[Colonial Numismatics] Questionable 1776 Machins Mills? Pubblico Deposited
Re
- From rg5turc@aol.com Sun Sep 02 19:17:34 2001
Return-Path: <rg5turc@aol.com>
X-Sender: rg5turc@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 3 Sep 2001 02:17:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 88350 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2001 02:17:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Sep 2001 02:17:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n13.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.91)
by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Sep 2001 02:17:33 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: rg5turc@aol.com
Received: from [10.1.10.126] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Sep 2001 02:17:33 -0000
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 02:17:33 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Questionable 1776 Machins Mills?
Message-ID: <9mup7t+k5k1@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <16a.37c7c5.28c440af@aol.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 448
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 24.218.212.34
From: "Raymond Turcotte" <rg5turc@aol.com>
Thanks Ed, I was just reviewing the COAC issue Confederation Period and on page 33 it illustrates the transition of 1775 to 1776 contemporary counterfeit's.
Ray
--- In colonial-coins@y..., ershye@a... wrote:
> Hi Ray. Not only is that not a Machins Mills piece but it is a 1775
> counterfeit as well. The five in the date is slanted in this variety so if it
> is not completely full and bold it gives the impression of being a six.
>
> Ed - 2001-09-02
- 1
