Ebenezer Locke. 1870. Auction Catalogue (Collection of William Fewsmith),

October 4-7. Philadelphia and New York.
New York Numismatic Club. 1950. Reports of Club Meetings. The Numismatist 63, 8
(August): 553.
Overton, Albert C. 1990. Early Half Dollar Die Varieties, 1794-1836. Escondido,
California: Donald L. Parsley.
Norman.
Taxay, Don. 1963. Counterfeit, Mis-Struck, and Unofficial US. Coins. New York: Arco
Publishing Company, Inc.
A U.S. Half Dollar of 178-? 1916. The Numismatist 29, 4 (April): 183.
The U.S. Half Dollar of 1782? 1916. The Numismatist 29, 5 (May): 222. (Letters by
Frank H. Stewart, Henry Chapman, and Farran Zerbe, all condemning the piece.)

Circulating Counterfeit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Circulating Counterfeit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Circulating Counterfeit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What publications are listed on page 7?

What publications are listed on page 7?

/

John M. Klee berg

Coinage of the Americas Conference

1. America’s Copper Coinage, 1783-1857 (1985), 186 pp., illus. Bound

7. Money of Pre-Federal America, John M. Kleeberg, ed. (1992), 253

1 1 . Coinage ofthe American Confederation Period, Philip L. Mossman, ed.

Bound in cloth.$25.00. ISBN 0-89722-271-7.

Coinage of the Americas Conference

Illustrations for each article have been supplied by the

The American Numismatic Society

New York, NY 10032

Printed in the United States of America

PHILIP L. MOSSMAN and CHARLES W. SMITH

KEITH DAV1GNON and BRADLEY S. KAROLEFF, NLG

Circulating counterfeits of the Western Hemisphere was the subject

The Society is grateful to the following contributors who helped

Michael L. Bates Robert M. Martin

Counterfeiting: A Truer Portrait of the Circulation

finds, coins found in archaeological excavations, and coins from

3) Counterstamps and countermarks.

Three of these types of evidence are familiar to numismatic scholars.

The early Republic regularly experienced monetary turmoil. It was

Counterfeits give us the following picture of currency circulation in

the United States before the middle of the nineteenth century:

1830 it was rarely seen in the United States (Kleeberg 1998b).

to copy it (Davignon 1996).

British guineas. Those were the gold coins commonly encountered in

circulation (Gordon 1987, 91-96).

Counterfeiters had to keep up with the coins in the circulation. They

3) U.S. and Canadian tokens

11) pistareens (until 1830)

16) French ecus and five franc pieces (until 1851)

Kleeberg, John M. 1995. The Silver Dollar as an Element of International Trade: A

1993. New York: The American Numismatic Society.

Pistareen. The Colonial Newsletter 109: 1857-1877.

Mossman, Money of the American Colonies and Confederation. A

Newman, Eric P. 1985a. Circulation of Pre-U.S. Mint Copper in Nineteenth Century

Schilke, Oscar G. and Raphael E. Solomon. 1964. America's Foreign Coins. An

Philip L. Mossman and Charles W. Smith

Coinage of the Americas Conference

© The American Numismatic Society 2000

It is important to consider the pre-Federal period of the United

but within the small change medium, counterfeit coppers played a

Foreign Counterfeit Coins in America

Massachusetts silver, Dutch Lion dollars, Spanish silver, including

precious metal coins which circulated America were minted abroad,

having arrived here in company with the shipments of bogus coppers

One of the favorite tricks of counterfeiters was to turn

piece,worth about a cent, closely resembling the gold

For years past, counterfeiters and clippers had been busy

[and] bring them to America ... So many had been thrown

into circulation in Rhode Island that the Legislature had

Whereas in the seventeenth century only coins were falsified, coun-

was introduced in the early eighteenth century. This bogus paper

Holland, Germany and especially Ireland (Scott 1955, 151). In several