| Contenido del artículo |
- From 1-mar@mindspring.com Wed May 07 11:15:16 2003
Return-Path: <1-mar@mindspring.com>
X-Sender: 1-mar@mindspring.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 7 May 2003 18:15:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 64919 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 18:15:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2003 18:15:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.75)
by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2003 18:15:16 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.131] by n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 May 2003 18:15:16 -0000
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:15:13 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of rare, or unique, Mules.
Message-ID: <b9bifi+8r61@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <MKEDLPECPDBKFIBMDEOHCEOODDAA.nrothschild@nmctech.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 6807
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "Marcus M. Mayhugh" <1-mar@mindspring.com>
X-Originating-IP: 65.165.63.60
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67606264
X-Yahoo-Profile: remi66111
---=20
Neil,
Since you've brought up the subject of presses, have you ever=20
wondered where all these presses suddenly came from in colonial=20
America? You state that they were the highest in technological=20
achievement, yet they are all over the place, ie. Rahway,Morristown,=20
Newburgh, Rupert,New Haven,ect. ect. How much did these things weigh?=20
Where did they come from(England,Ireland)? How do you get one from NY=20
to a tiny Vermont town? Sometimes, I wonder about these things. Hope=20
I didn't digress too far from the brockage conversation.
Marc
In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Rothschild"=20
<nrothschild@n...> wrote:
> If a coin was stuck on the die, it would give the output the=20
appearance of a
> "ruined die". If they could not remove the coin, they would=20
certainly pull
> the die.
>=20
> I disagree with Dave's premise that a die would only be removed if=20
it was
> ruined. Die making (even crude dies!) was an art form. The dies=20
were the
> most expensive single (expendable) component of the coining process
> (obviously the press itself wasn't cheap). I think they cherished=20
and
> babied their dies and maintained them to get maximum life from=20
them. A
> broken die could put them out of business until a new die could be=20
obtained
> (presumably at considerable expense). The die is the=20
biggest "variable
> cost". The cost of copper was absolute, presumably the labor for=20
striking
> the coins was more or less known. The difference between a=20
profitable and
> unprofitable coining operation was probably in the cost of dies and=20
the
> actual life expectancy of the dies.
>=20
> But as I said above, the effect of a stuck coin capping the die is=20
a "ruined
> die" and even if Dave is correct, this should have motivated them=20
to pull
> the die.
>=20
> I personally doubt that they would have been so careless as to not=20
notice a
> capped die. I think there is a widespread prejudice that these=20
coiners were
> not very smart, mainly because of the crude dies. However, I will=20
suggest
> that NONE of us could make even the crudest dies we have seen. In=20
other
> words, even crude dies required a great deal of technical skill and
> artistry. Just dealing with the reversed image is a challenge.
>=20
> In that era, a coinage press was at the pinnacle of technology. It=20
wasn't
> something you bought at Sam's Hardware Store and stuck in your=20
garage.
> Owning and operating a coining press was probably more equivalent=20
to owning
> and operating a large scale computer network today, in terms of=20
capital
> outlay and technical skill required, etc.
>=20
> I may be right or wrong in the above, but I think it is a mistake=20
to make
> assumptions based on the premise that these guys were ignorant or=20
careless.
> I think that argument defies logic. They did the best they could=20
with an
> emerging technology and getting production levels of output was an
> accomplishment, despite the defects that we focus on today.
>=20
> Regards,
> Neil
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clement V. Schettino (Clem) [mailto:CopperClem@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:39 AM
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Speaking of rare, or unique,=20
Mules.
>=20
>=20
> Hey Neil, you all,
>=20
> No, I propose that the die was pulled while still capped with a
> brockage that had already struck so many brockages that it barely=20
had
> any detail left to it, and as you say since the coin, softer metal,
> is actually doing the striking that wouldn't have had to have been=20
to
> many strikes to blow out the detail on the coin still wrapped around
> the dies. This being the reason for the brockage being so weak on my
> coin, when the die was pressed into service once again with the '81
> reverse.
>=20
> I'm going from memory here with regards to all the replies but I
> think it was David who said why remove a perfectly good die from
> service, I didn't say that=85it was a ruined die I'm saying that had=20
to
> be replaced and assumed it was the hammer, brockage maker. Ray, I
> think it was, brought up another good point, maybe it was the lower,
> anvil, die that was replaced. OK, either way I think you are=20
starting
> to get my point.
>=20
> Clem
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Rothschild"
> <nrothschild@n...> wrote:
> > You think that the 1766 die had struck so many brockages that it
> evolved
> > into a brockage die?
> >
> > Brockage impressions are always weaker because the planchet that=20
is
> acting
> > as a die is soft copper (possibly even properly annealed) and not
> hardened
> > die steal.
> >
> > I'm still with Frank on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clement V. Schettino (Clem) [mailto:CopperClem@a...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 7:33 PM
> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Speaking of rare, or unique,
> Mules.
> >
> >
> > OK, I won't make you wait
> >
> > My theory is that "they" were set up and striking these kool 1781
> > dated ctfts and the upper die, the hammer, somehow became totally
> > disabled and needed to be replaced. The coiner needed a=20
replacement
> > and the only other hammer die on hand (or maybe it was just the
> first
> > one he grabbed?) just happened to be an old capped 1766 die, which
> > obviously had already struck more then its share of brockages and
> > thus accounting for the poor grade on the brockage side and the
> > fairly crisp F+ on the coin side. (This might also account for the
> > fact that they probably couldn't get the cap off either?) How else
> to
> > explain the two greatly varying grades? Therefore for now I choose
> my
> > scenario and not Frank's (which was also yours), hmmm, so now its
> two
> > against one. I can hear Frank already. Anyone care to come to my
> > defense?
> >
> > Try not to go off onto the date-thing tangent. Remember, these
> people
> > were striking any dates whenever they wanted, or British and Irish
> > dies Muled together if they felt like it.
> >
> > Clem
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Rothschild"
> > <nrothschild@n...> wrote:
> > > Oh yea, and they put the blank + 1766 into the press so it would
> > come out
> > > coin turn.
> > >
> > > You say it is not intentional but OTOH you are dribbling out=20
facts
> > in a
> > > feeble attempt to drive us crazy, but it simply won't work.
> > >
> > > <s>
> > >
> > > Neil
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > colonial-coins-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> colonial-coins-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|---|
