| Article content |
- From johnmenc@optonline.net Tue Jan 10 13:46:31 2012
Return-Path: <johnmenc@optonline.net>
X-Sender: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 39403 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2012 21:46:31 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.35.160)
by m6.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jan 2012 21:46:31 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO n43d.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com) (66.163.169.157)
by mta4.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2012 21:46:31 -0000
X-Received: from [69.147.65.149] by n43.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2012 21:46:31 -0000
X-Received: from [98.137.35.12] by t9.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2012 21:46:31 -0000
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:46:30 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <jeibjm+em7h@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <jei4jt+8e04@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: 66.163.169.157
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 63.80.255.3
From: "colonialjohn" <johnmenc@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: G3-1771-1 or Wood 38-a (addendum)
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=111282553; y=5amjL7I_tglTB_ZwS9SnbXBH4BfeMOfcOX8QYOdqf4CvZOC6zskY6JgEoA
X-Yahoo-Profile: colonial_john_c4
In terms of the others Jeff: Figure 39 the undated is Wood 38. Wood 38-b I =
will have to check my files but I believe its of the Syd Martin type style =
G3-1771-2. All other 1771's are variants of Wood 38,38-a and 38-b based on =
head/harp types although you list G3-1771-1-6 and the unknown date. G3-1771=
-7-9 were never considered Blacksmiths. I will check W38-b soon - I remembe=
r seeing Syd's die marriage as the type? Will check/report. There is no off=
icial W38-c that I know of ... certainly your G3-1771-6 would qualify but t=
his head and very different harp would almost give it its own Blacksmith Nu=
mber.
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "colonialjohn" <johnmenc@...> wrote:
>
> No problem ... in the Blacksmith World it is known as Wood 38-a. Finest o=
f four? known ... There was one other in the Roy Hughes Collection by Torex=
that sold in the 90's but Roy Hughes may have purchased one of the Taylor =
pieces you mentioned in your article ... it is plated so a plate match is p=
ossible to confirm (4) or (5) known specimens ... exceeds the Bank of Canad=
a Collection coin by two full grades ... and the Ringo piece is the Finest =
Known Wood 38-a or G3-1771-1 ... for sure ... true we can go round and roun=
d ... all I am saying Jeff it was probably the best Blacksmith (if you wish=
to consider this piece in that family) to come on the market in the last 2=
5 years ... this is why I give it a #2 rating ... nothing beats the banana =
nose ... sure the Baby Head is awaesome but Stacks totally undercatalouged =
the G3-1771-1 piece in a MAJOR way never linking it DIRECTLY to the Blackms=
iths ... I mean why would I bid you up from $2,000 to $3,000 at the Ringo S=
ale if was not the #2 coin <VBG>. The 1767 is AWESOME but is not linked to =
the Blacksmiths either as Wood 38-a or Wood 38-b. Yes the point is moot tak=
ing this to the next level. ... Both Wood 38-a and 38-b were classified ini=
tially as Blacksmiths since they were dateless. Wait a minute ... G3-1771-1=
is dated 1771. Yes but not the specimen initially viewed which had no 1771=
date ... so without the date it was a perfect fit for a Wood 38-a classifi=
cation. If G3-1767-1 were dateless it would probably fit a Wood 38-c classi=
fication. As I mentioned they may have been imported but the alloy mix in W=
ood 38-a does not fix the typical high copper (98-99%) English imports and =
even the Evasions Morris is working on ... its a metallurgical anomaly and =
also does not fit into the Blacksmith W1-12 or W23-29 sub-series. OK ... Je=
ff ... #7.=20
>=20
> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Rock <Rosaamltd@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks guys! This was a fun -- and infuriating! -- one to do. Wheneve=
r I
> > thought I was done, another one popped up, or another coin with die sha=
ring
> > or something else. I fully expect more to come up (in fact I may have =
just
> > bought a new 1771 right after Oliver sent the piece to press!), but I t=
hink
> > if we can do something like this with a lot of the counterfeit series,
> > making it easy for newer collectors to attribute pieces (and explain WH=
Y
> > they are neat, along the way), we'll really make a lot of progress.
> >=20
> > JPL, as for John's coins, the 1771 was neat but I wouldn't put it as se=
cond
> > best coin. After the Banana Nose, Baby Head, 1783, 1767 Irish Blacksmi=
th
> > and maybe the triple struck Irish would be my estimate -- but definitel=
y a
> > "top ten" coin on anyone's list!
> >=20
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Rickie Rose <sjkrose@> wrote:
> >=20
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > "a masterpiece of an article" I second that... Great job Jeff!
> > > Rickie
> > >
> > > *From:* colonialjohn <johnmenc@>
> > > *To:* colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> > > *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2012 5:41 PM
> > > *Subject:* [Colonial Numismatics] Jeff Rock - STUPENDOUS!
> > >
> > >
> > > CNL-147. In reference to G3-1771-1 I was awaiting Wood 38-a as per th=
e
> > > Bank of Canada NCC classification. XRF analysis and as you hint in th=
e lack
> > > of die sharing and all were found in Canada thought does have a very =
weird
> > > alloy mix unlike the Evasions, 1775 English 1/2d's, 1/4d's and ever o=
ther
> > > mainstream Blackmsiths say of Woods 1-12. To me it was Ringo's second=
best
> > > coin. Much more to follow ... a masterpiece of an article. The best I=
have
> > > seen in YEARS. Congratulations!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=20=20
> > >
> >
>
|
|---|
| Source URL |
|
|---|
| Date published |
|
|---|
| Volume |
|
|---|
