[Colonial Numismatics] George Selgin Público Deposited
Re
- From rogersiboni@aol.com Sun Dec 22 14:07:21 2002
Return-Path: <rogersiboni@aol.com>
X-Sender: rogersiboni@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 22 Dec 2002 22:07:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 5385 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 22:07:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2002 22:07:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.70)
by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 22:07:19 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.131] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Dec 2002 22:07:19 -0000
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:07:17 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] George Selgin
Message-ID: <au5d2l+k7sh@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <au58vm+dfbt@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2162
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "mantoloking2002 <rogersiboni@aol.com>" <rogersiboni@aol.com>
X-Originating-IP: 64.12.96.14
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=119287572
X-Yahoo-Profile: mantoloking2002
Jack,
For what it is worth, I agree with your assessment. Particularly the
point about a few being easier to make casts for but any kind of mass
production requiring strike presses.
Roger
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Howes <jackhowes@y...>"
<jackhowes@y...> wrote:
> >From: rg5turc@a...
> >Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:05 am
> >Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] George Selgin
>
> >Hi Jack,
>
> >Thanks for posting this site as the reading is very interesting.
One
> >question is why do you feel the cost of producing cast
counterfeits
> >not to be less expensive then struck counterfeits? I would be
> >interested in your comments!
>
> >Ray T.
>
> Ray,
>
> My opinion is based on limited data and that it seems to square with
> what we see 200 years later.
>
> Anton says (page 31, Forgotten Coins of the North American Colonies)
> that casting, "was entirely unsuitable from the standpoints of mass
> manufacture and quality of execution." He futher says that his
> sampling of populations indicate a ratio of about 60 to 1 struck to
> cast.
>
> The only hoard that I have seen documented (and I have not looked
hard
> for this kind of thing yet) is in Smith, (George III Counterfeit
> Halfpenny Series, COAC95, page 51) a find of 325 defaced halfpence,
> one of which was cast.
>
> Also I see very few cast counterfeits for sale (although this is
> qualitative since I have not been counting).
>
> This is why I was surprised that Selgin indicates that casting was
> easy and cheap. He also indicates that cast counterfeits were
common
> throughout the 18th century and has a period reference that I do not
> have access to immediately -- Colquhoun, 1800, pg 178.
>
> If cast counterfeits were common in the 18th century I would expect
> them to be common in hoards and in collections.
>
> It seems to me that casting might be easy and cheaper than striking
to
> make a few but does not seem to me to be a process that scales up
well
> otherwise mints would look more like foundaries. (But I have been
> known to be wrong about all kinds of things and would not rule that
> out this case either.)
>
> Jack - 2002-12-22
- 1
