🥇 BANNER 1652 Massachusetts 6 Pence

[The Fog]

Hello tnetters, I don't post very often, I'm more of a sandbagger! I hunt with Brian W who has posted some of his finds here before. Today we hit an area we've had our eye on for quite some time and it didn't disappoint. An hour into the hunt Bri comes walking down a hill towards me with an incredible button.... I'll wait for him to post that if he chooses to. It was quite a nice button to say the least. Anyway I'd been digging shotgun shell after shotgun shell, flashing, lead pieces, can tops etc. With little light left in the day I found a complete colonial shoe buckle, very nice shape, my day was made, I was happy with just that. The sun was dropping behind the horizon and I was content with my buckle and an undetermined Indian head penny. Just before i was ready to leave I got a decent signal but it was reading only and inch deep, I kicked the leaves and pine needles aside to get to hard earth. I swung the area of bare dirt and the signal was gone. I checked the debris pile of leaves and pine needles... I couldn't believe my eyes when i saw the 16! This coin was barely below the surface. Unfortunately I have some light scratches on it from brushing the leaves and pine needles away. I have no idea what variety it is or if it's a counterfeit. Brian told me to post it here and Iron Patch would be the guy to ID it. Anyway, we had a great day and it was amazing to find this coin.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[l.cutler]

It is definitely either a Noe 17 or 17.1.They are from the same dies, the 17.1 being an early die state before the dies clashed. Like Iron patch, I can find no picture of the only known 17.1. I am not sure if the extra row of beads below the E of NEW are evidence of the clashing or not. Odds are in favor of it being the 17, hopefully Iron Patch or someone can locate photos of the 17.1. Better head on close up photos would help as well. Whatever it turns out to be, that is a dream find, congratulations.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Don in SJ]

Have to agree that it most likely is the Noe 17 variety. Great find, I am sure an increased heart rate had to happen when seeing that date!.

Cropped and combined the two photos, for easier viewing.

Don

 

[Iron Patch]

Just catching up but here's a real good 17 to look at. Does his not look like pre clash compared to it? The last part of England is wiped right out... and if that's typical on all 17s how could his not be 17.1?

Stack's - 1652 Massachusetts Bay Colony. Oak Tree Sixpence. The Hydra Tree. N.17, Cr.4-C - The John J. Ford, Jr. Collection of Massachusetts Silver Coins - 1652 & 1662 Oak Tree Coins - Oak Tree Sixpences - Noe 17 Oak Tree Sixpence. Crosby 4-C.

 

[birdman]

Iron Patch,you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge of early American coins and buttons. Banner find for sure.

 

[Iron Patch]

Iron Patch,you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge of early American coins and buttons. Banner find for sure.

Well you should wait a little bit so we can find out why I'm wrong .... but I hope I'm not! It's thinking it's 17.1 by process of elimination, but that's what makes more sense to me right now.

 

[Don in SJ]

IP, I still think it is the Noe 17, based on Whitman's book saying the Noe 17.1 is a perfect die and what l Cutler pointed out about the beads in the area of E in NEW, seem to indicate to me it is not a perfect die striking. Attaching a negative view of the date side which shows it.

 

[lost crow]

Awsome coin, congrats.

 

[Iron Patch]

IP, I still think it is the Noe 17, based on Whitman's book saying the Noe 17.1 is a perfect die and what l Cutler pointed out about the beads in the area of E in NEW, seem to indicate to me it is not a perfect die striking. Attaching a negative view of the date side which shows it.

But isn't the bigger point the missing letters from the die clash, as compared to trying to decide if that is a 2nd bead? Here is another 17 with the same problem areas from the die clash. How did the dug coin escape this?


Oak Tree Sixpence -John Hull, American (born in England), 1624?1683 | Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

 

[farmerjay]

Great find!!!!

 

[Bill D. (VA)]

Banner find regardless of the variety, and I can't wait to see how rare this one is. Great coin!!

 

[gwdigger]

Incredible. Just voted banner.

 

[Tobias]

But isn't the bigger point the missing letters from the die clash, as compared to trying to decide if that is a 2nd bead? Here is another 17 with the same problem areas from the die clash. How did the dug coin escape this?


Oak Tree Sixpence -John Hull, American (born in England), 1624?1683 | Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

First of all: Awesome find!

I am quite intrigued by the variety discussion, so I can't help putting in my two cents. These early colonials are not my usual cup of tea, so I'll just comment on the die identity. As far as I can see there are enough specific details to say that the find and the two Noe 17s posted by Iron Patch are from the same pair of dies. However, there are also enough differences to say that there has been a die reworking between the one found and the ones posted by Iron Patch (those two seem to be identical in every way).
The main differences I have noticed are:
1. The design of the tree is very different, both in general and as regards number of branches.
2. The 1 in 1652 looks like a normal 1 on the found coin but a roman numeral I on the others.
3. The 5 in 1652 has a short "bend" on the found coin while it juts out to the left on the others
4. The D in ENGLAND is complete on the found coin but a section is missing on the others in a way that does not happen with a weak strike (either the letter is cut that way or part of it has filled upp with debris, but since both the other coins have the same appearance of the D, then I suspect the former).
5. The second N in ENGLAND is elongated on the found coin as compared to the ghost image that can still be seen on the other two. The tilt of the letter is also slightly different.

My money is on Iron Patch here and that the found coin is pre-clash, and that part of the dies had to be reworked, resulting in these differences. It would of course be great to see an image of 17.1.

Once again, congratulations on a fantastic find

 

[Bubba65]

AWESOME COIN and CONRATS on a great find indeed , Banner button pushed

 

[Metal Magnet]

amazing, banner find! i can only wish to find something like that. what a rush you must have had.

 

[Iron Patch]

First of all: Awesome find!

I am quite intrigued by the variety discussion, so I can't help putting in my two cents. These early colonials are not my usual cup of tea, so I'll just comment on the die identity. As far as I can see there are enough specific details to say that the find and the two Noe 17s posted by Iron Patch are from the same pair of dies. However, there are also enough differences to say that there has been a die reworking between the one found and the ones posted by Iron Patch (those two seem to be identical in every way).
The main differences I have noticed are:
1. The design of the tree is very different, both in general and as regards number of branches.
2. The 1 in 1652 looks like a normal 1 on the found coin but a roman numeral I on the others.
3. The 5 in 1652 has a short "bend" on the found coin while it juts out to the left on the others
4. The D in ENGLAND is complete on the found coin but a section is missing on the others in a way that does not happen with a weak strike (either the letter is cut that way or part of it has filled upp with debris, but since both the other coins have the same appearance of the D, then I suspect the former).
5. The second N in ENGLAND is elongated on the found coin as compared to the ghost image that can still be seen on the other two. The tilt of the letter is also slightly different.

My money is on Iron Patch here and that the found coin is pre-clash, and that part of the dies had to be reworked, resulting in these differences. It would of course be great to see an image of 17.1.

Once again, congratulations on a fantastic find

I just sent an email out to someone who is likely familiar with the 17.1, either owning one or maybe needing one. Will post anything I learn.



PS: Your #2 is why last night I was not sure about it being 17. After seeing the difference in the 1 I continued on, but couldn't find any more pictures. This was after I spent about 40 minutes trying to figure something else out... and all after a long day.

 

[screwynewy]

If someone is good with photo editing they can take the two images and overlay them in the correct scale then automatically fade between the known coin and dug coin. Someone did this for a button that I found and it was very helpful in identifying it.

 

[Don in SJ]

If and it could be die differences, than no one is correct, since the Noe 17 and 17.1 are from the same die, just that the Noe 17.1 had no clashing, a perfect strike so to speak, so if that is the case than either a new variety and I cannot say about counterfeits or overstrikes on this series. There is an expert on this forum and I asked him earlier today to take a look, but he might be busy getting ready for the Whitman show.

I said Uncle and just posted the link and photos on the colonial coins group forum............

 

[Iron Patch]

If and it could be die differences, than no one is correct, since the Noe 17 and 17.1 are from the same die, just that the Noe 17.1 had no clashing, a perfect strike so to speak, so if that is the case than either a new variety and I cannot say about counterfeits or overstrikes on this series. There is an expert on this forum and I asked him earlier today to take a look, but he might be busy getting ready for the Whitman show.

They're both from the same die but after the clash if it was reworked it would account for the small differences. With the two 17s both having the same lack of lettering I think is a further indication to support die reworking over a new variety. But like everyone else I'll wait for someone to chime in who really knows!


PS: I wonder what year 17.1 was discovered. Obviously it was found out later, or it would be 17, and the post die clash 17.1.

 

[Don in SJ]

They're both from the same die but after the clash if it was reworked it would account for the small differences. With the two 17s both having the same lack of lettering I think is a further indication to support die reworking over a new variety. But like everyone else I'll wait for someone to chime in who really knows!


PS: I wonder what year 17.1 was discovered. Obviously it was found out later, or it would be 17, and the post die clash 17.1.

1959 by Eric Newman

 

[Argentium]

Absolutely a fantastic discovery - and BANNER all day long ! I will be following this story as it unfolds !!!!!