Mott token Pubblico Deposited
[Colonial Numismatics] Re
Re
- From PLMossman@aol.com Thu May 09 17:43:12 2002
Return-Path: <PLMossman@aol.com>
X-Sender: PLMossman@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 10 May 2002 00:43:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 12102 invoked from network); 10 May 2002 00:43:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2002 00:43:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2002 00:43:11 -0000
Received: from PLMossman@aol.com
by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.f8.1b32c5a4 (3890)
for <colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 9 May 2002 20:43:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <f8.1b32c5a4.2a0c719b@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:43:07 EDT
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: Mott token
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f8.1b32c5a4.2a0c719b_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10572
From: PLMossman@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=11479862
X-Yahoo-Profile: pmandr04401
--part1_f8.1b32c5a4.2a0c719b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/9/2002 6:48:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
apietri@ix.netcom.com writes:
John:
This following point just made by Angel - and excerpted from his message to
you - is a very important one in my opinion and is ignored by those who
advocate a later date for the token.
The workmanship on the die does not in my opinion compare to the later New
> tokens of ~ 1830's which show a superior quality. Though conjecture, I
> feel a succesful and long standing business of silversmiths and watchmakers
> would not have gone for such a token in the 1830's when superior
> craftmanship was easily available.
>
--part1_f8.1b32c5a4.2a0c719b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">In a message dated 5/9/2002 6:48:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, apietri@ix.netcom.com writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">John:
<BR>This following point just made by Angel - and excerpted from his message to you - is a very important one in my opinion and is ignored by those who advocate a later date for the token.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR><B>The workmanship on the die does not in my opinion compare to the later New York <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">tokens of ~ 1830's which show a superior quality. Though conjecture, I feel a succesful and long standing business of silversmiths and watchmakers would not have gone for such a token in the 1830's when superior craftmanship was easily available.
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>
--part1_f8.1b32c5a4.2a0c719b_boundary-- - 2002-05-09
- 1
