Interesting forgery: "Carlisle siege halfcrown"

[kal 22]

Although Thorburn in his book, "Coins of Great Britain", 1884, lists a Carlisle halfcrown of this type, this is the first illustration I have seen.  It is from the Holbrook Gaskell (1846-1919) sale by Glendining 1921.  This is a quality collection of mostly English hammered.  It includes three Triple Unites, an extensive run of civil war siege pieces including two Scarborough of the" Broken Castle" issue.

The reverse of this piece purports to be of the two line type where the die was used on both the three shilling and one shilling issues.  The typical die crack is present but curiously no pellet in the centre of the "O" or before the date.   Also, there is no small dot below the overhead "S".  

It is surprising that no reference to its authenticity was raised by the cataloguer!

 

[Coinery 1,260]

Is there any chance at all that die clogs could be the answer, rather than it being a forgery? Is there any evidence of clogs developing on the other examples?

Also (a massive long shot), could it have been a pre-1921 smart Alec removing devices from a genuine coin to generate an undocumented variety?

I only offer the argument because it looks so good, and appears hammered!

Making new 'original' fake dies is one thing, but making fake dies that replicate known issues and positioning of devices is an altogether different animal!

would certainly love to know more!

[kal 22]

In this case I believe this "half crown" is an outright forgery.  The denomination is unknown and should have raised suspicions both in the collector and more so the auction house.  The reverse, I agree is especially deceiving, the work of a talented counterfeiter - possibly Emery? 

That two other false pieces are illustrated in this collection, both "Inchiquin crowns" exposed by Aquilla Smith in 1860, raises the possibility that Gaskell may have been targeted.  Surprisingly, similar examples (Inchiquin crown) turned up in the Lingford Crown Sale, Lots 224 and 225, as late as 1950.  

[Coinery 1,260]

You certainly know your stuff, Kal, many thanks for the info., really interesting! 

It's a very convincing piece on the surface of it, I'm surprised the counterfeiter went to such lengths to produce the die-crack, only to spoil it all by leaving out significant detail like those you mentioned? The dies even had pitting.

An interesting coin regardless...I wouldn't say no!

[kal 22]

Yes, it is puzzling, producing a set of dies seems hardly worth the effort.  What is also remarkable about this collection is that Gaskell was able to obtain two extremely rare Scarborough pieces.  The two shillings example, ex Pembroke, Martin, Hastings, Brice and Montagu, is a very light and thin specimen at only 70 grains.  The castle and denomination punchs looks right and the piece is presently  in the Museum of Victoria, AUS.  The other, a sixpence, one of only five documented, was illustrated by both Snelling and Folkes and is now in the BM.  It appears to have a cut made by shears, top right.  

[kal 22]

This reverse drawing, an early copy taken from the BM example of the two-line type may have been used as a template by the forger for his concoction.

There are many similarities, example, rim beading and edge flaws, etc., but it also accentuates his mistakes, for example, spacing and form of the date numerals.

[Coinery 1,260]

Not sure I feel convinced on that one? If he used the drawings he would also have included the dot below the S and the pellet within the O I think? How/why would he have included or even known about the accurate die crack, unless he had access to an actual coin itself...then the image would've been superfluous to the counterfeiter's deceit, wouldn't it?

[Rob 3,242]

I think that anyone copying a coin in this period would have required that coin in hand. The drawings were inevitably made completely round (as above) and to a large extent idealistic. Although less obvious in the case of legend only coins, any portraiture in the drawings tends to be fairly unrealistic, though the positional limits of detail seem to be quite faithfully reproduced.

[kal 22]

  I agree the forger may have had access to a genuine example,possibly in the BM.The illustration I used for comparison is an engraving "reproduced

in facsimile by the electrotype process" from a paper on Carlisle siege pieces in the B M and should be accurate although it does not show the die crack.

Carlisle pieces  were not cut directly from domestic plate, and usually produced round or nearly so, from melted down refined silver.

The Magnus example is a more clear example. 

[colonialjohn 3]

Kal - I should  have you as an editor to review my English CCCs for my upcoming book "Forgotten Coins". It looks modern to me or something made later outside the regal mint. Its TOO PERFECT? However, I have never seen this form of a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit. Debased silver with copper - does not appear to be silvered ... INTERESTING.

 

John Lorenzo

Numismatist

United States