1826 penny token?

[Pavel]

Can somebody please tell me what I have acquired here? It was in a heap of 17th to 19th century copper English and Irish coins and tokens I bought recently. It weighs about 20 grams.

The legend and date on the obverse have a slight doubling.

 

And, of course, the penny coins of this year looked nothing like this...

Edited October 20, 2017 by Pavel

[Rob]

Not a clue.

[Unwilling Numismatist]

Given the crudity, I might be tempted towards a contemporary forgery, however a penny would (at least today) seem somewhat unworthy of such effort.

[Rob]

4 minutes ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

Given the crudity, I might be tempted towards a contemporary forgery, however a penny would (at least today) seem somewhat unworthy of such effort.

On the not entirely convincing point that the date seen is contemporary, 20 grams is in the same ballpark as the intrisic value of a penny. You don't make a forgery for what you could get for scrap. Only if it commands a premium would you make it which says something a bit later struck for collectors. By that time you are past the major issues of copper tokens.

[Ukstu]

What an oddity. It has a similiar reverse of a Geo III 1799 coin. Judging by the wear it looks like its seen some action. Never seen anything like it before. It must be some kind of token or evasion piece. 

[Rob]

11 minutes ago, Ukstu said:

What an oddity. It has a similiar reverse of a Geo III 1799 coin. Judging by the wear it looks like its seen some action. Never seen anything like it before. It must be some kind of token or evasion piece. 

There is no appreciable output of evasion pieces after they were banned by Parliament a few years before this coin's date. Coins have always been copied, but a decade or more before this the main reason was to facilitate trade due to the copper shortage arising from the Napoleonic War. By 1826, copper supplies were stable and tbh I'm struggling to think of any examples. To my mind it has to be either an advertising token or some type of play money, probably struck in the late 19th century at the earliest, or certainly after the large coppers had been demonetised in 1869.

[Pavel]

17 minutes ago, Rob said:

To my mind it has to be either an advertising token or some type of play money, probably struck in the late 19th century at the earliest, or certainly after the large coppers had been demonetised in 1869.

It doesn't advertise anything, so play money is the best guess so far. But why so massive?

Also, can you judge by the quality of the effigy? I mean, does it look like Royal Mint output, or a private company issue? Or would there be no difference in quality at that time?

[mrbadexample]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Not a clue.

That's unusual. 

[argentumandcoins]

Best guess would be Colonial, possibly Canadian, local issue token. The bust is similar to a William Wyon pattern bust of 1823 for British West Africa, although obviously not the same quality. Colonial token coinage was rife around this date and some was "blacksmith made"

[Pavel]

12 hours ago, argentumandcoins said:

Best guess would be Colonial, possibly Canadian, local issue token. The bust is similar to a William Wyon pattern bust of 1823 for British West Africa, although obviously not the same quality. Colonial token coinage was rife around this date and some was "blacksmith made"

 

Would token issuers use the King's effigy? I thought that, and the legend, amounts to a claim it's official money and they avoided such claims?

The portrait looks like (but is not) that by Pistrucci: http://onlinecoin.club/Info/Effigies/King_George_IV_by_Benedetto_Pistrucci/

And again is similar to, but not exactly the one on Irish pennies: http://www.irishcoinage.com/J00059.HTM

Very confusing...