| Contenuto dell'articolo |
- From Rosaamltd@aol.com Mon Dec 23 21:15:21 2002
Return-Path: <RosaAmLtd@aol.com>
X-Sender: RosaAmLtd@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 24 Dec 2002 05:15:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 467 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 05:15:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2002 05:15:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 05:15:19 -0000
Received: from RosaAmLtd@aol.com
by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.d4.20a0edf2 (4328)
for <colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:15:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <d4.20a0edf2.2b39475e@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:15:10 EST
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George Selgin
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d4.20a0edf2.2b39475e_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10621
From: Rosaamltd@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=36885228
X-Yahoo-Profile: rosaamltd
--part1_d4.20a0edf2.2b39475e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ray, cast counterfeits were almost certainly cheaper to produce -- the cost
was almost nothing! You needed the sand or wax to make the casting mold, and
some cheap metal that could be melted down. Once you made the mold, you
could spend the real coins that you used to impress the design. It was
certainly more time intensive, and the number of casts you could get from a
given mold would be small -- but if you could do it without getting caught,
it was almost pure profit. On the other hand, struck copies would require a
lot of capital investment -- a press capable of producing significant
striking pressure, steel for dies, engraving tools, planchet cutting and
rolling equipment, smelting equipment, not to mention some amount of talent
to engrave the dies. Needless to say, there wouldn't be a whole lot of
people who had an actual counterfeiting mint set up in their basement (well,
other than in certain areas of New Jersey perhaps). I would guess that many
of the struck counterfeits of the period were struck at other mints, token
manufactures, button manufacturers (which would have almost similar
equipment), and perhaps even "off the record" at some of the regular mints by
moonlighting personnel.
--part1_d4.20a0edf2.2b39475e_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Ray, cast counterfeits were almost certainly cheaper to produce -- the cost was almost nothing! You needed the sand or wax to make the casting mold, and some cheap metal that could be melted down. Once you made the mold, you could spend the real coins that you used to impress the design. It was certainly more time intensive, and the number of casts you could get from a given mold would be small -- but if you could do it without getting caught, it was almost pure profit. On the other hand, struck copies would require a lot of capital investment -- a press capable of producing significant striking pressure, steel for dies, engraving tools, planchet cutting and rolling equipment, smelting equipment, not to mention some amount of talent to engrave the dies. Needless to say, there wouldn't be a whole lot of people who had an actual counterfeiting mint set up in their basement (well, other than in certain areas of New Jersey perhaps). I would guess that many of the struck counterfeits of the period were struck at other mints, token manufactures, button manufacturers (which would have almost similar equipment), and perhaps even "off the record" at some of the regular mints by moonlighting personnel.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_d4.20a0edf2.2b39475e_boundary--
|
|---|
| URL di origine |
|
|---|
| Data di pubblicazione |
|
|---|
| Volume |
|
|---|
