Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of the Trseasure Beaches Report.
![]() |
Random example of 1783 Nova Constellatio Copper. Crosby 2-B, W-1865. Rarity-2. CONSTELLATIO, Pointed Rays, Small U.S. VF-30 (PCGS). |
Yesterday I posted the beginning of a story about a find by Mark G., who was investigating an old coin found in a chicken coop many years ago. He found the coin in an old box and pulled it out to learn more about it. Yesterday I posted what Copilot told him about the coin. Copilot's response led him to believe the coin, marked 1783, was a Nova Constellatio "Quint" - a very rare and valuable coin. I suggested that Mark post the coin in CoinCommunity, which has numerous forums used by coin collectors, numismatists as well as well as anybody wanting information on coins. Unfortunately, they very little on Spanish colonial cornage.
I posted the beginning of Mark's story yesterday and promised to post more in the future. Yesterday I also posted information about the Nova Consteallatio coins and the history of the first U.S. coinage. My plan was to wait for things to develop before posting more on that story. I watched the discussion on the coin forum as various members added their thoughts about Mark's coin. I thought it might take a while before reaching a conclusion. I also thought I might receive some comments from this blog's readers about the coin, however already early this morning (before many of this blog's readers even read yesterday's post) I received an email from Mark summarizing what he has learned. Below is what Mark said.
After presenting it to the coin community forum the general consensus is that it is a Copper Crosby 2-B which was in circulation with many varieties. Looks like I can’t retire on it they’re on eBay for about $100.
So Mark's coin isn't one of the extremely rare and valuable pattern pieces, but it is still very nice find, being tied to the earliest efforts to establish a unified American coinage system.1783 US 500 Unit Quint Silver - Coin Community Forum
I'm sure that many of you have old finds sitting around in an old box somewhere begging to be reexamined and researched. I know I do. Maybe this story will get you moving.
I've made finds that sat around a long time, sometimes decades, before I finally figured out what they really were. And sometimes it takes living with an item for a number of years before you learn that an item is more interesting or valuable than you originally thought. I have items that remained mystery items for decades before I finally learned what they really are. I've posted a few examples of those in the past.
This story provides another example of a detectorists using AI. Like I've said, AI is not always right, but it still often helps and usually gives you a starting place because not only does it give you some ideas, but it also provides sources. Sometimes after you correct Copilot, it will come up with better information. AI is a tool, and like a metal detector, you get better results when you use it more skillfully. And like you would expect, there is a learning curve.
You might have noticed that Google search is now integrating AI into its regular search modes. Google is transforming its search bar into a full-fledged AI-powered assistant. Instead of just searching by using keywords, AI Mode breaks your question into subtopics and runs hundreds of parallel searches. There is more, but I just wanted to alert you to the new search capabilities.
While on this topic, which I won't stay on very long, I have to mention that I have real reservations about AI that go far beyond it giving wrong answers too often. There are other issues. Some leading technologists and thinkers, including Elon Musk, think it could provide an existential threat. Here are a couple links on that.
Artificial intelligence could lead to extinction, experts warn
I'm not too disturbed by an occasional wrong answer, as long as you are alert to the possibility. Even wrong answers can have a silver lining if you consider the idea, look for any truth in it, and then prove it wrong. You'll be better off for it. Don't just accept something because a fact checker, AI assistant, or metal detector user's manual says so. Prove it for yourself.
In the past I've characterized my approach to metal detecting as being empirical or scientific. I put a lot of emphasis on observation, whether it is observing the surf, beaches or how a metal detector works in the field. I prefer to experiment and prove things for myself.
Some people attempt to determine the metal a find is made of by referring to the metal detector's conductivity numbers. I don't do that. I've shown some of my own experiments using my Equinox metal detector and the conductivity numbers produced by a variety of targets. I've found that different gold items can produce a very wide variety of conductivity numbers. I've shown gold items that produce exactly the same conductivity numbers as silver and copper items. I was going to do a whole thing on that but since this is getting long, I'll just post a couple links to experiments like that. Here they are.
![]() |
Source:nhc.noaa.gov. |
![]() |
Source: Surfguru.com. |