IX. False Counterstamps.

1. F. D. Kohler 1849.
   A counterstamp reading “F. D. Kohler & Co. 1849” is known on a Peruvian eight escudo gold coin (Bowers & Ruddy (Clifford) 3/1982:57; Kagin 1981, 381). Counterstamping this eight escudo would have been an irrational act in San Francisco in 1849. Eight escudos were accepted as a legal tender coin at the U.S. Customs House with no further ado. Adding a counterstamp would have called its legal tender status into question at a time when legal tender coins of any sort were very scarce.

   It has been argued that the counterstamp is genuine, but it was applied to the eight escudo later than 1849. But if this is Kohler's counterstamp as a goldsmith, it resembles no other goldsmith or silversmith's mark in that it bears a date. The counterstamp must be a forgery. It bears a date in order to help sell the counterstamp as an artifact of the “Wild West.” Gregory Brunk, too, has condemned this counterstamp (Brunk 2003, 206).

   This counterstamp may be related to a Broderick & Kohler gold spoon that was “discovered” by Paul Franklin (Van Winkle 1990, Part II, 48). That gold spoon was exhibited by John Ford at the New York Numismatic Club on June 8, 1956 (Numismatist 1956, 908).

2. Republic of Texas, 1839.
   This counterstamp is a coin die that says REPUBLIC OF TEXAS/(star surrounded by wreath)/1839; on the reverse it reads HOUSTON TREAS. DEPT/(Liberty cap)/16 D. 8 3 21 C (Brunk 1987, 147). It emerged in the early 1960s. Brunk says that some think it a recent fantasy. This is correct. The Lone Star Republic had little gold of any kind, let alone enough to undertake a counterstamping operation (Kleeberg 1999, 69-70). Texas issued paper, not gold; and the more paper it issued, the less gold circulated (Gresham's law).
   
3. Union Mine.
   These are counterstamps on U.S. copper, silver and gold coins that say UNION MINE. The forger got too greedy, and used the same letter punches to make this counterstamp, the Republic of Texas counterstamp, and other counterstamps. Gregorgy Brunk unequivocally has condemned this piece as a forgery (Brunk 2003, 294).