The weight discrepancy could be consistent with this, and the look of the coin in your photos looks more like a copper based coin (but sometimes that can just be the lighting conditions)
If you have some way to check silver content (a coin store or jeweler with XRF?), that could be a good next step.
Authentic km240 (in my opinion). Value i can't be sure, I would put it at auction with a reserve of say a top condition common date of similar type and period.
1672 is an extremely rare date, only 5 pieces known with three different mintmarks. Your coin looks like a crown type G2 with CC mintmark, but with only 2 known pieces how big is the chance yours is authentic?
It's a pity tdziemia found pictures of the other two types of 1672 coins but just not from the one you are supposed to have. Otherwise we would have something to make a proper comparison. For instance, the 6 in the date on your coin is different but maybe that's how it is with that third type.
Since you have access to a catalog, what is this mintmark called on the 2 mark coin? To me it does not look like CC or DF or D-F, which would then mean the coin is most likely a counterfeit.
Also, in my opinion, the rarity cited in the catalog for the 1671 1 mark coin is not likely to be correct. If we can find 2 examples auctioned in 10 years, it is unlikely that only 5 exist.
Thanks to all that have responded. I am pretty sure that it is the real coin. I have several other dates and they look the same in color, size and weight. I find that some of these early silver coins can vary in weight quite a bit. I have sent photos for the website. The collection that I am currently evaluating has some very rare coins in it. Sometimes I cannot tell if the coin has damage or was just minted that way. Thanks again, Bob
Статус изменён на Решено(bobroth1951, 12 Дек 2023, 10:51)
Since you have access to a catalog, what is this mintmark called on the 2 mark coin? To me it does not look like CC or DF or D-F, which would then mean the coin is most likely a counterfeit.
I also find it very strange they call the mintmark CC while it looks like an entangled T and S, but when you look at the pictures of the 2 mark coin you can clearly see that entangled T and S is called CC mintmark (look at the red marked lines SMB 189 and 192).
On the same page you can see the different crown types with in red the crown types for the 1 mark 1672:
About the authenticity, when I compare the different CC mintmarks, the one on the OP's coin seems a bit off:
Also, in my opinion, the rarity cited in the catalog for the 1671 1 mark coin is not likely to be correct. If we can find 2 examples auctioned in 10 years, it is unlikely that only 5 exist.
I have to agree on that. For a coin with only 5 pieces known, finding 2 in auctions seems a lot.
I have send a message to the author of the catalog and asked a few questions:
- Why is the mintmark called CC when it looks like an entangled T and S?
- Does that number under EX mean something else than the number of known pieces? Because we found 2 pieces sold on auctions, which seems a lot for only 5 known pieces in total?
- I've also asked what he thinks about the authenticity. I'm far from an expert but I assume he is.
I don't think that it is a fake, but it might be, you guys are certainly more expert then I am. My friend is sending it to PCGS or NGC for verification.
