seuk

Another political token/medal Thomas Henry Hastings Davies MP for Worcester - seems he was elected first time in 1818 again in 1826 and yet again in 1832 - left parliament in 1841. So the token(?) could be from any of those dates. 24.6 mm - 5.1 gr. - bronze or copper

Among the various odds and ends I've bought lately is this Irish Daniel O'Connell medallion which I suspect is really an unofficial farthing token (though not listed in the token book issued by Galata). 22.4 mm - 4.3 gr. - bronze or copper A larger medal of similar design (and older portrait) was issued at his dead in 1847 however I would think this to be of an earlier date like 1828/29 when he was elected for parliament?

The coins on my web site are all contemporary counterfeits. It seems likely that some marks on the Chinese fakes are more clearly visible on high grade fakes. This however reminds me that I once bought some low quality fake Victoria halfcrowns (1853 and 1877 of many available years). My guess is that at least one of the years exist as a high grade forgery...

@Azda http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/6086-george-iii-half-crown-chinese-fakes/ They have the same marks of the illustrated fake + 180 degree die rotation of the reverse (well at least Paulus copies has but I've yet to come across a China-forgery without this error)

@Garrett That's even a low quality copy - Reported! @Paulus I'm glad you were able to get a refund Paul and I'll be looking forward for the scans (a photo may be just as good - its only that I'm used to working with scans where I can be sure of the exact size of the coin).

My guess is that an engraver was a middle man 'paid' for his expertise 'no questions asked'. The counterfeiter would then use the die to mint forged coins. It may actually not have been illegal to make the dies, only to use them? (Guessing here). Well - making counterfeit dies (of regal coins) were clearly illegal. But it would have been difficult to prove anything unless the engraver were caught in the act of making them or in the possession thereof. The whole counterfeiting business seems to have been a loose network of engravers, small workshops (like button makers) and various kinds of distributors. There's a fine article by Lane and Fleig on William Henshall (who produced the first Australian coinage but started out as a counterfeiter) which describes the early 19 Ct. counterfeit industry.

Thanks - I think there's a possibility some day to find out who engraved at least some of the counterfeit dies. Which is not the same as knowing who the actual counterfeiter was. That may prove impossible for the individual dies except for a few rare cases such as the Ingley counterfeit. However knowing the engraver would be a most important part of the whole picture! A book - that will probably have to wait another ten years or so, unless I get wealthy

Letter punches side by side: The E punches are especially revealing since there's a tiny damage to the bottom bar

The main reason why I enjoy die studying is that it offers a fair chance to discover something new. Here's one such discovery: BHM 1107 is one of about 10 different medalets issued in commemoration of the coronation of George IV, 1821. Engraver unknown, however he also engraved a series of counterfeit George III shillings of the year 1818. (Another medalet BHM 1113 (+BHM 1080) is also connected to counterfeit shillings).

Transportation seems to be the norm in most cases but I'm not sure on the statistics. Anyway the last hanging was in 1829 and forgery were reclassified as non capital in 1836.

Two more Ingley's - they're getting common...

I though a great deal about the numbering system before numbering the coins - in the hope not having to renumbering them all at a later time. I may still have to renumber some of the coins when I get deeper into the study and that's a lot of boring work. The system is - first a letter naming the group which should be equal to the engraver. Hence the problem of renumbering if I find out that more groups are simply the result of a change in punches used by the same engraver. I may still choose to keep the groups seperated if it make sence and perhaps only rearrange it a bit... 1st digit is for the year on the coin 6 = 1816 (that do cause the renumbering problem when found that a reverse have been use at an earlier date) Next two digits are the number assigned to the individual die in the hope that no engraver have made more than 99 dies of any given year Finally and o or r for oberse / reverse

Yes - my own system

That's a coincidence - this one is B605o_B607r. The last one was B605o_B608r. That is same obverse, different reverse.

An upgrade of the perhaps most common variation of the Walsall tokens issued by Joseph Parker. The reverse besides being week (slightly sunken die), shows a striking similarity to the tokens issued by the Bank of England. Clearly more than a coincidence since the die-sinker had an extra income engraving counterfeit dies...

Thanks for thinking of me (didn't receive your note Peter?) It's B605o_B608r in my system. The obverse is better than my own example but the price is a bit high for a shilling counterfeit so I may pass it.

Gaming tokens are not really my field though I try to get scans of the ones from 1800-1830 though most of the spade guineas are either older or later. For anyone interested in the area there's an updated version out of the A Thousand Guineas cataloge

Think you'll find most of them shown here...: http://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?thumbsonly=0&perpage=90&cat=523&ppuser=&thumbcheck=0&page=1&sortby=&sorttime=&way=&date=

Lead or pewter are often used for casting counterfeits (garden shed effort).

My first 1817 Chinese fake. Low quality cast at 12.8 gr / 32.3 mm. for some reason most fakes are of the 1818 date. Likely because that was the year on the genuine coin used in the first place.

Yes - it's fake like the 'Italien' one. Both seems to be of the high quality sort. You will probably find that its has coin alignment (reverse turned 180 degrees to the obverse) whereas the genuine coins has medal alignment (0 degrees).

Looks like a cast pewter medal with some remaining white metal on the surface. I guess these are cheap contemporary copies of original medals.

My interest is in the contemporary counterfeits which are mostly milled from engraved dies hence more or less different from the original design. So my homepage will be of little value in regard to modern cast forgeries which these seems to be. Cast forgeries are likely to exist of every coin of value and will be difficult if not impossible to spot from an auction picture alone.

No - its the very same.

Just bought this example from Simmons Gallery on ebay descriped as an advertising halfpenny token. 28.3 mm 8.0 gr