Is this long cross penny a replica?

[Juan T]

Hello everyone, I suppose I'd describe myself as an intermediate collector who buys from a variety of sources, one of them is eBay. I know that's a good chance I could be had by a fake but I've generally been lucky. This time though, I fear my luck ran out...

I bought what looked like an XF+ Class 5b Henry III silver penny for what seemed like a good price but after I received it I noticed it looked very odd compared to my other long cross pennies: despite having very little wear there is no visible luster, the coin is very thick for a long cross penny and oddly round, just as worrying is that it weighs under 1.3 grams despite having no sign of clipping or any metal loss that could explain the low weight. It also sounds abnormally dull compared to the soft ringing you might hear when handling a silver penny with (gloved) hands.

If it helps with making a call, I placed it under a stereoscope and found what looks like filed casting seams and a very oddly square and thick edge. The vendor insists his coin is genuine and says he's an expert who guarantees that.

I'm sure everyone here is better versed than me so I would really appreciate it if the members here can weigh in on if this coin seems to be a replica or if I'm just overly paranoid.

[Callimachus]

I see nothing that immediately jumps out at me to indicate the coin is a counterfeit, but I would certainly question the "XF+" in the description.

The "square and thick edge" could be due to clipping.

Who is the moneyer? What mint?

Below is a link to a a class 5b Henry III penny in my gallery:
   
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-95400

[Juan T]

The mint is Canterbury, I don’t know who the moneyer is. Thank you for bringing up clipping, I have no experience with clipped coins but if you think this looks like one that could explain a lot.

Is it possible for the clipping to have reduced the weight to sub 1.3g and have affected the coins ring so it sounds dull? Also is it possible for the clipping to have been done well enough to leave the coin round like this one is?

Also what could explain the lack of luster? I have other long crosses and even fairly worn ones have luster in between letters and other protected spaces.

Thanks again for your help.

[PeterD]

The long cross penny was intended to discourage clipping, but a more subtle method of clipping would have been to file evenly all round the edge. That would explain the squared off appearance of your coin. The weight is only slightly less than my 1.4g example https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia/coins/e2/e0910.htm

Forget the so-called ring test. It is meaningless. 'Luster' is a term generally used for modern coins. I don't see any problem with the look of your coin.

[Juan T]

.12 grams bellow the lower limit still amounts to a lot, but if it were filed I guess that would make sense. Does the rest of the surface look genuine? It would be great if people who’ve run into clipped medieval coins could let me know if this coin is consistent with one.

Regarding luster, every other source, including Calgary says otherwise: luster is a pretty key mark of hammer struck coins and some luster might be expected from coins in nice condition. All the better conserved bc era coins I’ve handled had strike luster, even my worn long cross pennies have it, so I feel it’s not totally unreasonable to wonder why this one is the odd man out.

I totally understand cleaning, mechanical and chemical can destroy it, and that would be okay (nobody expects a mint coin) but combined with other problems like an exceedingly low weight and odd edges it added up.

[curtislclay]

The weight on you balance apparently includes the coin's cardboard mount and staples?

[Juan T]

I zero out the machine with the empty slab, then add the coin to measure the coins weight alone. I’m a medical researcher (not a very competent one) by day and this method (zeroing container, adding sample) never killed me or the people smarter than me so I figure it’s kosher.

[curtislclay]

No doubt it's kosher; but it's going to confuse us viewers unless you explain your procedure.

[Callimachus]

Quote: "Regarding luster, every other source, including Calgary says otherwise: luster is a pretty key mark of hammer struck coins and some luster might be expected from coins in nice condition."

Could you please give the source of where you got this information?

I found a page on the Calgary Coin website on struck counterfeit coins ( http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/fakes/struck.htm ) which states " Hammer striking methods used by the ancient mints had no problem producing lustrous coins . . ."  But this is in the context of ancient coins -- the example shown is a denaius of Lucius Verus -- and not medieval British coins.  I have many hammered pennies and groats in my gallery, and very few of them have any luster.

[Juan T]

@curtislclay
I’m probably doing a bad job at explaining myself overall, sorry. And thank you to you and everyone else for your help.
@Callimachus
I don’t remember what book or article of one I read it on, I’m away from campus now so I don’t want to go through the hassle of getting into every paywalled article On google scholar. But the stuff about luster in pre modern coins being an encouraging sign and no luster being possibly bad keeps showing up in credible websites. https://coinsweekly.com/how-to-detect-forgeries-3/

As for pennies: this really beat up long cross still has some traces of it in the recesses protected by the cross and a deep area between letters. I don’t know how to post gifs on this site but the frosted light still dances in those recessed areas. 

Also I’m probably going off topic. You and everyone else are more knowledgeable than me, and you’ve all said that the coin is probably authentic, correct?

[Callimachus]

Quote: ". . . you’ve all said that the coin is probably authentic, correct?"

Correct.

[Juan T]

Thank you very much. That’s enough to convince me my paranoia was unjustified and I jumped the gun.