| Conteúdo do artigo |
- From mariobyrge@comcast.net Mon Mar 15 15:26:21 2004
Return-Path: <mariobyrge@comcast.net>
X-Sender: mariobyrge@comcast.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 10407 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2004 23:26:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172)
by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2004 23:26:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.83)
by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2004 23:26:20 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.140] by n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2004 23:26:20 -0000
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:26:19 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <c35e2r+1d45@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2956
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.83
From: "Mario Byrge" <mariobyrge@comcast.net>
X-Originating-IP: 68.43.146.39
Subject: THE BONHAMS NEW ENGLAND VI. FORGERY VERSUS COPY
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=160753362
X-Yahoo-Profile: jsuis2003
COINWORLD ISSUE OF MARCH 22, 2004 HAS PROVIDED THE RESULTS OF THE
BONHAMS NEW ENGLAND VI. AFTER UPON CLOSE EXAMINATION, THE VERDICT OF
THAT THIS IS A "COPY" TYPE AND NOT
GENUINE,......HMMMMM,.......ALTHOUGH, THIS EXAMPLE FROM ENGLAND WAS
RENDERED A COPY TYPE,........THE ARTISTIC QUALITY OF THESE DIES ARE
EXTREMELY CLOSE,.......BUT NOT RECOGNIZED BY RESEARCHERS OF THIS
SERIES. AS FOR ME, I DO NOT HAVE THIS DIE COMBINATION ON RECORD OF A
FORGERY-COPY,........SO TO SAY THE LEAST, IT IS NEW FOR MY RECORDS.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, STACKS WAS DISIGNATED TO SELL THIS COPY IN
JANUARY OF 2005,....BY WHOM, BONHAMS HAS ENTRUSTED FOR THIS AUCTION.
I SINCERLY WISH THAT I COULD HAVE THE PRIVELEDGE OF SEEING THIS COIN
INPERSON. I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO FURTHER
PURSUE,............REMARKABLY, I AGREE THAT THIS COPY IS NOT ANYTHING
MODERN,........BUT MORE THAN LIKELY STRUCK IN THE 1850's,......PRE-
CIVIL WAR ERA. ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT TOO PONDER IS,......I
SUSPECT THAT THIS SHOULD BE RULED A "FORGERY" AND NOT A "COPY" AS
SOME OF THE RESEARCHERS HAD POINTED OUT. A FORGERY INDEED, BASED ON
THE FACT THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY, THE ONLY SPECIMEN OF THIS NEAR CLOSE
DIE COMBINATION,........AND TOO, THAT IT WAS STRUCK FROM DIE PUNCH IN
THE RIGHTFUL HEAD-TO-TOE ALIGNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THIS ARTICLE
EMPHASIS ON THE FACT OF THE COINS FABRIC,.......THUS FURTHER
TESTING,.......NON DESTRUCTIVE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE,.......THIS WAY,
WE CAN HAVE A RECORD OF THE EXACT METAL CONTENT,......IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT FACT, FOR AS IF ANY OTHER SHOULD ARISE, EITHER BY THE
SAME IDENTICAL DIE COMBINATION OR PERHAPS A DIFFERENT DIE PAIRING,
THUS WE CAN THEN PLACE A DATE OF MANUFACTURE TO IT.
WITH MY EXPERIENCE OF RECORDING FORGERY TYPES OF MASSACHUSETTS SILVER
COINAGE,........I WOULD NOT OVER-RULE THE PRE CIVIL WAR ERA FOR THIS
PARTICULAR STRUCK EXAMPLE. IF THERE WAS TO BE A DESIGNATION FOR
COMPARISON ONLY WITH A GENUINE NEW ENGLAND VI,.......THEN THE DIES
ITSELF WOULD CLOSELY RESEMBLE THE "ROPER" SPECIMEN,......IE; THIN
REVERSE ROMAN NUMERIAL "VI" AS OPPOSED TO THE GARRETT COIN. I
PERSONALY THINK THAT IF THIS EXAMPLE WAS RESTED FOR METAL CONTENT,
THEN I WOULD NOT BE A BIT SURPRISED TO SEE A SMALL
PERCENTAGE,..PERHAPS 2% TO 6% TIN,.......WHICH ALLOYED INTO SILVER
WOULD MAKE THE SURFACES MORE SUSCEPTABLE FOR CORROSION FROM NATURES
ELEMENTS,.....THUS DETERING ANY DOUBTS ABOUT OTHER THAN GENUINE.
MY CONCLUSION IS THAT I BELIEVE THIS TO BE A UNIQUE FORGERY FOR
PRESENT,.........FORGED BY A HAND TO EVENTUSALLY SELL AS A GENUINE
SPECIMEN, RATHER THAN A COPY THAT IF IT WAS, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE
BEEN OTHERS THAT WOULD HAVE TURNED UP IN THE PAST.
IF IT COULD, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MIKE HODDER IF THERE IS ANY WAY ON
SEEING IF BONHAMS WOULD TAKE $700 TO $1000 FOR IT BEFORE
AUCTION,..........AND 15% SELLING FEE TO STACKS. I DEFINITLY WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN THIS EXAMPLE!
REGARDS
MARIO
mariobyrge@comcast.net
|
|---|
