Professional Coin Grading Service (www.PCGS.com) is officially redefining a series of early American Colonial coins widely categorized by their state names and copper composition with numismatically correct references to their original denominations. The move recategorizes confederation-period New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut coins as well as other pieces, such as Immune Columbia and Nova Constellatios, colloquially dubbed by their correct denominations.

explained PCGS President Stephanie Sabin.

Researchers acknowledge it is clearly evident in state assembly documents of the period from New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut that the confederation-era copper coinage was designed as weight- and standard-based equivalents to the British halfpenny coinage, then nicknamed However, was [not an] official denomination of any coin used during the colonial period or federal eras.

Sabin cited that, in a similar vein, the current widespread use of the slang term to refer to the United States one-cent coin or for the nation's five-cent coin are also technically incorrect.

A team of PCGS and industry experts has presented their many findings in a detailed article on PCGS.com that explains not just the reasoning behind this nomenclature change but also the myriad historical facts supporting it.

To read the complete article, see:
PCGS Defines Confederation-Era American Copper Coins by Correct Denominations(https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-defines-confederation-era-american-copper-coins-by-correct-denominations-)

Many of the Confederation-period copper coins, including the Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont state coinages, along with private issues such as the Nova Constellatio, Immune Columbia, and piece, are presently referred to as However, that has not always been the case. Historical records show that the term started out as colonial-period jargon for the British half penny and quickly became the common term for any copper coin about the same size and weight, just as is common slang for all federal copper-nickel five-cent pieces today. However, times change and so do the meaning of words. By the 1830s, the millions upon millions of federally struck half cents and cents had overwhelmed the old and the term came to generally mean any copper coin - particularly the federal cents.

By the 1850s, the volume of federal cents in circulation resulted in the Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York often being called cents in numismatic literature. They were roughly the same size as the Massachusetts Cent and Fugio Cent, which were struck during the same time period; so, use of the term, although incorrect, is certainly understandable.

Common names are often used for coins. Current auction catalogs use when referencing the five-cent piece, so it would certainly seem acceptable to call these coins However, the use of or does present some significant issues. Unlike almost no one today understands how the term came about and that it formerly meant halfpence. Ask someone today what the denomination of a Connecticut is, and the result will generally be a blank stare or a vague response like, The history has been forgotten.

The lack of a recognized denomination has also caused a good deal of confusion in referring to these pieces. There is no denomination shown in major reference books, such as A Guide Book of United States Coins (widely known as ).

With that in mind, this article presents evidence that the intended denomination of these was a half penny in the hope that the numismatic community will end this unfortunate confusion and start to reference these coins by their correct denomination.

We urge the numismatic community to restore the correct denomination of half penny, using to distinguish an from the British denomination (). is the proper denomination as the state coinages were struck under authority of the Articles of Confederation, thus making those coins United States issues. Applying the same term to privately struck issues, including those imported from abroad, is also appropriate as the coins were intended to pass in the U.S. as halfpence.

Since these pieces (and other period coinage) are most certainly NOT colonial coins, we further urge the community to consider moving references to these coins under a category such as or the latter term already being used by and other numismatic organizations.

It would be proper for the auction companies to likewise use the proper denomination, but not absolutely necessary as the slang term is typically used for five-cent coins. However, we do feel that if they continue with they should at least explain that the proper denomination is a half penny.

To read the complete article, see:
Confederation-Period Copper Coins: Halfpence, Cents, or Coppers?(https://www.pcgs.com/news/confederation-period-copper-coins)

Recently, an article appeared that asserts that state coppers of the confederation erashould be denominated as halfpence. This is a controversial article and one of the authors hasalready disavowed the work and requested his name be removed, while another of the listedauthors was unaware his name was to be appended to the piece and struggles to defend itsconclusions. A group of colonial numismatic scholars will prepare a formal repudiation of thisconclusion for the June issue of the Journal of Early American Numismatics. The consensus ofthese colonial coin experts, who have studied these coins for decades and written books andarticles on them, is that they are officially and customarily termed and should not bedesignated halfpence.

These coins arose during the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and theadoption of our current federal constitution when some states minted copper coins for the useand convenience of their citizens and merchants as small change. They were issued, not asreplacements for British halfpence, but to give authority and control to the new states inopposition to the British halfpence. To give all these pieces the same arbitrary value ismisleading. A Connecticut copper did not have the same value in commerce as a New Jerseycopper; if it did, New Jersey coppers would not sometimes be found overstruck on Connecticuts.The overstriking of these pieces and others, clearly demonstrates that they had different, andvariable, values in commerce. In 1787, the New Haven Mint, which had federal and statecontracts to mint copper coins, took the federal copper provided by the U.S. Government to mintFugios and used it to strike Connecticut coppers because they traded at a higher value thanFugios per their copper content.

Most state coppers were a commodity that acted like tokens; from one day to the next,they might have a different accepted value in commerce. In large transactions, they were sold inkegs by weight. These coppers did not have a denomination on them, and many of the issues(New Jersey coppers excepted) were not legal tender; and could not be used in the payment oftaxes or legal obligations. Only a fool in 1788 would trade a gold coin for coppers. Thedesignation of for these pieces is proper to show that they are the patchwork of anewly formed America, and they are deserving of a unique designation distinguishing them fromtheir British halfpence counterparts. The article's authors, who did not present their work for ascholarly peer review, have written an article with a solution in search of a problem that createsconfusion among novice collectors and the public.

Christopher R. McDowell,
President, Colonial Coin Collectors Club (C4),
Editor, Journal of Early American Numismatics,
Author, Abel Buell and the Connecticut Mint.