Why Bath Metal Publique Deposited
Re
- From johnmenc@optonline.net Thu Sep 21 18:52:46 2006
Return-Path: <johnmenc@optonline.net>
X-Sender: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 67523 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2006 01:50:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2006 01:50:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n22c.bullet.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.187.213)
by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2006 01:50:53 -0000
Received: from [66.163.187.120] by n22.bullet.sc5.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2006 01:50:20 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.58] by t1.bullet.sc5.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2006 01:50:20 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.68] by t7.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2006 01:50:20 -0000
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:50:19 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <eevfgr+3o7u@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <eevehg+7n0j@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
X-Originating-IP: 66.163.187.213
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.116.99.58
From: "John Lorenzo" <johnmenc@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Why Bath Metal
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=111282553; y=T3u0elcZrvDFVc47IEWRcwAkeKRGnUaFVkMXr1kXVxKE6v2n8HJde6PBzg
X-Yahoo-Profile: colonial_john_c4
Sorry - the last sentence should read the 1717 Contract. When=20
awarded on 9/13/1717 the Exchequer advanced these two gentleman 500=20
pounds to proceed with the coinage.
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "John Lorenzo" <johnmenc@...>=20
wrote:
>
> We do know Wood submitted his 1717 copper fillets (blanks) in May=20
or=20
> June from the below:
>=20
> Catalogue Record: MINT00637
> > Clerical copies of tenders to supply copper received in response
> to
> > the advertisement of 30 April 1717 [#630 (II.406)] and forwarded
> to
> > the Mint with #636 (II.366):
> >
> > Bibliographical Details
> > Call Number: II.370, 372-3, 377, 380-82, 391-4
> > Location: The Public Record Office, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK
> >
> > Contents
> > (a) (II.372) [May or June 1717.] Tenderer's name omitted.
> > (b) (II.373) [May or June 1717.] Tender from William Wood.
> > Supplementary note in another hand describing Wood as a
> > Wolverhampton dealer in iron, copper and brass.
>=20
> The actual winning contract is at:
>=20
> http://64.233.161.104/search?q=3Dcache:xNGS_rhUfBkJ:www.pierre-
> marteau.com/editions/1701-25-mint-reports/report-1725-07-
> 28.html+copper+fillets&hl=3Den&gl=3Dus&ct=3Dclnk&cd=3D2
>=20
> THE ACCOMPT OF SIR ISAAC NEWTON KNT MASTER AND WORKER OF HIS MAYTS=20
> MINT WITHIN THE TOWER OF LONDON, CONTAINING THE PRODUCE OF SEVERAL=20
> QUANTITIES OF COPPER (WCH PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS MAY=20
ROYALL=20
> SIGNE MANUAL BEARING DATE THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1717) HAVE=20
BEEN=20
> COINED INTO HALF PENCE & FARTHINGS BETWEEN THE 15 DAY OF JANUARY=20
1717=20
> [=3D1717-8] AND THE 14 DAY OF JANUARY 1724 [=3D1724-5].
>=20
> It basically indicates the value of the struck coin will be 18=20
pence=20
> per troy pound.
> As been discussed the severe underweight status of these 1717=20
coins=20
> makes it even impossible to conform to this contract won by Mr.=20
Henry=20
> Hines and Mr. John Applebee Jr..
> How did these bath metal 1717 pieces enter this picture? If we=20
assume=20
> these were Wood's 1717 prposed pieces then this section in Newton=20
at=20
> the Mint
> by Sir John Craig makes some sense. Craig writes:
> The unsuccesful tenderers also made trouble. They had first tried=20
to=20
> form a ring and get the favoured competitor to raise his price.=20
Then,=20
> they alleged favouritism in alloting contracts, scandolous conduct=20
in=20
> the Mint Master and poor quality in his coins. Newton insited that=20
the=20
> metal must be examined by prescribed physical tests and not by the=20
> eye; and offers that were cheaper were unreliable.
> This cheap bronze which is actually what Bath Metal is was Wood's=20
> probable submission to win this contract using a CHEAP metal alloy=20
> that could with stand the demand of the physical tests imposed by=20
> Newton in testing good copper. When the coinage was actually=20
started=20
> in January 1718 with the dies dated the previous year considerable=20
> changes in technique were later found to be required which=20
indicated=20
> the Mint at this time was not very well organized in handling this=20
> metal even though the Mint had started forty years before as Craig=20
> confirms.
> In April 1717 the GAZETTE invited competitive tenders for copper=20
type=20
> blanks or fillers and if promising a resubmission was then asked=20
for=20
> by the Mint.
> The previous post shows these tenders and Wood's submittal was=20
> probably these 1717 Bath Metal pieces which at the time was=20
cheaper=20
> than a high copper alloy. Being 75% brass and 20 zinc the silver=20
was=20
> probably added for alloy strength so it could pass Newton's=20
physical=20
> strength test.
>=20
> The strength test used to test good copper was to heat it to a red=20
> glow and strike it and to examine if it cracked. This bronze or=20
bath=20
> metal whatever you want to call it could pass this test as bath=20
metal=20
> by nature needed to be annealed/struck hot to prevent cracking as=20
is=20
> testimony to the pieces we see today.
> This bath metal was a good ploy by Wood to try to win this copper=20
> contract of 1717 and one needs to realize - when did Wood start to=20
> submit copper fillers to the Mint - yep - in 1717 for the 1718=20
> Contract. This ROOKIE - learned quick as we see five years later=20
in=20
> 1722.
> - 2006-09-21
- 1
