For instance, Scott relates that, "Counterfeiting was chiefly carried on in Samuel Casey's garret or in that
of 'Dr. Samuel Watson,' a blacksmith who lived on Tower Hill. These men had great screws, with which
they turned out false moidores, half joes and dollars, using metal previously mixed with base in varying
proportions.�7 He goes on to explain in another portion of the book, “that a press was found in
Casey’s house and stamps and coining instruments were found on his property." He also illustrates a
well made eight reale pillar die from Caseys operation that has managed to survive. Another indication that
colonists had the ability to strike counterfeit Spanish milled dollars comes from the testimony of Prince
Byrant who testified against one William Love. Byrant claims, “Love told him that in an underground
cellar to the North east of his house he had a large screw with which he could impress 400-500 dollars a
day."8
To date, there seems to be minimal collector interest in the series of Counterfeited Spanish Milled dollars.
The collection of these pieces lags far behind that of Counterfeit British Halfpence, or, for that matter,
behind the collecting of Counterfeit 2 reales and pistareens. One of the reasons for this is the lack of
information and material on the subject. For example, the Riddel work cited above was published 1845!
Modern replicas and fabrications also hinder the collection of these contemporary pieces. Due to the lore
and mystic of the famous "piece of eight", many well made reproductions have been produced over the
years, making it hard at times to distinguish between the replica and the circulating counterfeit. Finally,
scarcity may prohibit the collection of these pieces to a certain degree. Many of the counterfeit pieces
were probably destroyed when discovered. Further some counterfeits contained adequate amounts of
silver which were, in all likelyhood, melted down once the piece was exposed as a forgery. XRF testing on
one piece in the my collection shows the composition as 52 % silver and 38% copper, and 10% other
elements.9 It would seem worth the effort to melt it down if it could no longer pass as authentic.
The following is a listing of all references that I have found concerning counterfeit 8 reales which give a
date and description of the piece:
1741: “One sort might be known because the A in HISPAN was much too small for the rest of the
letters; in the other sort the space where the date was placed was much broader than in the true coins; also
the left side of the crown on the left hand pillar was directly under the A in Vtraque, but in the true dollars
the same left side of the crown fell between the R and the A; all of these dollars were well milled at the
edges but in general the letters were not so well made and regular as in genuine pieces. The counterfeits
were of base metal and contained but two shilling eight pence worth of silver and the rest copper; if a bit of
the surface which was silvered over, were scraped away and the place sullied by rubbing on the short hair
of a man’s head, then the brassy complexion would appear. The counterfeits if placed on the end of a
finger and struck with a small key all yielded a shriller sound than the true ones.10
1744:“In the counterfeits dated 1744 the R and A in VTRAQUE stood too far apart, so as to make
VTRAQUE look like two distinct words. Again from Scotts Pennsylvania book. Comments for the 1741
coins apply here also.
1747: The metal is rather duller than the generality of the true ones, and often one side or t'other is a little
scratch'd as if touch'd with a file, the size a small matter broader and thicker, and does not ring so well as
the true ones. The Impression is nearer to the edge of the metal on one side than the other, and the
indenting on the edges less distinct and neat than the true ones, but the most remarkable distinction is on
the edge right over the point (.) after Fernd. on the arms side; and over the rose, after unum, on the pillar
side, where there is in some of them an inequality, in others a flaw, as if in that place the metal had been
poured into the mould."12 The paper also points to counterfeit dollars of 1756,1757, 1758, 1759, and
1760 with the admonishment, the coins are "so well finished as hardly to be distinguished from good ones
by close inspection."
1754: It is reported that a Spanish dollar of 1754 bears the name of Phillip rather than the proper
monarch, Ferdinand.13 The March 11,1755 Pennsylvania Gazette describes these as such, "They are
exceedingly well done, were dated 1754, but could easily be discovered because they had Phillip instead
of Ferdinand on them; when rubbed a little, the base metal would appear.14
1761: See 1763. One of the coins in the possesion of Jubeart bore this date.
1763: "They are struck with a Die, the edges milled, and appear of a dirty white color, tinged with yellow.
They are very little lighter than the true ones, the impression is not so high or broad, the two globes
between the pillars appear sunk, and the Edge of an unequal Thickness, the milling of which in one place is
not joined: They ring well, and are supposed to be a compound of copper and tin, lightly silvered over,
which may be easily scrapped off." One John Jubeart was apprehended with 9 such coins; he was
subsequently executed.15
1766: "Crown side. The O in Carolus, badly done. The L in the true ones, exactly over the Rose; in the
counterfeit, between the L and the V. The I and P in hispan. too broad; the Rose under the E of ET in the
false; in the true under the T; in the true there is a vacancy between ET IND much wider than the false; the
8 and the two roses at each end, much larger than the true; the Space between IND. and REX too small,
the Dot very much, and all the Roses; likewise the Crown too large. Pillar Side. In the false, the A in
vtraque too far from the Top of Pillar; in the true, it nearly touches. False, the two M, the O at Top too
thin, and in a Line with PLUS on the pillar; the Globes badly done; they are something larger than the true,
about 8 grains lighter dated 1766; they sound well and are made of blanched or whited copper."16
1770: "False milled dollars, dated 1770, and made of base metal were in circulation. They were supposed
to be cast and apparently rather well done. When compared with genuine ones, the counterfeits looked
darker, felt smoother, and were nearly five pennyweight too light.17
1777: The public is requested to beware of Counterfeits, of Spanish Milled dollars, emitted in 1777. They
are badly executed and some marks by which they may be distinguished from the genuine are as follows.
A material difference is the sound, the counterfeits falling light and ringing like glass-the word Plus Ultra on
the pillars, appear to have been cut with a tool in a very bungling manner-the mark of the mould, like a
small notch in the edge, is very perceptible - held up to the light with a good dollar, the bad may
immediately be distinguihed by its leaden hue - on examination by rubbing or scraping the counterfeits
betray a copper complexion very thinly washed with quicksilver.18
of 'Dr. Samuel Watson,' a blacksmith who lived on Tower Hill. These men had great screws, with which
they turned out false moidores, half joes and dollars, using metal previously mixed with base in varying
proportions.�7 He goes on to explain in another portion of the book, “that a press was found in
Casey’s house and stamps and coining instruments were found on his property." He also illustrates a
well made eight reale pillar die from Caseys operation that has managed to survive. Another indication that
colonists had the ability to strike counterfeit Spanish milled dollars comes from the testimony of Prince
Byrant who testified against one William Love. Byrant claims, “Love told him that in an underground
cellar to the North east of his house he had a large screw with which he could impress 400-500 dollars a
day."8
To date, there seems to be minimal collector interest in the series of Counterfeited Spanish Milled dollars.
The collection of these pieces lags far behind that of Counterfeit British Halfpence, or, for that matter,
behind the collecting of Counterfeit 2 reales and pistareens. One of the reasons for this is the lack of
information and material on the subject. For example, the Riddel work cited above was published 1845!
Modern replicas and fabrications also hinder the collection of these contemporary pieces. Due to the lore
and mystic of the famous "piece of eight", many well made reproductions have been produced over the
years, making it hard at times to distinguish between the replica and the circulating counterfeit. Finally,
scarcity may prohibit the collection of these pieces to a certain degree. Many of the counterfeit pieces
were probably destroyed when discovered. Further some counterfeits contained adequate amounts of
silver which were, in all likelyhood, melted down once the piece was exposed as a forgery. XRF testing on
one piece in the my collection shows the composition as 52 % silver and 38% copper, and 10% other
elements.9 It would seem worth the effort to melt it down if it could no longer pass as authentic.
The following is a listing of all references that I have found concerning counterfeit 8 reales which give a
date and description of the piece:
1741: “One sort might be known because the A in HISPAN was much too small for the rest of the
letters; in the other sort the space where the date was placed was much broader than in the true coins; also
the left side of the crown on the left hand pillar was directly under the A in Vtraque, but in the true dollars
the same left side of the crown fell between the R and the A; all of these dollars were well milled at the
edges but in general the letters were not so well made and regular as in genuine pieces. The counterfeits
were of base metal and contained but two shilling eight pence worth of silver and the rest copper; if a bit of
the surface which was silvered over, were scraped away and the place sullied by rubbing on the short hair
of a man’s head, then the brassy complexion would appear. The counterfeits if placed on the end of a
finger and struck with a small key all yielded a shriller sound than the true ones.10
1744:“In the counterfeits dated 1744 the R and A in VTRAQUE stood too far apart, so as to make
VTRAQUE look like two distinct words. Again from Scotts Pennsylvania book. Comments for the 1741
coins apply here also.
1747: The metal is rather duller than the generality of the true ones, and often one side or t'other is a little
scratch'd as if touch'd with a file, the size a small matter broader and thicker, and does not ring so well as
the true ones. The Impression is nearer to the edge of the metal on one side than the other, and the
indenting on the edges less distinct and neat than the true ones, but the most remarkable distinction is on
the edge right over the point (.) after Fernd. on the arms side; and over the rose, after unum, on the pillar
side, where there is in some of them an inequality, in others a flaw, as if in that place the metal had been
poured into the mould."12 The paper also points to counterfeit dollars of 1756,1757, 1758, 1759, and
1760 with the admonishment, the coins are "so well finished as hardly to be distinguished from good ones
by close inspection."
1754: It is reported that a Spanish dollar of 1754 bears the name of Phillip rather than the proper
monarch, Ferdinand.13 The March 11,1755 Pennsylvania Gazette describes these as such, "They are
exceedingly well done, were dated 1754, but could easily be discovered because they had Phillip instead
of Ferdinand on them; when rubbed a little, the base metal would appear.14
1761: See 1763. One of the coins in the possesion of Jubeart bore this date.
1763: "They are struck with a Die, the edges milled, and appear of a dirty white color, tinged with yellow.
They are very little lighter than the true ones, the impression is not so high or broad, the two globes
between the pillars appear sunk, and the Edge of an unequal Thickness, the milling of which in one place is
not joined: They ring well, and are supposed to be a compound of copper and tin, lightly silvered over,
which may be easily scrapped off." One John Jubeart was apprehended with 9 such coins; he was
subsequently executed.15
1766: "Crown side. The O in Carolus, badly done. The L in the true ones, exactly over the Rose; in the
counterfeit, between the L and the V. The I and P in hispan. too broad; the Rose under the E of ET in the
false; in the true under the T; in the true there is a vacancy between ET IND much wider than the false; the
8 and the two roses at each end, much larger than the true; the Space between IND. and REX too small,
the Dot very much, and all the Roses; likewise the Crown too large. Pillar Side. In the false, the A in
vtraque too far from the Top of Pillar; in the true, it nearly touches. False, the two M, the O at Top too
thin, and in a Line with PLUS on the pillar; the Globes badly done; they are something larger than the true,
about 8 grains lighter dated 1766; they sound well and are made of blanched or whited copper."16
1770: "False milled dollars, dated 1770, and made of base metal were in circulation. They were supposed
to be cast and apparently rather well done. When compared with genuine ones, the counterfeits looked
darker, felt smoother, and were nearly five pennyweight too light.17
1777: The public is requested to beware of Counterfeits, of Spanish Milled dollars, emitted in 1777. They
are badly executed and some marks by which they may be distinguished from the genuine are as follows.
A material difference is the sound, the counterfeits falling light and ringing like glass-the word Plus Ultra on
the pillars, appear to have been cut with a tool in a very bungling manner-the mark of the mould, like a
small notch in the edge, is very perceptible - held up to the light with a good dollar, the bad may
immediately be distinguihed by its leaden hue - on examination by rubbing or scraping the counterfeits
betray a copper complexion very thinly washed with quicksilver.18
| Counterfeit Spanish Milled Dollars |
Page
2
2
by Marc Mayhugh
