Possible counterfeit five dollar gold coin? Input needed please

[juju]

Howdy all,
Decided to give the jewelry hunting a break for a day, and do some old coin hunting. First keeper was the 1944 S war nickel. Any silver counts in my book. I was lucky to get this one since I have hunted this place to death. After this I spent an hour not getting any tones and decided to move on. I headed to the site that gave up the 1897 mechanical dollar earlier this year. The only keeper was this coin. I at first thought it was a token and was stoked. Upon a little cleaning I noticed the image was incuse, and backwards. It appears that someone tried to make a counterfeit five dollar gold coin. I figure the folks here can help me sort it out. Not sure if these fakes have a value, but it will look cool in the book. Thanks for lookin and luck in the hunt.

JuJu

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[BuckleBoy]

What's the exact lettering on it? If you can see the word COMPOSITION or SPIELMARKE, then it's a mid 1800's game counter, a type of token used like poker chips or play money. Usually brass or gilt, many of these were made in Nuremberg, Germany, and very closely imitated the designs of U.S. gold coins in circulation at that time.

Are there any spielmarken where the lettering and design are reversed? I looked for them, but couldn't find any.


I wonder if this was used to make lead or pewter counterfeits. I am not a metallurgist, and I don't know how strong of a die would be needed to strike these materials instead of gold. Could it be a piece of a mold instead of a die? Lead has a low melting point if it was used to make lead counterfeits. I don't know about the melting point of pewter. Gilding at that point in time was easy to do, although risky for health reasons. A gold/mercury mixture was brushed on, and then heated--and mercury was more available then that it is now.


Regards,



Buckles

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[juju]

Those are the only words I can make out. I have studied it so many times I am goin cross eyed. The counterfeiters die theory is more acceptable than my previous guess. The obverse does appear to have circular lathe marks behind the slight outline of the bust in what would be the field area. I am sure we are getting close to the correct identification. Thanks again Buckles.

JuJu

 

[soar697877]

Five Dollar Half Eagle Gold Coin




The half eagle, or $5 coin, was the first gold coin actually struck for the United States. The $5 gold piece was authorized by the Act of April 2, 1792, and the weights and fineness for gold coins were revised with statutes during the 1830s. The occasion for new laws was the discovery of gold in North Carolina and Georgia. Prior to 1830, the scarcity of precious metals was one reason why there was less than one U.S. coin per capita in the United States. Foreign coins, paper bank notes, and privately issued tokens served as money for transactions.

The development of the newly discovered gold fields was encouraged with a law in 1834 that effectively put the United States on a gold standard. Branch mints in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Dahlonega, Georgia were established in 1838 to handle the new gold near the source. Dies were manufactured in Philadelphia and transported to the functioning branch mints in Charlotte (1838--1861) and Dahlonega (1838--1861). Both branch mints handled only gold coins.

 

[soar697877]

United States, 5 Dollars, 1838




This coin may be one of those minted from the bequest that James Smithson left to the United States for the creation of the Smithsonian Institution. James Smithson was born in 1765 as the illegitimate son of Sir Hugh Smithson, later known as Sir Hugh Percy, Baronet, 1st Duke of Northumberland, K.G., and Elizabeth Hungerford Keate. Elizabeth Keate had been married to James Macie, and so Smithson first bore the name of James Lewis Macie.

His mother later married Mark Dickinson, by whom she had another son. When she died in 1800, he and his half-brother inherited a sizable estate. He changed his name at this time from "Macie" to "Smithson."

James Smithson died June 27, 1829, in Genoa, Italy. His will left his fortune to his nephew, son of his half-brother, but stipulated that if that nephew died without children (legitimate or illegitimate), the money should go "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." The nephew, Henry Hungerford Dickinson, died without heirs in 1835, and Smithson's bequest was accepted in 1836 by the United States Congress.

James Smithson never visited the United States, and the reason for his generous bequest is unknown. The gift was the foundation grant for the Smithsonian Institution. The British gold coins in Smithson's bequest were quickly carried to the Philadelphia Mint, where they were melted down and recycled into American gold coins.

Most of the new coins were half eagles or five-dollar pieces. On the obverse, they have a left-facing Liberty head, her hair bound with a ribbon; on the reverse is a simple, unexceptional eagle with denomination.

The original design was the product of a German immigrant named John Reich, substantially altered by a second artist named William Kneass, tweaked again by another German immigrant, Christian Gobrecht.

 

[johnnyi]

"but it doesn't seem strong enough for a die, & a little odd for a mould piece."

Crusader, I think there are a couple points to remember when guessing whether this was used to counterfeit.

First of all, whether this is a mold or a die, it would not be used in the way we think of as molds. It would have consisted of of two disks (front and back) which fit within a third piece, a cylinder of hard metal which was indented on the interior to produce the fake ridges on the rim. No way such a "coin " could be passed without such ridges. This is one reason not to be surprised that the object is smaller than what we would imagine for a mold, as it had to conform to the tube in which it was placed.

When a piece of soft metal such as lead is put under pressure in such a confined space, the hydraulic nature of metal would cause the lead to conform to the dies, rather than distort the dies, so the fact that it may be made of hardened brass or bronze is not much of a consideration as long as the metal it contacted was a good deal softer.

After considering this, it does seem more likely that this was a die rather than part of a mold (although it still conceivably could be part of a mold)

As an aside, it is not surprising that the die is made of brass. It had to be made of a hardwer material than lead or pewter, yet one with a lower melting point than gold (which it contacted when the "die was cast")

 

[MUD(S.W.A.T)]

That's a 1944 War Nickle

Keep @ it and HH!!

 

[Don in SJ]

JuJu, could you post an edge shot of the coin, also, diameter and weight. I personally agree from what I see that it was made possibly to be passed off as a counterfeit coin, perhaps it was gold plated at one time or just being shiny when new would have sufficed. It is not a die, it is not a mould in my opinion. Or perhaps someone was bored and this is what they made..........

They did weird things to and with coins in the 1800s, about a year ago I posted my 3 in 1 coin, but that one was made from a colonial copper to begin with and then also had backwards design and lettering..............

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,151352.msg1089606.html#msg1089606

Don

 

[CRUSADER]

"but it doesn't seem strong enough for a die, & a little odd for a mould piece."

Crusader, I think there are a couple points to remember when guessing whether this was used to counterfeit.

First of all, whether this is a mold or a die, it would not be used in the way we think of as molds. It would have consisted of of two disks (front and back) which fit within a third piece, a cylinder of hard metal which was indented on the interior to produce the fake ridges on the rim. No way such a "coin " could be passed without such ridges. This is one reason not to be surprised that the object is smaller than what we would imagine for a mold, as it had to conform to the tube in which it was placed.

When a piece of soft metal such as lead is put under pressure in such a confined space, the hydraulic nature of metal would cause the lead to conform to the dies, rather than distort the dies, so the fact that it may be made of hardened brass or bronze is not much of a consideration as long as the metal it contacted was a good deal softer.

After considering this, it does seem more likely that this was a die rather than part of a mold (although it still conceivably could be part of a mold)

As an aside, it is not surprising that the die is made of brass. It had to be made of a hardwer material than lead or pewter, yet one with a lower melting point than gold (which it contacted when the "die was cast")

I know the above, I guess you missed my point, or I didn't explain well. The dies I know need to be hit hard to make an impression, therefore its not chucky enough.

 

[johnnyi]

Ju ju, we can do a lot to settle this argument if you carefully measure the diameter and then compare it to the diameter of the original gold coin of this issue. If it is a die, then the diameter will be the same, or if ridges were part of the mold, a hair's breath less to accomodate the ridges. If this had merely been someone's folly (which I seriously doubt) then the image would be distorted.

In my opinion there is no way such a piece as your's would be manufactured to pass as a coin. First of all, it had to have been cast. That is a significant operation, and as well, it is not reasonable to assume that such a task would be undertaken merely to produce an obvious fake reverse imaged "coin". No, this was clearly either a die or less likely part of a mold to produce a soft metal counterfeit (imo)

 

[CRUSADER]

Ju ju, we can do a lot to settle this argument if you carefully measure the diameter and then compare it to the diameter of the original gold coin of this issue. If it is a die, then the diameter will be the same, or if ridges were part of the mold, a hair's breath less to accomodate the ridges. If this had merely been someone's folly (which I seriously doubt) then the image would be distorted.

In my opinion there is no way such a piece as your's would be manufactured to pass as a coin. First of all, it had to have been cast. That is a significant operation, and as well, it is not reasonable to assume that such a task would be undertaken merely to produce an obvious fake reverse imaged "coin". No, this was clearly either a die or less likely part of a mold to produce a soft metal counterfeit (imo)

I really hope it is, as it does seem that way, but I was just voicing the odd character of it. Are there other recorded cases of these. I suggest this one needs recording & expert analysis, it will help future finders of these!

 

[johnnyi]

"I know the above, I guess you missed my point, or I didn't explain well. The dies I know need to be hit hard to make an impression, therefore its not chucky enough."

Crusader, I didn't miss your point, I tried to explain it. When a SOFTER material is pressed between tweo surfaces which are CONTAINED, then the softer mmetal would not distort the die as long as pressure was relieved at the point where the blob or planchet conformed to the volume of the two dies and the cylinder in which they were contained. we see this hydraulic action sometimes in the postage stamp field where dies are produced which have a piece of rag or hair accidently in the field. Hair, in such cases can make an impression on stell because it is contained.

You have to consider why this die was made of brass. It had to be poured over an object without melting that object, in this case gold.

 

[CRUSADER]

"I know the above, I guess you missed my point, or I didn't explain well. The dies I know need to be hit hard to make an impression, therefore its not chucky enough."

Crusader, I didn't miss your point, I tried to explain it. When a SOFTER material is pressed between tweo surfaces which are CONTAINED, then the softer mmetal would not distort the die as long as pressure was relieved at the point where the blob or planchet conformed to the volume of the two dies and the cylinder in which they were contained. we see this hydraulic action sometimes in the postage stamp field where dies are produced which have a piece of rag or hair accidently in the field. Hair, in such cases can make an impression on stell because it is contained.

You have to consider why this die was made of brass. It had to be poured over an object without melting that object, in this case gold.

makes sense, I guess this was a real art as the melted metal cools very quickly & this process would need great skill.

 

[AeroMike]

Hey JuJu, here is your pic but reversed. Now people will be able to see better the words "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and "FIVE D."


I believe this is indeed an amteur die to make counterfeit five dollar gold coins.

 

[Don in SJ]

Do you all really believe that coin is brass?

 

[johnnyi]

"makes sense, I guess this was a real art as the melt cools very quickly & this process would need great skill."

Yes, palying with melted or softened brass is not something someone would just do for fun usually. The fact this was found in Washingto state(?) lends evenh more weight to this bveing a counterfeiter's die, as gold coins were passed there freely unlike the eastern states where they were seldom used.

By the way, the possibility also exists that a planchet could have been used of softened brass pressed within a cylinder holding both dies also. Such a die could easily have been annealed after the impression was made making it hard enough to endure pressing soft metal (within the confines of a cylinder).

 

[johnnyi]

"Do you all really believe that coin is brass?"

Don, First I don't believe it was an attempt at a "coin". As far as it being brass or a brass alloy is concerned, yes, I believe it is because it exhibits oxidised copper corrosion on its face.

 

[Don in SJ]

"Do you all really believe that coin is brass?"

Don, First I don't believe it was an attempt at a "coin". As far as it being brass or a brass alloy is concerned, yes, I believe it is because it exhibits oxidised copper corrosion on its face.

Does not look like Brass...................That is one reason I asked for the weight and diameter and edge shot........ Also, hope you looked at my refrerenced 3 in 1 coin post......

 

[johnnyi]

Don, yes I read your interesting link and I agree the diameter of this die must be measured. As far as this die is concerned, as I said in a previous post, it may have been impressed on softened brass or bronze alloy rather than being cast on it. Even if it were originally cast it would have to undergo a second step of pressing to eliminate flaws that exist in the casting process (* Once a cast "planchet" (object) conforms to the inside dimentions of the dies, then there would be no deformity of the die if it were pressed against the harder object).

Do I think it's brass? Not strictly speaking. I think ju ju will find it is an alloy of brass or copper which can be easily annealed. We have both dug many artifacts in our day which appeared "grey", but which were such alloys. I'd scan some, but I think we all have enough of them in our boxes to examine. The fact that there is copper oxidation on the surfaces where we would expect it (the design) is very hard to explain away.

 

[dfx willy]

what ever it is its a great find. willy.

 

[juju]

ok here is the requested pics and measurements. The measurements are in MM, and the weight in grams. Hope this brings us closer to identifying this. Thanks everyone for all you hard work.

JuJu