N#15061 counterstamped N-YORK

Years ago, I showed this to several dealers without receiving an explanation.

The stamp is professionally made and would have been costly, perhaps suggesting it wasn't whimsical. 

A merchant house keeping track of monies coming in? If so, there should be more out there, and different cities as well.

I appreciate any enlightenment.

The N-YORK countermark is attested at least four times in Brunk's big book on countermarks, but always with a name, for example:

J & T ELLIN

N-YORK

J. MERRITT

N-YORK

Why stamp only the city? This is not rare. I have a number of such countermarks myself, such as TORONTO and QUEBEC. I admit it's a little puzzling why one would do that. In some cases, it could be that the coin is just used to test a punch that is meant to mark metallic objects. There could have been a second stamp with the business owner's name, but we will likely never know. 

Altogether, it's impossible to know what the purpose of such a punch was. You are right, however, that this is a good quality punch. It's not a random alignment of single punch letters. It's likely it was ordered from a competent manufacturer by some workman or businessman.

I find it interesting that you have several. Are they similar to this one ie: city only; placement on the coin; letter font; time period? 

I'm still curious as to the reason. Does Brunk offer any insight?

As far as testing a stamp on a coin, I once had a draped bust large cent on which presumably a blacksmith tested his makers' mark. I've made several over the years, and testing before heat treating is essential. I've had a couple of ‘Oh crap’ moments. 

But I would test on maple or beech end grain or scrap copper. To me, defacing a coin is unthinkable, but clearly it was done.

Now that I double-checked my collection, I actually have only two or three with only a city name, but I know of quite a few more. In Brunk, for example, there are two distinct TORONTO countermarks, one in small, the other in large letters, but there's actually a third type hiding under the large letter subset since it's attested with or without a period: TORONTO. vs TORONTO

There are three with just the name PHILADELPHIA or an abbreviation: PHILA and PHILADA.

Examples of countermarks that were probably test strikes are: CAST STEEL; TAX PAID; WARRANTED. It's hard to see the point of such countermarks without any accompanying names. The TAX PAID one is in my collection.

Your countermark looks to me like it is no earlier than the 1830s, but this is just a guess based on looking at hundreds and hundreds of countermarks.

While writing this, I have prepared a page for Brunk's book. I'll provide the link when it's approved…

This is most intriguing indeed. The CAST STEEL stamp was used exclusively for the tool industry. Quite literally hundreds of thousands of tools were stamped thusly, most between 1800-40. Everything from hammers, axes, saws, chisels, etc, to scissors, thread-cutting dies, button hole cutters, etc, etc.

It was used to advertise the fact that they were made from the highest quality steel.

As a material, it didn't exist until the 1780's. By the 1840's, it was assumed that all tools were made of cast steel. 

The WARRANTED stamp was mostly used for tools, but sometimes carried over to other branches. For example, English flint and percussion gun locks meant for export. But pardon my digression here.

You have an excellent eye for letter fonts. In museums, that's often the best method to date an artifact. It's subjective, but after looking at enough examples, one gets a feel for it. Myself, I would have perhaps gone a tad earlier, 1820-40.

I don't believe the N-YORK was a test strike, simply because it was on silver. It would be like lighting a cigar with a 20 dollar bill when a 10 would have worked just as well. (Tongue in cheek here).

Here is the link in the Numista library to the Brunk book mentioned above.

Now yesterday, as I was trying to find a cover image for the page I created for this book, I came upon a draft of a supplement Brunk was working on in preparation for the third edition. Here it is in archive.org, opened at CAST STEEL.

Brunk died a few years back and I doubt we will ever see his third edition which, I understand, was near completion. Around 2018 I was in contact with him via his editor at the Exonumia Press, Rich Harzog, but he died quite suddenly of cancer, a couple of years before Brunk. He was supposed to send me Brunk's new chapter on Trinidad countermarks, but this never happened. It was almost impossibe to reach Brunk in any other manner since he was almost blind and I'm not sure he even had a working email address in his late years.

As for whether the N-YORK countermark was or wasn't a test strike, I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Lots of coins were countermarked in the 19th century that were meant to be put back into circulation. In the present case, however, we have a coin that predates the countermark by about 50 years, if not more. I don't know whether by then a Spanish “2 bits” (if that's what it is, i.e. 2R on the reverse) was still circulating or just a curiosity. This could have some significance in establishing the meaning of the countermark, but no definitive answer can be reached.

I suspect the high points on the reverse, caused by the punch, don't show any evidence of wear caused by circulation, i.e., post countermarking. If so, a test punch seems less likely than a souvenir piece as explained by Brunk.

EDIT — You seem to know quite a lot about metals. I'll look forward to your expertise on the Numista forum.

I realize I should have included this from the beginning. The coin is cupped; concave on obverse; convex on reverse. 

I believe it was struck on wood, or details would be more distorted on the reverse.

From my researches of American metal tradesmen 1780-1840, this coin could still have been in circulation in 1840, or even later. 

Rural smiths still kept account books in pence and shillings into the 1830's and 40's. Dutch, Spanish, and French currencies would still have been accepted. 

That said, my gut would say the countermark was made 1820-30. 

I'm extremely thankful for your input. At this point I think I can safely assume that this countermark can't be attributed to a specific source. It's all very fascinating none the less.

You're welcome.

I noticed the R in N-YORK has a distinctive shape. I just checked Brunk's 2003 book and he happens to have a photo of the J. MERRITT / N-YORK c/m. It's actually two separate punches, but the N-YORK one is clearly not the same as yours. Merritt was in partnership with L. L. Squire and they countermarked coins with three punches, one for each name and N-YORK. This last punch and the J. MERRITT one are the same as used by Merritt when he wasn't partnering with Squire.

Interestingly, I know of a very similar pattern in the use of punches. On a Canadian bank token, one finds 

BOUDREAU. &

CULLEN.

made of two separate punches. The CULLEN. punch was used also with a separate MONTREAL punch on another token which I have in my collection:

CULLEN.

MONTREAL

So, there were punches with place names lying around, and they were certainly a lot more meaningful when accompanied with the name of a person or business.

So your assessment is that this coin was struck as a souvenir piece, with no other relevance. 

Based on what I know, and what I've now learned, I have to agree. Evidence doesn't offer any other conclusion.

History and the preservation thereof has always been one of my passions. 

I think it's indeed something along those lines — a souvenir or a pocket piece of some sort.

But I don't think we'll have any definitive answer ever. I still think a trial piece is possible for a reason I forgot to mention above: the coin is very little circulated for a 50-year old piece. It's possible that it was used as a trial piece precisely because the person who did it didn't consider this coin to be currency — more a curiosity, as I said earlier.

I suspect there was little Spanish-American silver left in circuation by the 1830s–1840s, especially in a major city such as New York. I remember reading somewhere that those old (and odd) Spanish colonial and other foreign currencies kept on circulating mostly in the back country.

It's hard to determine when US currency equaled and surpassed foriegn currency in circulation. I expect there have been mintage/population comparison studies, but I'm not familiar with any.

My information is entirely from primary source material: about 30 account books, 10 day books, several farm ledgers, and probably 500 individual receipts. Most date from 1820-50. 

This coin would have been an oddity because it wasn't US or British. I remember a day book entry: “Cr by $2.00 Bolivia mony”

This was likely two of the newly minted 8 Sol coins which found their way to a small shop 10 miles north of Cooperstown NY in the mid 1830's.

I agree Spanish coins would have been scarce.  But I suspect foreign currency remained in circulation longer in NY City than in rural areas because of the large and growing immigrant population. When shops began to stop accepting them as legal tender, they started to disappear. And some likely became the start of a coin collection.

Very interesting — there's nothing like working with primary sources.

The ANS and ANA have a number of publications on late 18th- and early 19th currency circulation in the USA (as you may well already know). I have seen quite a few papers on this topic in academia.edu (e.g. those of John Kleeberg), and in case you didn't know, many of the ANS books are available online, as well as old issues of their periodicals.

No, I wasn't aware of these. Another realm to investigate. Thanks!

A good example of a book that could be useful, and that you can download for free in PDF, is this one:

Kleeberg — Numismatic Finds of the Americas 

I just submitted a page for the Numista catalogue. The ANS is quite good at allowing open access a few years after the publication date. 

This has been interesting and educational for me, and I suspect others as well, based on the number of views.

It's true I have a lot of experience: 50 years as a pre-industrial blacksmith, whitesmith, locksmith, edged toolmaker, etc.,  plus years of research into all aspects of these crafts.

And yet, I didn't know N-YORK was a countermark, not counterstamp. Your depth of knowledge on this is impressive, and I'm perhaps a little surprised you didn't call me on it. From my perspective, a letter stamp is used directly, or to make either another stamp or a makers' mark. This is then stamped into the finished product. To a die maker, the letter stamp (and any other) is called a punch.

Also on terminology, I would have called a coin as having been either struck or minted. But I've learned the correct terms are hammered and milled. I fully appreciate the need to have terms precise and consistent. I'm still learning the specific terms used in coin die making.

Ah — I see where all this knowledge about metals comes from!

Now, two points:

1. countermark / counterstamp: both are used almost interchangeably. Most numismatists studying ancient coins, and coin dealers specializing in ancients, will say “countermark”; for the later periods “counterstamp” is more commonly used. The definition of these terms also varies depending on whether you consider the official vs. private status of the countermark/stamp; also whether the punching is meant to cover part or the whole of the coin. In my writings I prefer countermark, even for private marks like yours.
2. struck / minted: yes — modern coins are struck or minted; hammering was the ancient process before the coin press was invented. I thought there was a document somewhere in Numista about this but I can't find it.

I'll send you a couple of links by DM which you're of course free to consult or ignore…