| Contenido del artículo |
- From johnmenc@optonline.net Thu Apr 29 07:57:36 2004
Return-Path: <johnmenc@optonline.net>
X-Sender: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 21904 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2004 14:57:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167)
by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2004 14:57:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.77)
by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2004 14:57:35 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.143] by n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2004 14:57:30 -0000
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:57:26 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <c6r54m+o7rg@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <c6pft4+vm58@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 8418
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.77
From: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Originating-IP: 65.164.33.248
Subject: Re: "RR-40" text from Copper Coins of Vermont
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=111282553
X-Yahoo-Profile: colonial_john_c4
Tony - just for completeness here ... as I am at work ... and have
not dissected this discussion in awhile ... therefore ... just some
quick questions ... again ... why can't the reverse L of RR-40
preceed the reverse L of the die marriage of RR-19??? How does the
fabric differ??? Diagnostics of mint origins are not possible at this
time based on metallurgical analyses since no baseline dastabases
(i.e., to a specific smelting operation or ore source for that
matter) have yet been standardized for any copper series in the 18th
century.
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "TONY CARLOTTO"
<tcolonial@a...> wrote:
> For those who do not have my book here is the text portion of
the "RR-
> 40."
>
> "RYDER-40" TEXT
>
> Here is the most recent newcomer to the Vermont colonial arena.
There
> has been some recent controversy regarding this particular piece.
> Some of the specimens offered for sale at various times in the last
> five years have come under scrutiny because of their appearance. It
> is believed by many that this piece may be a modern forgery. Only
> time will tell for sure. This coin has a logical possibility of
being
> made at Newburgh along with the two Connecticut relatives listed
> above and the imitation reverse Vlack-78B. Trying to put Bressett
> reverse-L in place with this obverse V.13 is difficult. Details of
> its discovery will be discussed here for the sake of presenting all
> the evidence. Most of the knowledgeable people involved in early
> coppers believe this piece is not authentic.
>
> During the annual Early American Coppers convention of 1986
in
> Washington D.C., some researchers were allowed to view portions of
> the collection of the Smithsonian. Two coins that were attributed
as
> RR-31's turned out to be quite different than originally
identified.
> Both shared the same Vlack-13 obverse. One was an already known 101-
D
> or 13-88CT of the Machin's series. The second was the same obverse
> V.13, but with a Vermont reverse-L. Somebody could have originally
> thought these were George III obverses and just assumed they were
RR-
> 31's. An experienced eye could immediately tell the obverse was not
> Bressett-24 of the Ryder-31. The head style and denticles are the
> most dramatic difference. Reverse-U that was used with the George
III
> obverse for Ryder-31 was always weak struck in that combination.
The
> Smithsonian piece had a reverse with a good amount of detail. Ron
> Guth was the lucky "discoverer." I have not been able to find out
how
> the specimen in the Smithsonian ended up there.
>
> The illustrations above and below show the relatives of the RR-
> 40. All three coins share the same obverse along with the R-40.
This
> is one piece of evidence that gives some credence to the
possibility
> of the RR-40 muling, it was done before, more than once. If the RR-
40
> were a real product, then a total of four pieces would be related
to
> the same Vlack-13 obverse.
>
> One bothersome fact about this variety is that reverse-L seems
> to be in an early state without a break through the top of E in
INDE.
> Reverse-L also bulges across the shoulders of the seated figure in
> late states when used with Vermont obverse-10 to form Ryder-20. The
> announcement of the discovery of this piece in "Penny-Wise" states
> that the reverse appears to be in a late state with the possibility
> of three rim cuds. It goes on to say that these cuds may be worn
down
> damage and also what appears to be a break through the final 8 of
the
> date. In all the late state RR-20's that I have examined, I have
not
> been able to detect any break in the final 8 of the date. The RR-40
> reverse does not show any signs of the thin crack that bisects the
> head of the seated figure and ends at the pole as on RR-20. This
> crack should have been found on the RR-40. It is not found on RR-
19,
> as this was the first use of reverse-L.
> When obverse V-13 is used with reverse V-78B, V87 CT, and V88
> CT, it is usually found with a planchet cutter's lip. Photos of
these
> three coins are included for comparison. If the 13-L combination
were
> real, it too would probably have this lip. I am not convinced that
> the RR-40 is a real coin.
> The piece in the Smithsonian weighs 113.9 grains and is given
a
> pedigree by Walter Breen in his encyclopedia as being ex-Mendel L.
> Peterson. I have not been able to discover any more history of this
> piece. Two other specimens have been offered in the last several
> years and both are illustrated here and are mentioned and plated
> in "The Forgotten Coins of the North American Colonies" by William
> Anton and Bruce Kesse. These two coins were from a hoard of 87
> originating in England that contained five RR-40 specimens. Each of
> these pieces was overstruck on George III counterfeit pieces of
> differing weights. The pieces illustrated in this work are the same
> pieces as coin number-1 (Anton-Kesse plates IX & X, #158) and coin
> number-2 (Anton-Kesse plates I & II, #30). Their weights are 5.60
> grams (84 grains) and 6.39 grams (92 grains) respectively. Four of
> the five found coins are listed. Coin number-3 was 6.7 grams (100.5
> grains) and number-4 a heavy 13.5 grams (202.5 grains).
>
> Vlack Obverse-13 Mates
>
> A little history and description of obverse-13 would help put
> the "picture" together here. There are three other uses of V.13
with
> three previously used reverse dies.
>
> 1. In the Machin's-Atlee series we have 13-78B. 78B was also used
> with Vlack obverse-12 which is a little more common than 13-78B.
> 2. A mule with V.13 is found with Connecticut reverse G.2 of 1787.
> This is also called 101-G.2 in Connecticut collecting. Only three
> specimens are known at this time. The G.2 reverse was used with a
> rare combination with Connecticut obverse-52.
> 3. Using V.13 with Connecticut reverse-D of 1788 makes another
mule.
> It is also known as 101-D in a Connecticut collection. Reverse-D
was
> used twice in the Connecticut series. The first time with obverse-2
> and again with obverse 16.1. It is interesting to note that reverse-
D
> appears to be in late die state in all three uses. Luckily there is
> enough die crack progression going on to trace a sequence. It is a
> relatively common coin in both Connecticut uses. When used with the
> V.13 obverse is it somewhat scarce, approximately R-5.
> Reverse-D displays three prominent breaks when seen in all
three
> of its different lives. A thin crack starts at the lower outer
curve
> of B in LIB and goes through the bottom of the shield and globe,
then
> continues on to the left side of the seated figure. In a late state
> with obverse 16.1 there is a large cud at the feet. (This is the
> break that lets us determine a striking order) A small break is
> found at the right side of the upright of I in LIB and the right
side
> of E in ET shows some signs of breaking. Apparently the coiners
felt
> this D-reverse could break at any time and just passed it along to
> other obverses. I think it lasted much longer than anyone thought
it
> would. The order of emission is; First-Connecticut 2-D, second 101-
> D/13-88CT, third and last, Connecticut 16.1-D. This is proved by
die
> break progression. It is odd to note the use with a George III
> obverse between the use of two Connecticut obverses.
>
> 4. This is where V.13 would have been placed with Bressett reverse-
L.
> One of my main objections to this piece is its "fabric." The
overall
> appearance, surface, and color of the specimens do not coincide
with
> any of these coins of the same origin. One piece resides in the
> Smithsonian and Anton and Kesse plate two in "The Forgotten Coins".
I
> am sure that if spectro-analysis were performed on any of these
three
> pieces, none would match any product of Machin's origin.
> Unfortunately this test requires damaging the specimen. The two
> Connecticut reverses are known to have been products of Newburgh,
and
> also used with Connecticut obverses. The journey of reverse-L to
> Newburgh/ or late use of it there does not make much sense. The
lack
> of a late bulge and die cracks make this combination unbelievable.
It
> is my opinion along with others that this variety is not valid.
|
|---|
| URL de origen |
|
|---|
| Fecha de publicación |
|
|---|
| Volumen |
|
|---|
