Conteúdo do artigo |
- From bkweston@lazerlink.com Wed May 22 14:24:23 2002
Return-Path: <bkweston@lazerlink.com> X-Sender: bkweston@lazerlink.com X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 22 May 2002 21:24:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 67893 invoked from network); 22 May 2002 21:24:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 May 2002 21:24:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.80) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 May 2002 21:24:22 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.173] by n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 May 2002 21:24:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:24:21 -0000 To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Weston Again Message-ID: <ach2a5+2kk4@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <acgog5+gpq5@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2943 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "bkweston" <bkweston@lazerlink.com> X-Originating-IP: 199.234.152.156 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90999161 X-Yahoo-Profile: bkweston
--- In colonial-coins@y..., "njcopperjohn" <jlorenzo@o...> wrote: > So with this die sharing family of English counterfeits and evasions > would not similar trace elements in thier compositions 'STRENGTHEN' > the probabilty that they all came from a single counterfeit issuer > and that they were iisued during a particular point in time > regardless of their dates??? But I already knew this John --- then > consider--- > Studying then these metallurgical compositions of these 'known' > English counterfeits from above and then reviewing their compositions > would they possibly not be able to tie-in other Atkin (Cobwright) > varieties or spidery lettered counterfeits that may not immediately > be tied in by simple visual die sharing match-making techniques from > your studies? Would this 'other' tool hinder or help your attribution > process in the short or long term? > > JPL.
Yes, of course, but I wouldn't place any value on it beyond being supplimentary. I also think it might reveal some interesting metalurgical diversity within Families, such as the Simians, coin X, coin Y, Atkins-232, Young Head Families, etc. as well as the American made Atlee counterfeits which were likely made in different places over a period of years. It might even reveal some State coinage issues to be metalurgically more similar to, say, Conder tokens than to other State series, or to the Atlee counterfeits. I might even expect that with Washingtonia and a few other pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if it were found that the mixtures within a State series varied greatly. That would be interesting, I suppose, but certainly not conclusive - it would not necessarily prove or disprove anything. I wouldn't be in any hurry to declare any such metalurgical analyses as the final say in such matters because it could also be missused to falsely 'disprove' connections that are otherwise quite obvious. The metal mixture for any issue could have changed from one moment to the next. I would also think that there might even be some profound differences between the ore and the processed metal in many cases as a bit of this and a bit of that may have been added to the melting pot. It would be a very interesting study though, but as I've said, it would have to be all inclusive of as many Colonial/Confederation era, American and British issues and varieties as possible. Otherwise it might be too tempting for a researcher to skew the results with too small of a sampling to get their own desired results and conclusion. I've always felt that the information should be gathered before the hypothesis or theory is developed and presented, not the other way around. Unfortuantely numismatic research is often done that way. I hope that my pointing out all of these other unproven possibilities may be of some help to you. I'll let you have the final say, John, and then patiently await your study. Byron
|
URL da fonte |
|
Data de publicação |
|
Volume |
|