| 文章內容 |
- From randy_clark@agilent.com Tue Jan 06 22:23:33 2004
Return-Path: <randy_clark@agilent.com>
X-Sender: randy_clark@agilent.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 2037 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2004 06:23:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jan 2004 06:23:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.70)
by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2004 06:23:32 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.112] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2004 06:22:59 -0000
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:22:58 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <btg8k2+fekt@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <BC20C531.D91C%auctoricon@comcast.net>
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: 2122
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.70
From: "p6763cla" <randy_clark@agilent.com>
X-Originating-IP: 216.100.132.190
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Was copper as shiny in 1785 ?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48482909
X-Yahoo-Profile: p6763cla
So here's a question about lustre. With the surface flatness
of modern die ... and polishing technology ... I can see how
lustre (like the dreaded Morgans) is possible.
But the die used on CT or NJ must never really have been flat
or planar ... and I doubt their polishing techniques were very
sophisticated, either. I say this because I am having trouble
visualizing the grinding equipment for colonial die to get
a "flat" surface perpendicular to a cylindrical base. So if true,
and the lustre is not due to polish and flatness, what would
it be due to, striking pressure ?
Regarding Conders ... they seem light years ahead in die and
planchet quality. Probably had better copper as well. Still
the best I've seen is red, not "copper" color.
Here's another puzzle. I have not seen legitimate British
copper with the range of planchet and strike problems (um,=20
character) seen in colonial coinage. So here we have the=20
colonial mints releasing "shiny" copper coinage with all
nature of ills mixed in with some well struck coins. How
could the average Joe accept a cracked, or striated, or
double struck, clipped, overstruck, or just plain faint coin
as legitimate for trade purposes ? Even if they couldn't read
it would be obvious something wasn't right. You'd figure=20
people would balk at using them. Or is it that most legit
British coppers never made it to the US ... and everyone was
used to something not right with their copper. I don't
believe the silver circulating at that time was as variable.
Seems like the copper may have been used more like tokens ...
where anything would suffice. But if so, why worry about
under-weight coins ? Doesn't seem to add up. No wonder the
bottom dropped out in a copper panic.
Can somebody straighten me out ?
Thanks,
Randy C.
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, rob retz <auctoricon@c...>=20
wrote:
> I do have a picture of the coin but in the picture it just looks=20
like an
> extremely high grade Connecticut. In the copper it looks like that=20
2003 cent
> that you referred to =AD it=B9s impossible to accurately render in 2=20
dimensions
> things like lustre.
>=20
> Rob
|
|---|
| 來源網址 |
|
|---|
| 發布日期 |
|
|---|
| 體積 |
|
|---|
