AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: spgordon on February 02, 2012, 04:20:22 PM
-
SO I wonder if any of y'all have any thoughts about this item:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/UNIQUE-Nice-J-J-HENRY-BOULTON-Ctsp-1814-Large-Cent-Reknown-Flintlock-Gunsmith-/260943379981?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cc16ffe0d
I wrote to the seller about the claim that he "bought straight from a branch of the family," and he replied:
"We've had it for a couple of years now; it was an off-the-street purchase. Someone showed-up with it, saying that 'it had been in the family for generations'. Everyone says that, but it had its original skin (meaning no collectors had had their hands on it), and they were quite familiar with the Henry family history. There is no circulation wear on it per se. This is a slight variant of the usual punch, in that the space between the J2 period and the H is narrow, and not gapped as is usually seen."
Any thoughts?
-
Well my thoughts, for what they're worth, are:
(1) hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[this is a direct response to the price]
(2) hahahahahahahahahahahaha
[still thinking about the price]
(3) Why? I mean, it's weird. Why stamp a penny? Practice? A piece of scrap had no value, a penny certainly had value.
(4) hahahahaha
[took a look at the price again]
(5) The stamping itself looks *awfully* crisp, even the edges of the stamped letters, especially given the wear evident on the remainder of the penny. I can't help but be EXTREMELY doubtful.
(6) I have a good number of these old pennies. I now have been witness to the ultimate answer for the question I ask myself on an hourly basis: "I have all these old pennies, and I have large numbers of stamps which I have made for various reasons throughout my many years of gunmaking. How on earth could I combine the two in a profitable manner? Hmmmmm. Peanut butter in the chocolate, or chocolate in the peanut butter?"
(7) hahahahahahahahahaha
[ok, that was because one of the dogs licked my foot and tickled me...)
-
Counterstamps on large cents are common. The coin has no numismatic value. Value to a collector of counterstamps is $50 +/-.
-
My thoughts were similar to Eric's, though my laugh isn't quite as hearty as his, I think!
These objects with "counterstamps," which I knew nothing about, are it turns out very collectible:
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v13n39a22.html
The seller insists that "the counterstamp is Genuine, of that there is no doubt. I've handled enough of them to know."
I would think any authentication would need to find a "J. J. Henry/Boulton" stamp on a rifle or pistol that matched the "punch" on the coin.
-
I'm somewhat familiar with counterstamped coins. They are a highly collectable field of numismatics. And, I've seen coins with a gunsmith's stamp. This one looks right to me, but, I don't necessarily buy the story with it, and the price is in fantasyland.
-
So can someone fill me in on the reasoning behind these counterstamped coins? Again I have to ask myself, "Why?" Was it cheap advertising? Rampant fun filled Fridays with hammer and stamp? An underground 'Death to the Penny!' movement 200 years early? I am very interested.
-
It was a cheap way to advertise. Google "counterstamped coins" and you can see lots.
-
Unless it was stamped by Red Cloud or Crazy Horse, or MAYBE jesus, it ain't worth $0.10.
YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Yes, counterstamped coins from various gunsmiths are fairly common. I know of such coins by several very local (to me) Illinois gunsmiths. The ones I have seen were filed smooth on the stamped side, then stamped with the same stamp the gunsmith used on his barrels. These are not limited to gunsmiths, but were done by many other types of tradesmen as well. They might be expected to bring $40 or $50, but certainly not the price of this one.
-
It's missing something. I'm surprised no one has responded to his add with, "Pat, I'd like to buy a vowel..."
Sean
-
(5) The stamping itself looks *awfully* crisp, even the edges of the stamped letters, especially given the wear evident on the remainder of the penny. I can't help but be EXTREMELY doubtful.
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but why assume a coin would be newly minted when it was so marked?
-
No assumption being made, but why stamp it unless it was still in circulation and therefore exposed to ongoing wear? Not stating it's a fake - I have no idea and only have pictures to go by - but I personally harbor doubt based upon what I see in the photo.
-
Boulton "opened" in 1814 (or so), so one possibility is that the coin was used to advertise the new gunworks in its earliest years. Just speculation, of course.
But in the early years of Boulton J. J. Henry was partnered with his brother, W. Henry. There are locks that read "J. and W. Henry," though such locks could also date from the period that J. J. Henry was partnered with his father (William Henry II). Perhaps one could date this stamp to the years after 1822 when J. J. Henry was running Boulton himself?
I wonder how long it--generally--it would take for a coin to display the sort of wear that 1814 coin shows? It does seem, as Eric suggested, that the stamp was applied after the coin was already worn. Would it have displayed such wear in 8 years (if it was stamped in 1822)?
-
An observation or maybe its just my eyes! The coin looks like it was highly dented in the process of stamping the J.J. Henry. The opposite side also looks like it has a lot of wear on the high portion that resulted from the stamping. Was the stamping done while the coin was on some wood? A side view would have been nice.
Martin Keen
-
Counterstamping of pennies with a fraternal organization's insignia are also fairly common to hand out at meetings or give to new members
-
Counterstamps were just an advertising medium used over many years. They are similar to merchant tokens, except obviously cheaper to produce. Most of the stamps I've seen were put on already well circulated coins. That way they could be given out in change or as a premium.
-
I've been reading the discussion on here, so to set the record straight: Large Cents (and many, many other types of coins) were used by Iron mongers, machinists, etc. as test subjects for the counterstamping device(s) before pressed into production. Counterstamps for Advertising purposes is not the usual intention; those types of marks are quite the minority of known Counterstamps-thousands and thousands exist with just random letters, numbers and names. Lots of Counterstamped coins have sold for well-over $1000, and a several for much more than that. Gunsmith marks are especially prized, but this one is The BIG One, unless a Colt surfaces... FWIW: this J.J. Henry marked coin will be listed in the updated Counterstamped Coin reference as a Genuine J.J. Henry/Boulton Counterstamped 1814 Large Cent, presently Unique.
-
Also: bent coins wear in circulation differently than do normal coins. The force of the hammer on an Iron punch into Copper will make the Copper coin scyphate-become somewhat "cupped" in appearance. Doesn't matter if it was done on a wooden or metal tabletop. Also, the punch was hit with such force that it skidded across the coin, thus obliterating the "Y" of HENRY when struck. Simple Physics...
-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/300673179765
-
That example noted above either couldn't be verified, or judging by its meager 32 visits was in the improper category (which it was). Probably though, it couldn't be verified
-
It would be interesting to know how this coin was "verified."
Was the counterstamp compared to other J.J. Henry/Boulton stamps? If so, did it resemble stamps from a particular period?
I write this not to dispute the verification but to ask the evidence for considering the counterstamp authentic. I would think that whoever verified it would be able--indeed, eager--to supply an explanation.
-
A couple of things, as I see it (fwiw):
"Also, the punch was hit with such force that it skidded across the coin, thus obliterating the "Y" of HENRY when struck. Simple Physics..."
I am not clear on how this is simple, because (1) a copper coin is a lot softer than a gun barrel, and (2) there are extant examples of non-obliterated JJ Henry stampings which certainly would have mandated a greater degree of force on iron as opposed to soft copper and yet retain their "Y." Iron, in fact, usually requires multiple strikes to effect a proper stamp, so seemingly would be more prone to skidding and/or mis-strikes.
Also: like Professor Gordon, I would likewise be very interested in learning how this particular piece can be verified because it seems to me that this particular field would be quite ripe for fraud. I can guarantee you that there are numerous individuals currently working within the gunsmithing trade who could very easily pull off a copy of this and I also guarantee that it could quite easily be "aged" to fool anyone. This would be child's play comparative to the aging of an entire rifle.
It seems to me that verification most likely will simply consist of publication (after all, if it is published, it must be authentic...) and a few words by a recognized authority in an appropriate field. Following this, all it needs to do is change hands for a considerable sum one time, and there you have it. If someone will purchase it for xxx dollars, then someone else will desire it and probably be willing to pay yyy dollars. And they're off!
I don't necessarily intend this to come off as sarcastic, because while it probably does (a habit predicated by many years of working with 'fakes..'), I am genuinely interested in more information.
-
I am genuinely interested in more information.
I feel exactly as Eric does. I doubt this is a fake--who would fake a J. J. Henry/Boulton stamp, of all the gunsmith stamps one would choose (or am I naive about this?)?--but I am interested in how such a thing gets "verified." My suspicion is that Eric has that exactly right:
It seems to me that verification most likely will simply consist of publication (after all, if it is published, it must be authentic...) and a few words by a recognized authority in an appropriate field. Following this, all it needs to do is change hands for a considerable sum one time, and there you have it. If someone will purchase it for xxx dollars, then someone else will desire it and probably be willing to pay yyy dollars. And they're off!
But if there is a more respectable method that has been used, I'm eager to hear and especially eager to know which J. J. Henry/Boulton stamps or punches were used for comparison.
Scott
-
I know of counterstamped coins by several Illinois gunsmiths, some close to home, although I don't own any. Speaking as someone who just retired from 47 years as a jewelry tool & die maker, this field is indeed ripe for fakery.
-
"...who would fake a J. J. Henry/Boulton stamp, of all the gunsmith stamps one would choose.."
Aaaaah, but therein lies the genius!!!!!!
Imagine how much more debate would be involved in, say, a Dickert counterstamping, or a Rupp, or a ....
I honestly have no idea how one would verify the authenticity of something like this.
-
Or "S. HAWKEN/ST. LOUIS". There are people who would darned-near kill for that one, if they believed it was real.
-
This particular counterstamped coin originally was sold for far less than what the host coin would have been worth uncounterstamped, thus disproving that "the juice was worth the squeeze" for ruining a perfectly nice 1814 Large Cent. In other words: It would not have made any sense for anyone nowadays to counterstamp that coin like so, and accept a fraction of what it would have been worth, otherwise. There are no other known J.J. Henry counterstamped coins.
So, we look at this one and try to match it up against known marks. Figure that several punches were used over the lifetime of that specific design. (and Eric: the punch was hit with much force before it had set full on the face of the coin-it was at an angle, and the edge of the punch caught and dragged while being pounded). This is a TEST punching of the device; sometimes the person punching is a bit sloppy. That said, anyone can speculate about it without seeing it in hand. As far as value: let's say that you have two documents-one signed by an elected Town Official and one by President George Washington's hand. Both are Politicians-and I think that anyone can extrapolate the argument from here...
-
This particular counterstamped coin originally was sold for far less than what the host coin would have been worth uncounterstamped, thus disproving that "the juice was worth the squeeze" for ruining a perfectly nice 1814 Large Cent. In other words: It would not have made any sense for anyone nowadays to counterstamp that coin like so, and accept a fraction of what it would have been worth, otherwise.
As far as value: let's say that you have two documents-one signed by an elected Town Official and one by President George Washington's hand. Both are Politicians-and I think that anyone can extrapolate the argument from here...
I honestly don't follow. Aren't these two points exactly contradictory? You've described the value of the counterstamp here, whatever the coin may have earlier been sold for.
There are no other known J.J. Henry counterstamped coins. So, we look at this one and try to match it up against known marks. Figure that several punches were used over the lifetime of that specific design.
So the verification involved comparing the punch against known marks on locks or barrels. As you say, given that JJHenry may have used different punches between 1822-1836, some might not match well. Would it be possible to know which known locks or barrels did match up well?
Again, I am not suggesting whatsoever that the coin is a fake. But even if it is genuine, that certainly doesn't mean it can be "verified" as such--and that's the part of the process I'm skeptical about and would like to learn more about. I do not understand the reluctance to answer this question ('the punch on the coin looks very much like the punch on this or that lock'). The similarity (or identity) should be visible to all of us.
-
My thoughts exactly.
The question as to HOW this is verified has not been answered. It is solely based upon 'expert opinion?' Not that this is valueless, for many antiques are verified in such manner. Examining the question as to 'why' someone would fake something like this, you are indeed providing the answer to that via the statement of extreme value. It doesn't matter where it has been previously; many questionable antiques are funneled through just such a dimly-lit gauntlet of lesser hands in order to provide believable provenance. The actual fakers themselves rarely (almost never, in fact) are the individuals receiving the final, higher value.
I frankly don't see how comparisons with extant stampings can ultimately be a verifiable basis for authentication, because modern CNC could take a photo of a genuine JJ Henry stamping off a lock or barrel and create an exact duplicate stamping tool - complete with any quirks or flaws inherent to the original - in the blink of an eye. This item is not like a longrifle, for example, which is generally authenticated as a composite of wood, iron and brass; the penny itself is merely the canvas here, and can essentially be disregarded. Here, the stamping itself is solely the "item" of interest. It doesn't matter whether or not it is a complete stamping, a bungled stamping, sideways, up, down or backwards! That should have no bearing upon the question of HOW it can be verified.
Pennyguy, are you perchance the owner of this item?
-
OK, let's try it THIS way: Would anyone take a $500 bottle of wine and pour it out onto the ground? That's essentially what is the thought of ruining a perfectly nice 1814 Large Cent.
We have the coin and counterstamp, which was originally sold a couple of years ago for a small amount of money, so obviously the people who sold it had no idea what it was and did not perform the counterstamping.
"I honestly don't follow. Aren't these two points exactly contradictory? You've described the value of the counterstamp here, whatever the coin may have earlier been sold for" ???
This phrase need clarification... try it this way for people who want to know how to price things like this: you have two books: One is a grade-school text book, and one is a signed 1st ed of Gone With The Wind. Yes, they are two books but the similiarity ends there. You have a gunsmith counterstamped coin by Joe Shmoe from Idaho, and one from J.J. Henry of Boulton PA. Not many collectors may be interested in the Joe Shmoe example... We are blessed that a couple of major collections of Counterstamped coins have been auctioned during the past couple of years, so extrapolating the pricing of similar items may be done with some degree of certitude.
"Again, I am not suggesting whatsoever that the coin is a fake. But even if it is genuine, that certainly doesn't mean it can be "verified" as such--and that's the part of the process I'm skeptical about and would like to learn more about. I do not understand the reluctance to answer this question ('the punch on the coin looks very much like the punch on this or that lock'). The similarity (or identity) should be visible to all of us." Let's try this: I am not suggesting that everyone on here is an expert when it comes to things such as Counterstamped coins-that takes YEARS to do (I've been buying & selling such things since 1972). The coin is a Genuine U.S. Mint product. That is not in dispute. If we have no other counterstamped examples of J.J. Henry, then we must look at the execution of the punch. This punch matches-up well with one seen on a Navy pistol-not exactly, but the letters are the same cut and style, etc. As I stated before: "The Juice Is Not Worth The Squeeze" for someone to totally and near-flawlessly fabricate a punch, strike it on a coin worth by itself several hundred dollars, then take it to a shop and sell it for a sum MUCH LESS than the coin is worth.
-
"...the penny itself is merely the canvas here, and can essentially be disregarded"
If the "penny" was worth $10 or so, then Yes. However, the coin is worth several hundred dollars unstamped, so NO to that
-
I know that talking 'Coins' with people who mainly understand 'Guns' is like talking Chinese to someone who understands German only, but rest assured that there are several Counterstamped Coins experts who have the ability and acumen to authenticate the counterstamp on its merits only
-
"I honestly have no idea how one would verify the authenticity of something like this."
If this is the hanging question, then it is easy-enough to answer: Consider the Punch as one would a hand-made Die (one of many by the Die-sinker) for striking coins. Each die has its own pecularities, though they may be subtle. Experts can look at products from that die, and match it to other products known to be made by the die-sinker. A short list of things to look for: execution, letter height & width, length, etc.
We've all seen some Guns marked "J.J. Henry" and some marked "J.J. Henry/Boulton". Very different marks, but from the SAME gunsmith. So, just saying that 'the mark is different' does not preclude any gun from being from the same 'smith.
-
First of all, if that coin in the same condition unstamped is worth that much, I had better hightail it over to a coin buyer because I have a pretty good pile of them (metal detecting since I was 10)! :o
Pennyguy, you seem to be aggravated and I apologize if you are viewing this discussion as harassment. I simply view it as a discussion. That being said, your last statement -
"I know that talking 'Coins' with people who mainly understand 'Guns' is like talking Chinese to someone who understands German only, but rest assured that there are several Counterstamped Coins experts who have the ability and acumen to authenticate the counterstamp on its merits only"
- might be interpreted as either frustrated or a bit insulting. The coin itself is not at issue here, the stamping is. A stamping allegedly by a gunsmith, using a gunsmiths' stamp and stamped upon an antique piece of metal much in the same manner that the *same* stamp would have been utilized upon a different piece of metal i.e. a lock or barrel. Yet, we who are practicing gunsmiths and likewise collectors/restorers of antiquities composed - in part - of metals that are likewise typically engraved and/or stamped, are NOT possessive of the experience to engage in an examination of a stamped piece of antique copper?
"We have the coin and counterstamp, which was originally sold a couple of years ago for a small amount of money, so obviously the people who sold it had no idea what it was and did not perform the counterstamping."
No, what "we" have is a backstory. All antiquities of value have one, and if such does not exist, rest assured that one will quickly be provided to assuage doubts of a potential buyer. And all such provenance always seems to involve original owners who had no concept of the 'real' value.
"I am not suggesting that everyone on here is an expert when it comes to things such as Counterstamped coins-that takes YEARS to do..."
One does not need to be an expert in counterstamping, nor in coins. What one DOES need is an extensive background in the examination of antiquities, antique metals and tool technology, the manner in which such metals age over time, the patination of these materials etc. Coincidentally, the exact background many frequenting this board do possess.
"The Juice Is Not Worth The Squeeze" for someone to totally and near-flawlessly fabricate a punch, strike it on a coin worth by itself several hundred dollars..."
It is if one has the capability to create a punch at low cost - very common now - and thence price the piece in question for $2500. Very worth the squeeze for practically no labor. Even if you want to figure $1K in total base cost, which I think is grossly inflated, $1500 for a few days work seems like a VERY worthwhile squeeze to me, and low-profile to boot.
-
"We've all seen some Guns marked "J.J. Henry" and some marked "J.J. Henry/Boulton". Very different marks, but from the SAME gunsmith. So, just saying that 'the mark is different' does not preclude any gun from being from the same 'smith."
So in effect, we now do not even need worry about finding an exact match to the punch. Even easier! Let's not gloss anything over with fluff, then: essentially, there is NO way to verify the authenticity of this item, other than that of market value to be determined.
I am very definitely in the wrong business.
-
"So in effect, we now do not even need worry about finding an exact match to the punch. Even easier! Let's not gloss anything over with fluff, then: essentially, there is NO way to verify the authenticity of this item, other than that of market value to be determined."
Ahhh, no. There are determining factors. But like I stated: if someone talks ONLY one language, it is difficult to near-impossible that he will understand another...
-
Eric, I am not aggravated by any means-and the argument that "anyone could do this" is probably inheritantly True; but not everyone would take an expensive coin, mutilate it and sell it for several hundred dollars LESS than the cost of the coin-that's just plain silly thinking.
And as I stated: without seeing this "in hand" and not in scan it would be very difficult indeed for anyone to pass judgement on it, pro- or con-.
-
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1056.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft368%2Fseacoastcjnh%2F07cts1.jpg&hash=6b796e4204e4d82f6ee1b5c18a38ca1d1bb94682)
Here's a picture of an Iron-monger's counterstamp, on a coin that would be worth maybe $1500 without the counterstamp. With it: maybe mid-hundreds of dollars... and we know that it was done a LONG time ago even if it were just for that reason: that the coin is too expensive nowadays to counterstamp in such a fashion.
-
The fact that Pennyguy cannot or will not explain what comparisons the "verification" was based on demonstrates that the verification was, at best, shoddy. (This doesn't speak to the issue if the authenticity if the counter stamp itself.) It shows, in effect, that you weren't concerned about the quality of the verification (or you would know the basis in which it was made) but rather only with having it verified. Better not, under those circumstances, to know too many details. The fact that buyers are willing to trust such things is only a sign of how such closed communities of collectors work: everybody agrees on such ground rules and everybody profits (or hopes to).
-
So: there was no match. I missed that if you had admitted it before.
Which if these other factors, in this case, convinced your authenticator?
-
@spgordon: I already explained that a few posts ago... and since you don't know me at all, your precluding my experiences is a moot point. In short, absent of a direct match, other factors must be taken into consideration: letter size, execution, etc. of other known punches seen on other, known guns. Also, wear, use and detritus-even to a microscopic level, can be used as evidence of originality (this is how scientists know that Scandinavian Runes found in Mid-America are genuine to the Viking time period). Therein lies the "smell test"
-
Not sure why my last post went above the post it was replying to!
-
Of course, since "this thing" just hit the market due diligence is still in its infancy. But it sure does "smell good"
-
If "due diligence" on this item is still in its infancy, how is it ethical to call it "verified" or "genuine"?!?!?
-
Sometimes, something must be approached as "I think it's counterfeit, so I must prove that. If I can't prove that it's counterfeit, it must be OK".
My experience: I found a coin that I could not prove to myself that it was counterfeit, though counterfeits reign supreme in that particular series. It was also a unique "Mule", in that the front & backsides were known for other varieties, but not together. Now, this series of a coin has been well-studied since the mid-1800's and *new* coins are definitely scrutinized since that does not happen every year, decade or century. Everyone and their Uncle-including prestigious Authenticators-said or thought that the coin was counterfeit, and that's including the person who wrote the book on the subject. It wasn't, but no one cared enough to look at, or pay attention to, the circumstancial and evidentiary proof (much like the discussion going on here-but I'm NOT saying that anyone on here is unknowledgeable-these people who said "Nay" are in the business not to make mistakes like that). However, a prestigious firm knew as I did that it was Genuine (at a glance, too!) and it sold for $69,000. Just sayin'...
-
"If "due diligence" on this item is still in its infancy, how is it ethical to call it "verified" or "genuine"?!?!?"
Due diligence to find a Mark that matches exactly. It still passes the "smell test". Unless one has viewed it in hand, then all one can do is speculate (think of Plato's "The Parable of the Cave")
-
To Eric's point about the backstory: you will recall that the backstory included with the original posting on eBay was not accurate and the seller backpedalled...
-
"It is if one has the capability to create a punch at low cost - very common now - and thence price the piece in question for $2500. Very worth the squeeze for practically no labor. Even if you want to figure $1K in total base cost, which I think is grossly inflated, $1500 for a few days work seems like a VERY worthwhile squeeze to me, and low-profile to boot"
yes, of course: but NOT if the host coin is worth several hundereds of dollars, and it's sold for a fraction of that
-
"To Eric's point about the backstory: you will recall that the backstory included with the original posting on eBay was not accurate and the seller backpedalled..."
Regardless of any "backstory" (and isn't it every seller's aim on eBay to 'Baffle 'em with BS'?), the item must be taken on its sole merits. Given that no one-and I'm sorry if some don't understand this-will ruin an expensive coin with a counterstamp in hopes of perpretrating Fraud upon his fellow collector, and then sell the coin for a fraction of what it is worth unruined. It makes no sense to do that, so let's dispense with the nonsensical.
The coin shows wear, whether as a "pocket-piece" or by commerce, on the date's edge. There appears to be detritus built-up in the incused areas. The patina appears to be naturally caused. If the owner has a Black or Diamond light and can shine it on the coin, anything untoward such as repatination or *new* detritus should glow or be brighter than normal.
-
"Given that no one-and I'm sorry if some don't understand this-will ruin an expensive coin with a counterstamp in hopes of perpretrating Fraud upon his fellow collector, and then sell the coin for a fraction of what it is worth unruined. It makes no sense to do that, so let's dispense with the nonsensical."
It's only non-sensical if the backstory is accurate, and we here discussing this have no way of knowing if it is so. If accurate, i.e. some unsuspecting seller simply walks into a shop and sells for a fraction of true worth, how do we know he/she wasn't a patsy? We have no way of knowing. "Fraud upon a fellow collector:" I'm afraid to have to break this to you, but this is no longer an exception. In fact, when $$$ is involved, it has sadly become the rule. Professor Gordon's notion of closed societies circulating suspect pieces to inflate value is a very accurate assessment of the current state of much of the collectible world, and I have time and time again seen in practice with my own eyes. Not simply within the realm of longrifles; I do personally have other interests as well. It's universal, and the driving force, while usually money, can also represent other insidious interests as well, interests which may appear non-sensical in the short term but are possessive of long term implications.
Black light is useless here, and examination of wear is likewise useless as (1) it's an old coin anyway, and (2) being a small, homogenous item, patination *even on a microscopic level* is extremely easy to fake.
I don't see how this discussion can really progress any further in a productive manner.
http://youtu.be/NXZ7lYMsqvo
-
Gents, On Feb. 24th under this listing, I posted pictures of a J.J. Henry lancaster pattern trade rifle with detailed lock stampings that are very close to these in question. This rifle is a very early Henry as the J.J. Henry marking on the top barrel flat is engraved in script rather than stamped and the patchbox has much finer engraving than is the norm.
This discussion reminds me of a gunshow sale in Houston, Texas in 1975. I had a Confederate Griswold & Gunnison revolver and had it sold for...$3500.00, big bucks in 1975. I had purchased it direct from the soldier's family as I had been fortunate to acquire some of the finest C.S. items that had surfaced at that time, mostly Confederate manufactured presentation swords. My buyer would complete the purchase but wanted his Xpert to approve the pistol. I won't name the Xpert but he did do a book on American gunsmiths and Sharps rifles.
Well, he declared it a FAKE so I made no sale. I honestly don't think he had ever seen a real one.
As you must know, many high dollar items in advanced collections are fakes, as well as many good items labeled as "fakes" are as "good as Gold" and the truth will never be known...
-
I was wondering when somebody would note that the stamp on the J.J. Henry rifle that Hawknknife posted is quite similar to this. Apparently whatever "verification" occurred did not use this bit of available evidence. That is, it just increases skepticism that there was any real authentication process at all; more likely, as Eric suggested many posts ago (and that has not been challenged), "publication" in a book and, presto, a new identity ("Genuine") for the coin.
I agree, as Pennyguy wrote, that any backstory--whether the original (and withdrawn) fable about it being "bought straight from a branch of the family" or the current story about how it was purchased--is secondary to an analysis of the coin itself. This is why I was asking for what your authenticator said about this coin with its counterstamp. I just assume there was an outside authenticator. It's obvious that somebody "verifying" or "authenticating" as genuine a coin that he owns and wants to sell would be the definition of conflict of interest.
The fact that such verification seems to have been based on this--
The coin shows wear, whether as a "pocket-piece" or by commerce, on the date's edge. There appears to be detritus built-up in the incused areas. The patina appears to be naturally caused. If the owner has a Black or Diamond light and can shine it on the coin, anything untoward such as repatination or *new* detritus should glow or be brighter than normal.
--rather than any attempt to research J. J. Henry/Boulton stamps (such as the one Hawknknife posted) just shows how unprofessional or, at best, incomplete the process was. None of this implies the coin & counterstamp is a fake. It does imply that the claim that the coin has been "verified" is a fake. Probably a genuine coin with counterstamp, but certainly not established as "genuine" by any respectable method.
-
"Probably a genuine coin with counterstamp, but certainly not established as "genuine" by any respectable method"
Not any that YOU know of (and again trying to explain it is like talking Chinese..., etc), but anyone who has never seen it in person we can determine that what they say is strictly an opinion and has no basis in fact. One who has not viewed it in hand therefore can only conjecture. Think "Parable of the Cave" here. The people who have looked at it are EAC (Early American Copper) Society members, who have the credentials to say Yea or Nay. This site was unknown to EAC until recently, so anything 'Hawnknife' posted wouldn't have been seen. Also, pictures were sent to NGC (a Big Deal in the coin world) which will encapsulate and certify it upon receipt and the opinions of said EACers. I think that the BIG problem that people have with it on here is with its supposed value. Anyone can nitpick over it and the way it was offered, but that does not demean what this coin represents. You can think whatever you want to-it's a Free Country after all-but the less one knows about something and still posts as if one does, well, then "...all doubt is erased" as Mark Twain may have said
-
"If accurate, i.e. some unsuspecting seller simply walks into a shop and sells for a fraction of true worth, how do we know he/she wasn't a patsy..."
Think about this for a while... OK time's up. This makes no sense whatsoever. Who gains in this scenario? Only the Buyer
-
I think that the BIG problem that people have with it on here is with its supposed value.
Nah, I think the problem (mine, at least) has been your refusal or inability to explain the authentication, to point to something, anything, that the authenticators saw that led them to consider it genuine. Had you done that, discussion could perhaps have focused on substance. Instead, you kept listing things that one could look at in the absence of a match with an actual stamp/punch, not what the "experts" actually did see in the case of this coin.
Many on this site are experts in eighteenth-century longrifles and conversations often involve attribution, which always involve individuals pointing out what they saw about a particular gun that explains why they think it was made in a particular place, or by a particular maker, or at a particular time. I had hoped that your experts might have offered similar details that led them to consider this coin genuine. One would think they would look at other J. J. Henry/Boulton punches. But, still, no details explaining their own "stamp" of genuine.
Scott
-
"Black light is useless here, and examination of wear is likewise useless as (1) it's an old coin anyway, and (2) being a small, homogenous item, patination *even on a microscopic level* is extremely easy to fake"
so NOT true, but the poster can be excused because, I am guessing here, the poster has never collected coins or studied them on a professional basis. Believe me: if it all is all so easy to fake, everyone would be doing it with every coin which has "problems".
-
"Nah, I think the problem (mine, at least) has been your refusal or inability to explain the authentication, to point to something, anything, that the authenticators saw that led them to consider it genuine. Had you done that, discussion could perhaps have focused on substance. Instead, you kept listing things that one could look at in the absence of a match with an actual stamp/punch, not what the "experts" actually did see in the case of this coin"
I thought that this had been explained ad nauseum; in simple, plain language: the coin exhibits no break in the patination at and around the counterstamping; the coin had its "original skin"; the verdigris in the devices is natural to the coin; the natural wear at the edge and other areas of higher than field wear-these are all visual and accepted as OK by those who know nothing about the punch's history-just facts based on the merits of the coin. That is, it was treated as just another counterstamped coin, and nothing was seen amiss.
Further inspection and vis a vis with other punchings by the maker seen on his guns shows that there are exacting similarities between the counterstamp on the coin and those of some guns (Guilt by Association). It would be very nice if an exact match could be made, yet we have no idea for how long a time punches were expected to last, how many were made and used, etc. Just because an exact match could not be made at this time does not preclude that it is not a genuine J.J. Henry article. Who knows? Maybe the punch broke at the "Y"? No one knows and no one will ever know anything other than the physical attributes and evidence of the item at hand. The physical evidence, plain to anyone who has viewed it "live" and knows what he's talking about, overwhelming points to a genuine-of-the-period item. To just dismiss what "The Experts" know about this as Poppycock shows, well, nevermind. It is realized that many on here have never been exposed to Numismatics in any other-than-ordinary way, so the protestations by those people expressed here can be forgiven. I would just caution, though, that professing something here as Fact when that case is just not so, is detrimental to the poster, the readers, and the site itself.
-
Just because an exact match could not be made at this time does not preclude that it is not a genuine J.J. Henry article.
Agreed. Doing some research on J. J. Henry/Boulton stamped locks or barrels--other than the 1826 Navy pistol, on which the arrangement of letters does not match your counterstamped coin--might very well turn up an exact match.
I thought that this had been explained ad nauseum;
Actually, you explained these features of this particular coin exactly once (your 1:43pm post this afternoon) and nobody asked for such information after you finally offered it.
-
"Black light is useless here, and examination of wear is likewise useless as (1) it's an old coin anyway, and (2) being a small, homogenous item, patination *even on a microscopic level* is extremely easy to fake"
so NOT true, but the poster can be excused because, I am guessing here, the poster has never collected coins or studied them on a professional basis. Believe me: if it all is all so easy to fake, everyone would be doing it with every coin which has "problems".
Pennyguy, whoever you may be, in this case it is you who may be excused for having no apparent knowledge of just HOW EASY IT VERY DEFINITELY IS to fake objects such as this by those who work within such a field day in, day out. I don't care if it's copper, nickel, silver, iron, brass or krypotonite nor do I care what shape it is or what it's inherent purpose may be/have been. You can continue to attempt to demean my/our (collectively upon this forum) knowledge and insist that only a dedicated coin collector is suited to judge the merit of a circular piece of antique copper, but this condescension and accompanying deliberate distaction does not negate the fact that modern faking techniques have far outpaced the ability to detect them. In this particular realm, I believe I can confidently say that I possess considerably more than a trivial experience, regardless of your belief in this fact or not. I feel that in this matter you may be deliberately wearing a blindfold. Please be very, very careful with your future purchases - best of luck.
-
I would just caution, though, that professing something here as Fact when that case is just not so, is detrimental to the poster, the readers, and the site itself.
Time to get some popcorn!
John
-
Eric, I didn't want to "get personal" on here, and John Howard being someone whom I know and respect in the business, I will still resist. I will say that this phrase of yours: "...the fact that modern faking techniques have far outpaced the ability to detect them..." is not based in fact (and I'm rather proud of myself in that I did not boldface the 'not' in the above). Your proof of this statement is, what.
I will say that if one thinks it's so easy to fake a well-known Gunsmith's counterstamp, and have it fool some EACers (and they don't have to be the "smart ones", either), let's see one do it... one can even put it on a common LgC. Talk is talk. Funny though, that that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone I know of who deals with counterstamps on a regular basis...
-
"Actually, you explained these features of this particular coin exactly once (your 1:43pm post this afternoon) and nobody asked for such information after you finally offered it"
spg: *sorry* in my mind I thought that the question had been answered a few times. My wife is always after me to watch my mind; I fear that she thinks I may be losing it soon...
I have no vested, or unvested interest in the coin, but I think that it's the neatest counterstamped Lg.C I've seen, and I've had some doozies.
-
"Well, he declared it a FAKE so I made no sale. I honestly don't think he had ever seen a real one"
We can all commiserate with Hawknknife, as we have all 'been there' at one time or another. However, when he proclaims that which you know is false-that then is the time to challenge what the guy knows. Not that anyone here is all filled with himself, but we all know what we know.
Given that the G&G was was inspected for its merits before purchase from the estate, and that the only conclusion possible was one of Genuineness, then at that moment the "expert" could have been called on the carpet to defend his opinion. Relative questions such as: "Have you ever seen a genuine example? If so, which one and where?" "Your proof of this being a counterfeit, is... ?" Put him on the spot and make him prove his opinion. If he knows so much about counterfeits he'd know how they were made, and maybe where and when. Betcha he becomes a bit flustered if he has no ready answer. Don't be reluctant to challenge any opinion; or if challenged have all of your information at hand for concise replies. Much like coming cold into this thread and having to defend my opinion of the Counterstamp in question here.
-
The Counterstamp is now authenticated and certified by the American Numismatic Association Certification Service