NN Topics Reflected in Reader’s Collection
It is truly ironic the number of times an article has come out in Numismatic News or [sister publication] Coins that talks about a certain coin which I recently acquired. The April 26 issue of NN really hit that point. On Page 26 is a picture of a 1947 Mexican 5 pesos featuring Chief Cuauhtémoc. A friend and fellow collector gave me one of these the day before I received my April 26 issue. It is not a genuine piece, rather a copy or token of some kind. It must contain iron or steel, as it is attracted to a magnet and also is much lighter than its silver counterpart. He also gave me a [replica of] a 1910 1 peso which is just slightly larger than the 5 peso but made of similar material as it is also attracted to a magnet.
I also wanted to add a comment to Mr Benvenuto’s article about Connecticut coppers. I acquired a few of these several years ago and have bought a few more since then. There is an excellent reference book by none other than Q. David Bowers entitled Whitman Encyclopedia of Colonial and Early American Coins. It covers all pre-Federal coinage, starting with the New England coinage of 652 and has illustrated examples and descriptions of all the known varieties of copper, silver, and even gold coins. It also contains a rarity scale and page after page of information and history. I received my book as a Christmas gift from my daughter and found it an excellent resource for identification.
Correction to Julian Feature on Early U.S. Cents
I’d like to make a small correction to R.W. Julian’s otherwise excellent article, “The Cents of 1835-1857” [in the May 10 issue]. Mr. Julian errs when he says, “Proofs are known of every date large cent from 1835 to 1857.”
There are no proofs known of 1839 (which he does say may be the case). There are also no proofs known of 1851 and 1853. In addition, only three proof examples of 1852 are known, all of the “N24” variety unknown to Newcomb, making it by far the rarest of the 1840-1857 dates in proof.
Editor’s Note: We reached out to R.W. Julian for comment. Following is his response:
“I appreciate the correction by Mr. Loring, who is a recognized expert on the early copper coinage. In the late 1980s Walter Breen told me that he had found the 1851 and 1853 cent proofs, but apparently he had not.”