1751 KG II, Updated

[DeArmitt Pa]

I actually found thid last weekend at a property outside of Cumberland, Maryland. The property is loaded with iron. Supposidly the house was built around 1825, I think it was earlier or a previous house may have been there and torn down. There were some finds, my father-in-law found a good bit of relics that he has not posted yet. Pretty much this KG II was my only good find. This is my first KG coin. It is in decent shape for the age, and to my surprise I was able to get the date, 1757, which is now my oldest coin. There is a lot more property to do down there. The KG was shallow, only 4 inches deep, it read 13-39 on the E-Trac, must have been a small peice of junk next to it. Out of the hole it read 12-38. Until next time, keep swinging.

From the experts they say probably a 1751, so I'll agree with them since this is only my first one.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[sscindercoop]

Re: 1757 KG II

Nice find!!!!

 

[Iron Patch]

Re: 1757 KG II

Probably 1737. Nice one!

 

[briankb70]

Re: 1757 KG II

very nice one
welcome to tnet

 

[Don in SJ]

Re: 1757 KG II

Since 1757 was not a date of any regal KGII, and 1737, would be a Young head design, your coin is Old head design and most likely 1751. The 1's on the KGII coppers look like 7's................ I know, my first colonial I found in 1979, at first I thought it was a weird date, 7740, lol, it was 1740...............

Don

 

[BuckleBoy]

Re: 1757 KG II

That's a beautiful greenie.

 

[DeArmitt Pa]

Re: 1757 KG II

Thanks alot, I'll adjust the numbers.

 

[Iron Patch]

Re: 1757 KG II

your coin is Old head design

Don

You sure?

 

[Iron Patch]

Doe's this help any

SS.

In a word... Nope! Last year was 1754. That page isn't for the same coin.

 

[Don in SJ]

No, not 100% sure, the ribbons looked thicker, and longer like on the old head, however, the alignments are closer to young head, but even those are not right,, so it is a young head old head KGII

For the finder, can you weigh the coin in grams or grains?

Here is a photo of one of my finds, a 1751, I do not have a 1737, at least not one of my own photographs.

Don

 

[CRUSADER]

No, not 100% sure, the ribbons looked thicker, and longer like on the old head, however, the alignments are closer to young head, but even those are not right,, so it is a young head old head KGII

For the finder, can you weigh the coin in grams or grains?

Here is a photo of one of my finds, a 1751, I do not have a 1737, at least not one of my own photographs.

Don

1737 added

 

[Iron Patch]

No, not 100% sure, the ribbons looked thicker, and longer like on the old head, however, the alignments are closer to young head, but even those are not right,, so it is a young head old head KGII

For the finder, can you weigh the coin in grams or grains?

Here is a photo of one of my finds, a 1751, I do not have a 1737, at least not one of my own photographs.

Don

Obviously it could be counterfeit but I am 100% sure it's the young head either way. So 1737. I gotta be right about something today.

 

[CRUSADER]

No, not 100% sure, the ribbons looked thicker, and longer like on the old head, however, the alignments are closer to young head, but even those are not right,, so it is a young head old head KGII

For the finder, can you weigh the coin in grams or grains?

Here is a photo of one of my finds, a 1751, I do not have a 1737, at least not one of my own photographs.

Don

Obviously it could be counterfeit but I am 100% sure it's the young head either way. So 1737.

Looks more counterfeit to me, look at the funky 'II' after Geo.. & the fat head Britanica

 

[Iron Patch]

No, not 100% sure, the ribbons looked thicker, and longer like on the old head, however, the alignments are closer to young head, but even those are not right,, so it is a young head old head KGII

For the finder, can you weigh the coin in grams or grains?

Here is a photo of one of my finds, a 1751, I do not have a 1737, at least not one of my own photographs.

Don

Obviously it could be counterfeit but I am 100% sure it's the young head either way. So 1737.

Looks more counterfeit to me, look at the funky 'II' after Geo.. & the fat head Britanica

Yes, probably a cast one. It's always a little harder to say when worn.

 

[Don in SJ]

LOL, if it is underweight than even 1757 is possible. IP, you are right about more than one thing today, it may be your day!

Don

 

[Iron Patch]

LOL, if it is underweight than even 1757 is possible. IP, you are right about more than one thing today, it may be your day!

Don

Sure is but pretty unlikely, those post 54 ctfts are pretty rare. (especially muled with a young head Geo. II)

Don, I'm shootin for three.

 

[DeArmitt Pa]

I didn't know my post would be such a contoversy. I weighed it on a grain scale and converted to grams. 113 grains, or 7.32228 grams. Hope this helps someone ID my coin.

 

[CRUSADER]

I didn't know my post would be such a contoversy. I weighed it on a grain scale and converted to grams. 113 grains, or 7.32228 grams. Hope this helps someone ID my coin.

it will

 

[Iron Patch]

I didn't know my post would be such a contoversy. I weighed it on a grain scale and converted to grams. 113 grains, or 7.32228 grams. Hope this helps someone ID my coin.

Either you have to get the date clearer, or have Don admit he was wrong and that is a young bust George II. I'm not sure which one would be tougher!

1737 Cast counterfeit George II is the label I would give it.

 

[DeArmitt Pa]

I compared the 1737 and 1751 coin pictures to mine and it is a 1737 design. The B in Britannia is close to her leg like on the 1737. The 1751 B in Britannia is much further away from her leg. Am I right?