1814 coin with J. J. Henry/Boulton counterstamp

[hawknknife]

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...

[spgordon]

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I agree, as Pennyguy wrote, that any backstory--whether the original (and withdrawn) fable about it being "bought straight from a branch of the family" or the current story about how it was purchased--is secondary to an analysis of the coin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.

[Pennyguy]

"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

[Pennyguy]

"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

[spgordon]

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

[Pennyguy]

"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]

"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.

[spgordon]

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.

[Eric Kettenburg]

"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.  

[JTR]

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

[Pennyguy]

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...

[Pennyguy]

"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.

[Pennyguy]

"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.

[Pennyguy]

The Counterstamp is now authenticated and certified by the American Numismatic Association Certification Service