Coin of the future from the dark side.

[Chris Perkins 228]

I thought I'd share with you, this very recent addition to my collection of fakes.

At first glance it could be a very worn Charles II Crown, but it isn't. This coin features Charles II on the obverse, but has the date 1696 on the reverse (Charles II was dead by then!). At first I thought that the forgers had simply mixed up a Charles II obverse with a William III reverse, but no, because there are interlinked C's in the corners of the reverse, indicating that it must be a Charles II reverse.

What would appear to have happened is that the forger has cut the date wrong. It was supposed to be 1669 (Charles II) but they got confused with the negative of '69' and it ended up as 1696.....Which means, rather facinatingly, that this coin would have probably circulated in 1669, even though dated 27 years in the future!

Isn't it lucky from a numismatic point of view that Charles II didn't live another 27 years, or it would be a perfectly normal forgery!

[Sylvester 15]

Actually Chris there is a genuine example of this (i think it's half crowns) where some William III coins were accidentally dated 1669.

So the authorities cocked it up too, not just the forgers!

[mint_mark 9]

Actually Chris there is a genuine example of this (i think it's half crowns) where some William III coins were accidentally dated 1669.

So the authorities cocked it up too, not just the forgers!

Is that the design with the individual digits arranged around the centre? I always find that hard to read!

[Sylvester 15]

Actually Chris there is a genuine example of this (i think it's half crowns) where some William III coins were accidentally dated 1669.

So the authorities cocked it up too, not just the forgers!

Is that the design with the individual digits arranged around the centre? I always find that hard to read!

No that's William and Mary with the date in the middle.

[Geordie582 18]

What makes you so sure it is a forgery, Chris? The mints of that era weren't exactly always correct!?

It also looks like the legend says " CAROLUS 1I"?

Edited May 12, 2005 by Geordie582

[Sylvester 15]

It certainly doesn't look genuine to me. The face is just not right.

[krasnaya_vityaz 0]

One of the interesting phenomenons of the recent Chinese forgeries of so many coins is the erroneously out of range dates, for instance dating a British Trade Dollar 1967 etc. Kind of curious how they can get the legends correct etc, but then foul up on the date.

I wonder if this coin was artificially worn to give it the "used appearance" or if it actually circulated for awhile?

[krasnaya_vityaz 0]

One of the more cocked up dates I have heard of was a Scottish ryal from 1567 which on the coin was dated 15567. Now that was a forward thinking Scotsman.