| Contenu de l'article |
- From jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com Fri Oct 03 10:59:51 2003
Return-Path: <jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com>
X-Sender: jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 35321 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 17:59:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2003 17:59:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.105)
by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 17:59:51 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.147] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Oct 2003 17:59:51 -0000
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:59:50 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: JPL's images
Message-ID: <blkdem+6nc1@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <LPBBKJNANGIPBNPALMHPIEEODMAA.copperclem@comcast.net>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 6088
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "John Lorenzo" <jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com>
X-Originating-IP: 65.164.33.2
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=74013914
X-Yahoo-Profile: njcopperjohn
Obviously more file size will help but that's a pain in the butt as I
would have to re-shoot.
But this should be adequate for the other "2" in this last group.
Let's see what the next example brings, since this current coin
(1778) is pretty much an "in person" inspection anyway.
The current file size is perfect for blow-up sizes on E-Bay. If I go
higher in "file size" I get these big oversize coins on the "enlarge"
feature with Vendio who I use to host my images & E-Bay descriptions.
Remember to send me any new George II dates in cast or struck as
previously discussed.
JPL.
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Clement V. Schettino"
<copperclem@c...> wrote:
> Yes John,
>
> I am receiving your images privately. Not to seem ungrateful but
the quality
> of the images is not the best. It is difficult for me to tell much
from
> them. But I do thank you for sending them.
>
> Clem
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Lorenzo [mailto:jlorenzo@o...]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:32 PM
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: Interesting item on eBay web
site
> item#3050934013: 1793 BERMUDA 1 PENNY KM-5A BRONZED PROOF 65
>
> Bill's only comment on the previously mentioned 1778 AK variety
> thought of as a 1773 he indicated poor strike may be causing this
> interpretation on this plated specimen or on specimens tou may
own???
> Just relaying this over to confirm or deny - makes no difference to
> me and no need to reply as I have no further ideas or opinions on
> this matter.
> This 1778 example looks good when viewing "in-person" but certainly
> there is room for doubt just viewing an image. I will try in
> the "near" future to pull-out another 1778 for sale with a much
> stronger last digit - if possible. Clem should be getting images of
> this coin already based on my previous promise. Clem???
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Byron Weston" <bkw11@p...>
> wrote:
> > Just checking in before I must turn around and check back out
> again,
> > John, but will comment further on Evasions when I have more time
> > later.
> > Re: 1778 - I think my comments before the coin was posted on eBay
> > still stand. It is definitely not 1778, regardless what the other
> two
> > higher grade pieces last numeral may look like to Bill, and a
> variety
> > I believe that I may have seen before, and maybe even have one
> > myself. I'll check the archives later.
> > Byron
> >
> >
> > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "John Lorenzo"
> <jlorenzo@o...>
> > wrote:
> > > So now that we are done with this boring piece let me ask a
> > question
> > > with no argumentative response allowed by JPL:
> > >
> > > Since no evasion copper is known in "CAST" and Cobwright making
> the
> > > statement that he believes most were made in and around 1795 for
> > his
> > > own perasonal reasons....what is your take on the production
time
> > > period for evasions...possibly within the George II regal period
> or
> > > strictly a George III regal period issue???
> > >
> > > Cobwright has never discussed with me his reasons. This is a
> > complex
> > > question. Very interested in your response as with the 1778
> issue.
> > > This is not a trick question on my part.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Byron Weston"
> <bkw11@p...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "John Lorenzo"
> > > <jlorenzo@o...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Did some further magnification checks it looks more like a
> > tagged
> > > > > pennant to me making it either a much more common Proof
> (still
> > > > doubt
> > > > > its Proof status as a Pridmore 6A (i.e., tagged pennant
> > reverse)
> > > > and
> > > > > more likely a later tagged pennant restrike example.
> > > > > I just dont get any relective surfaces coming at me from
this
> > > scan
> > > > > since I do own a bronzed Pridmore 6A and the surfaces are
> quite
> > > > > reflective.
> > > > > Yes Byron I am a bidder just to "bookmark" this example
> during
> > > the
> > > > > bidding process. Based on population counts in the CNL
> article
> > by
> > > > > Sportack nice true UNC business strikes are "more" difficult
> to
> > > > > purchase than proofs of the Pridmore 6A type due to heavy
> > > > circulation
> > > > > seen with these issues. I agree with Phil & Mark S. these
> > pieces
> > > > > based on these factors seemed pulled out of circulation
> heavily
> > > and
> > > > > the ones remained were heavily utilized in commerce.
> > > > > I have asked the seller to inform if this piece has the S/S
> > > > > diagnostic. Further, once this is confirmed Droz the
engraver
> > for
> > > > > Boulton on this piece only appears on certain die marriages
> > > talked
> > > > > about in the CNL for later business strikes. Droz does
appear
> > on
> > > > BOTH
> > > > > Proof die marriages (P-5A,6A).
> > > > > No real mention was taked about in the CNL article on some
> > later
> > > > > business strikes that come on thick/thin flans in detail -
> > other
> > > > than
> > > > > that the article was indeed a "big'leap forward.
> > > > > Its intersting as Sportack mentioned to me as we examone
some
> > > > further
> > > > > examples from Bill's collection that all the Pridmore 5A's
> > > > originated
> > > > > from the Byrne collection and as mentioned previously 5/6
are
> > > > > accounted for at this time. Is this the missing specimen???
> > > > > Probably not due to a tagged pennant reverse and the S/S
> > response
> > > > > which hopefully should be NO (i.e., business restrike).
> > > > > Byron-the S/S disagnostic is ALWAYS clear as NIGHT AND DAY.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the feedback, John, but it's largely all Greek to
me
> > as
> > > > this certainly isn't my specialty. I appreciate the
information
> > > > nonetheless, though.
> > > > Byron
>
>
>
> 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/
|
|---|
| URL source |
|
|---|
| Date publiée |
|
|---|
| Volume |
|
|---|
