Why Bath Metal Pubblico Deposited

Re

Contenuto dell'articolo
  • 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.
    >





URL di origine Data di pubblicazione
  • 2006-09-21
Volume
  • 1

Le relazioni

Autore NNP