| Article content |
- From johnmenc@optonline.net Wed Feb 06 18:46:20 2008
Return-Path: <johnmenc@optonline.net>
X-Sender: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 35383 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2008 02:46:19 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.95)
by m52.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2008 02:46:19 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO n13a.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.112)
by mta16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2008 02:46:19 -0000
X-Received: from [216.252.122.216] by n13.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2008 02:46:16 -0000
X-Received: from [66.218.69.6] by t1.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2008 02:46:15 -0000
X-Received: from [66.218.67.195] by t6.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2008 02:46:15 -0000
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:46:15 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <fodrdn+4t96@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <008001c86931$ba616c40$6501a8c0@Downstairs>
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: 69.147.64.112
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.116.99.58
From: "John Lorenzo" <johnmenc@optonline.net>
Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts - Revisited - Ed Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=111282553; y=2TFVD78ovfCZPr9R3LzD9vROHcFW6-VZ3Q6gkr-zZrrE057D1MehKBo5Pw
X-Yahoo-Profile: colonial_john_c4
I agree with your GII/GIII 1770 mule idea as a possibility but this=20
appears to be a 1770 reworked date to a 1729. Maybe I am wishing it=20
but I would sure like to examine this piece up close to verify the=20
presence or lack of the third (I). What is your opinion of the last=20
numeral - is this a reworked "9" or a typical counterfeit "9".
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Clement V. Schettino"=20
<copperclem@...> wrote:
>
> Hey John,
>=20
>=20=20
>=20
> I sent it to both addresses the first time, but here, I'll repost=20
image only
> again here. My original accompanying text is still below.
>=20
>=20=20
>=20
> Clem
>=20
>=20=20
>=20
> _____=20=20
>=20
> From: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com [mailto:colonial-
coins@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John Lorenzo
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:15 PM
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts - Revisited - Ed
> Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
>=20
>=20=20
>=20
> OK. Settings changed - repost your post.
>=20
> --- In colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, "Clement V. Schettino"=20
> <copperclem@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey John,
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Good to seeing you thinking ctfts, but, even though trying to=20
> understand
> > what was in the counterfeiters mind during creation of the dies=20
> striking all
> > these bizarre combinations can be fun, remember it would be=20
> difficult at
> > best to prove much of anything. Having said that continue though=20
> because by
> > this "thinking out load" you'll never know what else you'll=20
stumble=20
> on that
> > can lead to the answer of a different question or something else.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I have attached a G II of mine for contemplation. It is dated=20
1770.=20
> think
> > about it.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > And John, you don't need to tell me again that you don't see=20
images=20
> here and
> > to please forward you at home, I did, but I suggest you change=20
your=20
> setting.
> > It's no big deal. Not as much as expecting everyone to Cc you at=20
> home when
> > there is an image we think you might be interested in seeing ;-)
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Clem
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > _____=20
> >=20
> > From: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com [mailto:colonial-
> coins@yahoogroups. <mailto:coins%40yahoogroups.com> com]
> > On Behalf Of John Lorenzo
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:22 PM
> > To: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts - Revisited -=20
Ed
> > Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > HMMMM ... Dan I blew up the picture 2X and I am seeing the extra=20
> > Roman Numeral (I) to the left of (II). The idea of a reworked=20
1770=20
> > GIII to a GII 1729 seems to fit if you can verify ... with 1770=20
> being=20
> > the first year of regal GIII's this counterfeiter may be thinking=20
a=20
> > worn GII would circulate better considering the "old" illiteracy=20
> > factor also in play here for this ODD year ...
> >=20
> > --- In colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com>
> > yahoogroups.com, "John Lorenzo" <jlorenzo@>=20
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > DAN - It's an incredible STRUCK coin. The "2" being recut from=20
> > a "7"=20
> > > punch and and it appears? a "0" punch being made into a "9"=20
punch=20
> > > but I could be mistaken here based on the photo. I can't recall=20
> > what=20
> > > my 1729 looks like. Its not 1720 - its only a question if=20
the "0"=20
> > > punch was tinkered with by the coin maker or if its a=20
regular "9"=20
> > > punch SQUEEZED into the edge of the field of this counterfeit.
> > > A reworked GII 1770 back-dated to 1729 - can't be? can it!?
> > > Just out of curiosity Dan and its a long shot - take a loop and=20
> > tell=20
> > > me if you can see a missing roman numeral I in GII - say -=20
being=20
> > > polished off the die. This coin is HUGE to a specialist.
> > >=20
> > > --- In colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com>
> > yahoogroups.com, "Mark Varney" <rokboy@>=20
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Almost looks like a 1720, Dan..? Mark
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Burleson
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:22 PM
> > > > To: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com>
> > yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts -=20
> > > Revisited - Ed
> > > > Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Here's another one!!
> > > >=20
> > > > Dan
> > > >=20
> > > > John Louis wrote:=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Oh yes, you are referring to the 1729 cast coin found in=20
> > > Philadelphia.
> > > >=20
> > > > I'd be glad to show it to you in person.
> > > >=20
> > > > I posted it here several days ago. But I don't think everyone=20
> > > receives
> > > > photos posted to this site?
> > > >=20
> > > > I've already seen 2 posts from 2 people suggesting they have=20
> > never=20
> > > seen
> > > > a 1729 counterfeit coin.
> > > >=20
> > > > And that was AFTER I just posted one?
> > > >=20
> > > > jwl
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > ----- Original Message -----=20
> > > >=20
> > > > From: John <mailto:jlorenzo@> Lorenzo=20
> > > >=20
> > > > To: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins@
> > <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
> > > > yahoogroups.com=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:03 PM
> > > >=20
> > > > Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts -=20
> Revisited -=20
> > > Ed
> > > > Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > ... six years ... that's a drop in the bucket ... but at=20
least=20
> > you=20
> > > > are focused ... just kidding ... but I had to get you back=20
for=20
> > > that=20
> > > > 1729 one liner ... <VBG>. What a minute ... do you own a=20
> 1729 ...=20
> > > > make sure you bring all your casts to the next Siboni=20
> > > gathering ...=20
> > > > looking forward to it already!
> > > >=20
> > > > --- In colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins@
> > <mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
> > > > yahoogroups.com, "John Louis" <johnwlouis@>=20
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > newbie??? I resemble that!!!
> > > > > :)
> > > > > I know, I know, I've only been studying counterfeits for 6=20
> > years=20
> > > > now.
> > > > > But someday.........
> > > > > jwl
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----=20
> > > > > From: John Lorenzo=20
> > > > > To: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > yahoogroups.com=20
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:02 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts -=20
> > Revisited -
> > > > Ed Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Thanks for your comments and if you ever need my assistance=20
I=20
> > > > may=20
> > > > > contemplate helping you guys out if you come out with a=20
book=20
> as=20
> > > > > maybe I can be a go-between for Bill Anton during say DRAFT=20
> > > > review,=20
> > > > > etc. ... I do not own that many CC's ... about two packed=20
> > > > capital=20
> > > > > boxes but they were assembled over 20 years with almost all=20
> > > > coming=20
> > > > > from Bill during private treaties ... for casts I knew of=20
no=20
> > > > other=20
> > > > > way to collect them other than year and as I was winding=20
down=20
> > > > only=20
> > > > > then were you and others starting to classify the various=20
> > > > families.
> > > > > I keep thinking of Cobwright's prefix on his halfpence on E-
> Bay=20
> > > > as=20
> > > > > USA INTEREST it seems more today like USA TAKEOVER <BG>. I=20
> know=20
> > > > I am=20
> > > > > OLD SKOOL in these series as Palmer, Rock and yourself are=20
> way=20
> > > > above=20
> > > > > me on these now --- WAY ABOVE - I did talk to the newbie=20
> > > > J.Louis? at=20
> > > > > Siboni's and I did mention to him when he showed me this=20
book=20
> > of=20
> > > > CC=20
> > > > > pics ---- yeah --- I seen this one ... and that one of this=20
> > > > family --
> > > > > - oh --- is that what you call it now ... a TOON HEAD ...=20
> > > > <BG> ...=20
> > > > > speak to you soon.
> > > > > It will be tough to stop collecting CC's ... they are VERY=20
> > > > > ADDICTIVE ... as the field is still WIDE OPEN.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > --- In colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > yahoogroups.com, "Clement V. Schettino"=20
> > > > > <copperclem@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey John,
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > First of all thanks for sharing your notes on G II's. I=20
too=20
> > am=20
> > > > > very grateful
> > > > > > to Ed for sharing his notes too. When I began, his work=20
on=20
> G=20
> > > > II's=20
> > > > > it was
> > > > > > pretty much all there was and I carried it with me.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I really think you now need to take a big step forward=20
and=20
> > get=20
> > > > > away from
> > > > > > this pure "date" mentality though. There are many G III=20
> 1775=20
> > > > (for=20
> > > > > instance)
> > > > > > "varieties" that are much rarer then the G II "dates".=20
It's=20
> > > > like=20
> > > > > talking
> > > > > > which date of New Jersey's are rarest, we are beyond that.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > But having said that there are still some very rare G II=20
> > dates=20
> > > > > that for now
> > > > > > can be considered non existent, RARE, unique or nearly so.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Personally I have not done a date survey, yet. I guess=20
it's=20
> > > > just=20
> > > > > in my mind,
> > > > > > but I still am sensitive to rare dates of G II's.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > BTW, I do collect G II's, by date, by variety and by=20
> dramatic=20
> > > > die=20
> > > > > states.
> > > > > > Just as I collect the G III's, and both in British and=20
> Irish=20
> > > > > format. I also
> > > > > > collect cast specimens and you need to be clearer when=20
> > talking=20
> > > > > stuck and
> > > > > > cast pieces. I did find your notes a bit confusing as you=20
> > > > seemed=20
> > > > > to toggle
> > > > > > back and forth. I plan to read them again to sort it out.=20
> > > > Please=20
> > > > > take this
> > > > > > as constructive criticism.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I also hope to add a few of your G II's to my collection=20
> and=20
> > > > if it=20
> > > > > warrants
> > > > > > I'll go to NYC again as I did for your NJ's and Mike's=20
> ctfts.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I am especially interested in personally examining your=20
> 1729=20
> > > > as I=20
> > > > > have yet
> > > > > > to see one of this date that looks ctft and or=20
> contemporary,=20
> > > > > struck or cast.
> > > > > > I have also yet to personally see the 1696, 1718 or 19,=20
> 1720,=20
> > > > > 1732, 1735,
> > > > > > 1745, 1747, 1793. I see you have a few listed as being in=20
> > your=20
> > > > > collection
> > > > > > and look forward to examining them. As far as AK-60 and=20
Ak-
> 77=20
> > > > are=20
> > > > > concerned,
> > > > > > you must realize by now these are dated 1752, no?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Try not to take the ridicule to hard. We have a=20
> > > > > certain "researcher" whose
> > > > > > only claim to fame or "research" consists solely of=20
bashing=20
> > > > the=20
> > > > > older giants
> > > > > > of our hobby. Men who had the balls to go out on a limb,=20
> > > > writing=20
> > > > > papers and
> > > > > > making statements that I'm sure they knew would be=20
> > > > controversial=20
> > > > > and
> > > > > > possibly disproved, probably hoping to simulate more=20
> interest=20
> > > > and=20
> > > > > research.
> > > > > > It is unfortunate we have such a jerk in the hobby that=20
can=20
> > do=20
> > > > > nothing else
> > > > > > but take others theories and "blow them up in there=20
faces".=20
> > > > Rather=20
> > > > > then
> > > > > > simply work on new research, he has taken the easy way=20
out=20
> > and=20
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > attacks theirs, yours and mine. I suggest simply tuning=20
him=20
> > > > out.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Hang in there.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I plan to re-attend the eSig built for the purpose of=20
> > > > meaningful,
> > > > > > coordinated, well documented and consistently and=20
properly=20
> > > > filed=20
> > > > > research on
> > > > > > these series, very soon. Hopefully you will join us. I=20
> would=20
> > > > like=20
> > > > > to see you
> > > > > > and others who were considered unwelcome in earlier=20
> eGroups,=20
> > > > > simply because
> > > > > > they had issues with some of the earlier members, join us.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Also, I have a good number of G II Mules of various G III=20
> > > > dates,=20
> > > > > including
> > > > > > two dated 1772. This date, 1772, presently seems rarest,=20
at=20
> > > > least=20
> > > > > in my
> > > > > > experience? There are also a few different 1755's now=20
> known.=20
> > I=20
> > > > > will be
> > > > > > getting into topics these further, but perhaps somewhere=20
> > else?=20
> > > > AAR=20
> > > > > you will
> > > > > > be included in the discussions if you'd like.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Clem
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > _____=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > From: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > yahoogroups.com [mailto:colonial-
> > > > > coins@yahoogroups. <mailto:coins%40yahoogroups.com> com]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of John Lorenzo
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:21 PM
> > > > > > To: colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: George II Casts -=20
> > > > Revisited -=20
> > > > > Ed
> > > > > > Sarrafian Listing +++ JPL Notes
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > One correction. I did give as a gift Americana Sale=20
> Lot:5830=20
> > > > to=20
> > > > > Mike=20
> > > > > > Ringo at a previous C4. I believe its 1771 based on other=20
> > > > known=20
> > > > > > specimens which is probably why John K. posted the (?)=20
> > symbol.=20
> > > > The=20
> > > > > > owner of this coin should recognize my hand-writing on=20
the=20
> > > > flip=20
> > > > > which=20
> > > > > > accompanied this lot in the Sale. I did pick up this=20
> specimen=20
> > > > from=20
> > > > > a=20
> > > > > > Warren Baker's FPL as noted in 1997. This GII 1771 may=20
not=20
> > > > have a=20
> > > > > > duplicate currently in my collection. Can't recall ...=20
> Ringo=20
> > > > > > Americana Sale lots 5833, 5834 & 5835 are significant=20
> pieces.=20
> > > > Nice=20
> > > > > > coins. I believe my 1777 is very different than Ringo:=20
> 5836.=20
> > > > > Ringo:=20
> > > > > > 5827 speaks for itself as I can't even tell you what=20
other=20
> > > > 1755=20
> > > > > GII=20
> > > > > > types are out there ... I wonder how earlier Mike's=20
> > collection=20
> > > > > goes=20
> > > > > > on GII's rather than 1733??? We should see some lower=20
grade=20
> > > > > 1730's.=20
> > > > > > Any others he never reported any to me during 1989-1994=20
or=20
> > > > so ...=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > --- In colonial-coins@ <mailto:colonial-coins%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > yahoogroups.com, "John Lorenzo" <jlorenzo@>=20
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As discussed Ed Sarrafian did a Rarity Scale of George=20
II=20
> > > > > > > Contemporary Counterfeit Halfpence in Penny Wise around=20
> > > > 1990. As=20
> > > > > > time=20
> > > > > > > went on I put some minor personal notes in this great=20
> work.=20
> > > > > Below=20
> > > > > > are=20
> > > > > > > my notes. Some R ratings have changed of course=20
downward=20
> > but=20
> > > > in=20
> > > > > my=20
> > > > > > > opinion not very much for the cast species. I basically=20
> > left=20
> > > > the=20
> > > > > > > original "R" ratings by Ed S. FYI. I will leave their=20
> > > > reduction=20
> > > > > to=20
> > > > > > > some other current experts. This list will aid you in=20
my=20
> > > > sale of=20
> > > > > > cast=20
> > > > > > > specimens. Batty information supplied to me privately=20
by=20
> > > > > Kleeberg=20
> > > > > > of=20
> > > > > > > the ANS on December 18, 1998 with post discussions at=20
the=20
> > > > ANS. I=20
> > > > > do=20
> > > > > > > have the original letter I can bring later this year to=20
> > > > Siboni=20
> > > > > IV=20
> > > > > > if=20
> > > > > > > anyone is interested. - Enjoy:
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > 1696: R8. Unknown in cast. Not in JPL Collection. Still=20
> > > > tough!
> > > > > > > 1714: R9. Not in Sarrafian Listing. Ex. Anton. Nice=20
early=20
> > > > year.
> > > > > > > 1718 or 1719: Full date not visible. Mules GII obv.=20
with=20
> a=20
> > > > GI=20
> > > > > > reverse=20
> > > > > > > (1717-24). Unknown in cast. Not in JPL Collection.
> > > > > > > 1720: R8. Unknown in cast. Never seen one.
> > > > > > > 1729: R9. Not in original Sarrafian listing. JPL=20
> > Collection -
> > > >=20
> > > > > Ex.=20
> > > > > > > Anton.
> > > > > > > 1730: R6+. Ringo Collection has two cast specimens.=20
ANS -
> > > > cast.=20
> > > > > > Batty=20
> > > > > > > list a brass cast. JPL collection.
> > > > > > > 1731: R6+. Sarrafian indicates unique in cast. Two cast=20
> in=20
> > > > JPL=20
> > > > > > > collection. Batty list two struck specimens.
> > > > > > > 1732: R8: Unknown in cast. This is a rare year. None in=20
> > JPL,=20
> > > > ANS=20
> > > > > or=20
> > > > > > > Batty.
> > > > > > > 1733: R5. The earliest collectable GII. See AK#51 &=20
> AK#52.=20
> > > > R7+=20
> > > > > in=20
> > > > > > > cast. JPL has 1733 and also a previous unreported=20
1733/7=20
> R9=20
> > > > > > specimen.=20
> > > > > > > Check your 1733's closely.
> > > > > > > 1734: R6. A bit rarer than 1733. A VF and VG in JPL=20
> > > > collection.=20
> > > > > ANS-
> > > > > > > Cast, Batty-cast.
> > > > > > > 1735. R8 by Ed S. but easily R7. Cast in JPL. Ringo-
cast.=20
> A=20
> > > > new=20
> > > >
|
|---|
