| 文章內容 |
- From rosaamltd@gmail.com Mon Aug 13 10:29:43 2012
Return-Path: <rosaamltd@gmail.com>
X-Sender: rosaamltd@gmail.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 29467 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2012 17:29:42 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.34.46)
by m13.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2012 17:29:42 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO mail-ob0-f171.google.com) (209.85.214.171)
by mta3.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2012 17:29:42 -0000
X-Received: by obqv19 with SMTP id v19so18197207obq.16
for <colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.14.36 with SMTP id m4mr13593614obc.71.1344878982121; Mon,
13 Aug 2012 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.60.4.71 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <k0bd2t+lj7m@eGroups.com>
References: <k0bbu4+79si@eGroups.com>
<k0bd2t+lj7m@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:29:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC7kd3RXfRbSPRQMZwTM67Gg6RfZbLF7hbOqPEkjshGrvptuQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9399b4dfeca9f04c729098a
X-Originating-IP: 209.85.214.171
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
From: Jeff Rock <rosaamltd@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: Ryder 40, Wood 36 and some others ...
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=475199600; y=dF2O3iIQSOGQM71IjnU_qfxlTHczP37mLs3N_POOq2afgJ2r
X-Yahoo-Profile: rosaamltd
--14dae9399b4dfeca9f04c729098a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jack, you nailed my misgivings exactly, and put it into better words than I
could have. I completely agree on the Ryder 40's -- they were very
sophisticated counterfeits, and very scary in many ways. Much like the
countefeit territorial gold pieces that allegedly came via John Ford the
person who did these was very careful to make sure that internally, things
were right and that the metal was of the correct period. That's not hard
to do -- though it is a little extra work that our Chinese counterfeiting
friends will hopefully never think of doing...
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Byron <bkw11@psu.edu> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Yes, P.T. Barnum relied on the power of suggestion too, I understand
> completely, John, so I won't even menation a certain V.20-87C with
> collateral date damage that was sold as a new variety - oops, I just
> did!<bg>
>
> I hope you'll at least have pictures with your CNL article...!<s>
>
> Byron
>
>
> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "colonialjohn" <johnmenc@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed - which is why we used the word "POSSIBLY" here in this article.
> If I was still collecting NJ's Frank would no longer own this coin <BG>. =
I
> HOPE its consigned to Stacks s o the undertpe can be broken down one way =
or
> another ... Dan ... in terms of remelting ... this is why this Klippe 8R =
is
> perfect for my next CNL article ... just waiting for Gurney to send me a
> so-called legitimate silver struck 8R Klippe of either 1733 or 1734. Just
> not in my budget to drop a $1,000 on a piece to analyze. Currently own (3=
)
> cast pieces with experts believing these were made late 1800's/early
> 1900's. Comparing the lead isotope ratios from a struck piece to the cast
> pieces which were made from 18thC silver and debased either with brass or
> copper based on current XRF assays. Silver in these casts being 50-80% wi=
th
> the understanding of silver enrichment will elevate these levels. All tra=
ce
> elements are PRESENT as with regal 8R's. Interesting project. Our lead gu=
y
> says maybe 300 years is enough time in the half life of lead to see some
> differences or similarities. Purpose: To confirm cast and struck were mad=
e
> in the 18thC or casts were remelt jobs atthe turn of the 20thC as experts
> currently have recommended based on the work of Pradeau.
> >
> > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Freidus <freidus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly, XRF can sometimes definitively tell us that a coin is not
> what it
> > > appears to be. It can never definitively prove that a coin *is*
> genuine,
> > > only that its metallic composition is consistent with that of genuine
> > > coins. That's a valuable thing to know but it's only part of the data
> one
> > > should use for authentication.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Oliver Hoover
> > > <oliver.hoover@>wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jack,
> > > >
> > > > I think you are absolutely correct about this. It is very common fo=
r
> high
> > > > level forgers of ancient coins to melt down authentic ancient coins
> in
> > > > order to produce an appropriate alloy that will not trigger XRF
> alarms. XRF
> > > > is not the holy grail of forgery detection.
> > > >
> > > > Oliver
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Jack Howes wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > I guess I am going to weigh in on this discussion. You said, "*The
> XRF
> > > > assay proved its not cast or modern based on its composition with
> other
> > > > coppers of the period.*"
> > > >
> > > > I don't buy (or believe) that XRF can prove that a metallic object =
is
> > > > struck or cast. It can only tell you what *surface* elements exist
> or do
> > > > not exist in the object. I think several points here should be
> > > > emphasized. XRF is a *surface analysis technique* and does not tell
> you
> > > > the elemental composition of the bulk of the object which can and
> often is
> > > > different from the surface of the object. If the surface has not be=
en
> > > > cleaned then you will likely get surface contaminants. Results also
> will
> > > > vary sometime considerably depending on where you sample on the
> surface.
> > > > XRF also can not tell you anything about the micro-structural
> composition
> > > > of the object either.
> > > >
> > > > Thus your conclusion that XRF assay proved its not cast appears to
> be just
> > > > a conjecture on your part based on a low Lead content and lack of
> either
> > > > Zinc or Tin. But I believe that you can reproduce exactly this
> result by
> > > > melting a few old cheap coppers and using a centrifugal pressure
> casting
> > > > device. Which is exactly how I believe the RR40 was made. I have no
> idea
> > > > why anyone would want to make a 56-n this way so you maybe correct
> about
> > > > the under-type but NOT based on the data I have seen so far.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe SEM/EDS can determine that the microstructure is more cast
> like than
> > > > struck like but for that to be true you would have to also examine
> (with
> > > > SEM) a coin made with a the centrifugal pressure casting process to
> > > > convince me. Does not sound like you are planning to do that.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore you conclude that it is not modern based on similar
> > > > composition with other period coppers. Again this conclusion does n=
ot
> > > > follow from the data. About all you can say based on an XRF assay i=
s
> that
> > > > the metallic content is similar to period coppers. Just because two
> coins
> > > > have similar elemental content does not mean they are the same age.
> > > >
> > > > Jack
> > > >
> > > > On 8/13/2012 11:21 AM, colonialjohn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Byron -
> > > >
> > > > SEM/EDS is a science. Shortly in the next CNL it will have my artic=
le
> > > > titled the "Three Coin Paper." This will present readers with the
> > > > technology on three coins which were analyzed using SEM/EDS. The
> SEM/EDS
> > > > analysis will be done next week at EDAX utilizing five coins as
> described
> > > > in a previous post and using the data generated by Eremin & Tate on
> their
> > > > Scottish Billon Coins paper showing different microstrutures of
> cast/struck
> > > > coins as a basis for comparioson with our results. We are all
> baffled with
> > > > Ryder 40 based on lack of data and confidence of its source. This
> will be
> > > > changed in the new Forgotten Book or at least giving it hope for a
> new
> > > > perspective. When Richard August look at Frank's M.56-n at the show
> in
> > > > March 2012? (not sure of the month) he also thought French 1 Sol.
> Byron
> > > > there is simply not many copper pieces during this period with
> diagnostics
> > > > with this diameter, thickness and weight. Actually - I can't think =
of
> > > > another host coins with these diagnostics. The XRF assay proved its
> not
> > > > cast or modern based on its composition with other coppers of the
> period.
> > > > There are enough motifs to probably match it to a regal French 1 So=
l.
> > > > Probably will take a day or two - depending on one's expertise and/=
or
> > > > desire of its next owner or Stack's catalouger.
> > > >
> > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bkw11@> <bkw11@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a word for this, besides BS, but I can't think of it righ=
t
> now,
> > > > a more polite technical sounding term...I don't know about anyone
> else but
> > > > I'm baffled!<s>
> > > > >
> > > > > Byron
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "colonialjohn" <johnmenc@>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The technology today and current databases do not allow a
> definitive
> > > > answer whether Ryder 40 should enter the Ryder family under a "100
> > > > approval" seal. Agreed. No way to prove some counterfeiter did not
> melt
> > > > 18thC copper and produced it. XRF results currently suggest that it
> is
> > > > struck with 18thC copper. SED/EDS will confirm its struck and the
> > > > anticipated high organic levels will also confirm its 18thC
> character. With
> > > > silver and the 1733/1734 Klippe types I am going to try Pb Isotopic
> > > > Analysis and see if these were produced in the 18thC or 20thC - but
> that is
> > > > silver with higher levels of lead than 18thC copper. It too has bee=
n
> tagged
> > > > with the same tag as Ryder 40 - melting of 8R pieces. Some people
> like
> > > > Gurney believe all 8R Klippes are FAKES!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Rock <rosaamltd@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ... all I can do is prove its struck and its microstructure i=
s
> > > > genuine to
> > > > > > > other pieces of the era ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, that says volumes right there....whether you intended t=
o
> or
> > > > not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:06 AM, colonialjohn <johnmenc@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For M.56-n the XRF acted as a assay screen and basically
> proved it
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > struck and not cast. The metrology of the coin (diameter,
> weight
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > thickness was virtually identical to the French 1 Sol).
> There are
> > > > traces of
> > > > > > > > undertype but it would take time to unravel. The current
> owner
> > > > only wanted
> > > > > > > > to determine if it was genuine struck piece ... in my
> opinion ...
> > > > it is ...
> > > > > > > > it will probably be sold at the ANA or consigned to the C4
> Auction
> > > > ... I
> > > > > > > > would ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anton could care less whether you believe its real or not
> ... in
> > > > some ways
> > > > > > > > this is a problem ... that's Bill Anton ... he is only doin=
g
> this
> > > > for the
> > > > > > > > book ... his sons want to give this to him as as a momento
> ... I
> > > > will take
> > > > > > > > the coin as far as EDAX will allow me and Bill Anton ... al=
l
> I can
> > > > do is
> > > > > > > > prove its struck and its microstructure is genuine to other
> pieces
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > > era ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bkw11@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm still trying to figure out why you think the
> Jozapaitis 56-n
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > overstruck on a French Sol. As far as I can tell the only
> thing
> > > > they really
> > > > > > > > have in common is weight, and the 56-n is a grain or so
> heavier.
> > > > And the
> > > > > > > > XRF statistical minutia apparently doesn't prove anything,
> in fact
> > > > it seems
> > > > > > > > to be quite off comparing the two.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the
> arranging
> > > > of them
> > > > > > > > myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli wou=
ld
> > > > often apply
> > > > > > > > with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lie=
s,
> > > > damned lies
> > > > > > > > and statistics."
> > > > > > > > > - Autobiography of Mark Twain
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for the dead horse, may God have mercy on his soul!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Byron
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "colonialjohn"
> <johnmenc@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Finally got to do some XRF assays (initial analysis) on
> some
> > > > coins for
> > > > > > > > the upcoming Forgotten Coins Book. Some comments:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Canadian Blackmsith Wood 36: Rarity 8? (Two Known?)
> The
> > > > obverse
> > > > > > > > head has the same general appearance as Wood 34 & Wood 35
> with the
> > > > infamous
> > > > > > > > retrograde date reading 1471 which was doubtless intended f=
or
> > > > 1741. The
> > > > > > > > William Anton Collection houses this variety as well as the
> Bank
> > > > of Canada
> > > > > > > > Money Museum via W. Baker?. With this type of retrograde
> date it
> > > > appears to
> > > > > > > > be British than Canadian but this has changed from my C4
> Paper.
> > > > Purchased
> > > > > > > > actually from Cobwright in England for $600. An incredible
> coin
> > > > and I have
> > > > > > > > only traced two of this AK-Plated coin. As with most
> Blackmsiths
> > > > of Wood
> > > > > > > > 34-46 of a "BASTARD" type composition with this example
> composed
> > > > of (12)
> > > > > > > > different metals and appears to be a low tin (4.55%) bronze
> > > > (Cu/Sn) cast
> > > > > > > > (Pb: 8.88 & 15.2%).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. George II Counterfeit 1/2d's. Most contain high
> bismuth
> > > > relecting
> > > > > > > > Cornish Copper. At the time (1730-1750'ish) the Cornish
> Copper
> > > > mines were
> > > > > > > > dominant with the Swansea Copper mines coming around in the
> > > > 1780/1790's.
> > > > > > > > The analysis confirmed this copper source for all types
> analyzed
> > > > being
> > > > > > > > Cornwall.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Ryder 40: Confirmed as struck with 18thC copper. Jef=
f
> Rock
> > > > melting
> > > > > > > > dilemma? - hopefully we plan to do SEM/EDS comparions on
> these (5)
> > > > coins:
> > > > > > > > Ryder 40, a 1770 Cobwright pouch example, Vermont Ryder 5
> Cast,
> > > > Ryder 25
> > > > > > > > and a V.13-88CT Machin Mills piece. See what happens.
> > > > Microstructure
> > > > > > > > (surface magnification), inorganic metal and organic
> profiles.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. GIII CC's - nothing special - same old 97-98% copper=
.
> Few
> > > > > > > > impurities unlike American 18thC State Coppers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 5. Ryder 5 - The lead value is of this coin was 1.42%.
> It does
> > > > require
> > > > > > > > more analysis. Cast bronze lead specimens have lead values
> which
> > > > are very
> > > > > > > > variable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hopefully some INTIAL signatures can be retrieved from
> this
> > > > group when
> > > > > > > > comparing Machins to English imports and seeing if Ryder 40
> is a
> > > > melt down
> > > > > > > > job. On this point I think Jeff's arguments will remain
> > > > unchallenged as
> > > > > > > > there are no references or data groups to confirm or deny
> this
> > > > point. We
> > > > > > > > can only compare Ryder 40 to these (4) other pieces and
> discuss the
> > > > > > > > findings - CAREFULLY.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In all (25) coins were analyzed including a 1773 GIII
> Baby
> > > > Face.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Byron - its not dead ... unfortunately we have not even
> > > > scratched the
> > > > > > > > surface ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JPL
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>=20=20
>
--14dae9399b4dfeca9f04c729098a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jack, you nailed my misgivings exactly, and put it into better words than I=
could have.=A0 I completely agree on the Ryder 40's -- they were very =
sophisticated counterfeits, and very scary in many ways.=A0 Much like the c=
ountefeit territorial gold pieces that allegedly came via John Ford the per=
son who did these was very careful to make sure that internally, things wer=
e right and that the metal was of the correct period.=A0 That's not har=
d to do -- though it is a little extra work that our Chinese counterfeiting=
friends will hopefully never think of doing...<br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Byron <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bkw11@psu.edu" target=3D"_blank">bkw11@=
psu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.=
8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1=
px;border-left-style:solid" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<u></u>
<div>
<span>=A0</span>
<div>
<div>
<div>
=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
<p>Yes, P.T. Barnum relied on the power of suggestion too, I understa=
nd completely, John, so I won't even menation a certain V.20-87C with c=
ollateral date damage that was sold as a new variety - oops, I just did!<=
;bg><br>
<br>
I hope you'll at least have pictures with your CNL article...!<s>=
<br>
<br>
Byron<div class=3D"im"><br>
<br>
--- In <a href=3D"mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com" target=3D"_blank=
">colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com</a>, "colonialjohn" <johnmenc=
@...> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Agreed - which is why we used the word "POSSIBLY" here in th=
is article. If I was still collecting NJ's Frank would no longer own th=
is coin <BG>. I HOPE its consigned to Stacks s o the undertpe can be =
broken down one way or another ... Dan ... in terms of remelting ... this i=
s why this Klippe 8R is perfect for my next CNL article ... just waiting fo=
r Gurney to send me a so-called legitimate silver struck 8R Klippe of eithe=
r 1733 or 1734. Just not in my budget to drop a $1,000 on a piece to analyz=
e. Currently own (3) cast pieces with experts believing these were made lat=
e 1800's/early 1900's. Comparing the lead isotope ratios from a str=
uck piece to the cast pieces which were made from 18thC silver and debased =
either with brass or copper based on current XRF assays. Silver in these ca=
sts being 50-80% with the understanding of silver enrichment will elevate t=
hese levels. All trace elements are PRESENT as with regal 8R's. Interes=
ting project. Our lead guy says maybe 300 years is enough time in the half =
life of lead to see some differences or similarities. Purpose: To confirm c=
ast and struck were made in the 18thC or casts were remelt jobs atthe turn =
of the 20thC as experts currently have recommended based on the work of Pra=
deau.<br>
> <br></div><div class=3D"im">
> --- In <a href=3D"mailto:colonial-coins%40yahoogroups.com" target=3D"_=
blank">colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com</a>, Daniel Freidus <freidus@> =
wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Exactly, XRF can sometimes definitively tell us that a coin is no=
t what it<br>
> > appears to be. It can never definitively prove that a coin *is* g=
enuine,<br>
> > only that its metallic composition is consistent with that of gen=
uine<br>
> > coins. That's a valuable thing to know but it's only part=
of the data one<br>
> > should use for authentication.<br>
> > <br>
> > Dan<br>
> > <br>
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Oliver Hoover<br></div>
> > <oliver.hoover@>wrote:<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
> > <br>
> > > **<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Jack,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I think you are absolutely correct about this. It is very co=
mmon for high<br>
> > > level forgers of ancient coins to melt down authentic ancien=
t coins in<br>
> > > order to produce an appropriate alloy that will not trigger =
XRF alarms. XRF<br>
> > > is not the holy grail of forgery detection.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Oliver<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Jack Howes wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > John,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I guess I am going to weigh in on this discussion. You said=
, "*The XRF<br>
> > > assay proved its not cast or modern based on its composition=
with other<br>
> > > coppers of the period.*"<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I don't buy (or believe) that XRF can prove that a metal=
lic object is<br>
> > > struck or cast. It can only tell you what *surface* element=
s exist or do<br>
> > > not exist in the object. I think several points here should=
be<br>
> > > emphasized. XRF is a *surface analysis technique* and does =
not tell y
|
|---|
