| Article content |
- From johnmenc@optonline.net Mon Aug 13 11:00:48 2012
Return-Path: <johnmenc@optonline.net>
X-Sender: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 41240 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2012 18:00:48 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.35.160)
by m10.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2012 18:00:48 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO ng11-vm5.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com) (98.136.219.135)
by mta4.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2012 18:00:48 -0000
X-Received: from [98.137.0.81] by ng11.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2012 18:00:47 -0000
X-Received: from [98.137.34.51] by tg10.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2012 18:00:47 -0000
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:00:47 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <k0bfcf+suso@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <k0bd2t+lj7m@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: 96.56.209.230
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 96.56.209.230
From: "colonialjohn" <johnmenc@optonline.net>
Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: Ryder 40, Wood 36 and some others ...
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=111282553; y=iQ1p6gH-Dp2atw9Ai19msfY3kxWD04pSjvYoI03J3LdBQ8o5MieV1WNx-w
X-Yahoo-Profile: colonial_john_c4
Byron - Bill - has certainly had some controversial pieces over time like t=
hat Mott Token Error coin which was purchased from a Stacks Coin Galleries =
Sale directly and later condemned as an impossible error after it was fully=
attributed. Unfortunately top error specialists like Fred Weinberg, Rich S=
chemmer, Mike Beyers and even Mike Diamond from Coin World's Collector's Cl=
earinghouse don't have the expertise to cross that 1792 Federal Line or wou=
ld put their reputations on the line with this piece. The person who purcha=
sed this coin (V.20-87C damged coin?) actually helped with the analysis of =
the Mott Token Error piece during my presentation of the piece at an ANA. H=
is reasoning after purchasing the coin (condemned Machins Mills piece) was =
how can you condemn a coin solely by picture overlays and not examining the=
coin in hand with a loop. After he examined the coin IN HAND he also was c=
onvinced it was genuine. Machins is tough Byron ... there so much money put=
into these pieces -de-listing another will take an ACT OF CONGRESS. Luckil=
y that new variety was deep into the 1787 die family chart as the new disco=
very team had indicated <BG> so its liklihood as British Import was greatly=
reduced.=20
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bkw11@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, P.T. Barnum relied on the power of suggestion too, I understand comp=
letely, John, so I won't even menation a certain V.20-87C with collateral d=
ate damage that was sold as a new variety - oops, I just did!<bg>
>=20
> I hope you'll at least have pictures with your CNL article...!<s>
>=20
> Byron
>=20
> --- 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 o=
r 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 b=
ased on current XRF assays. Silver in these casts being 50-80% with the und=
erstanding of silver enrichment will elevate these levels. All trace elemen=
ts are PRESENT as with regal 8R's. Interesting project. Our lead guy says m=
aybe 300 years is enough time in the half life of lead to see some differen=
ces or similarities. Purpose: To confirm cast and struck were made in the 1=
8thC or casts were remelt jobs atthe turn of the 20thC as experts currently=
have recommended based on the work of Pradeau.
> >=20
> > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Freidus <freidus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly, XRF can sometimes definitively tell us that a coin is not wh=
at it
> > > appears to be. It can never definitively prove that a coin *is* genui=
ne,
> > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > Dan
> > >=20
> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Oliver Hoover
> > > <oliver.hoover@>wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 ala=
rms. 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 o=
ther
> > > > 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 tel=
l you
> > > > the elemental composition of the bulk of the object which can and o=
ften is
> > > > different from the surface of the object. If the surface has not b=
een
> > > > cleaned then you will likely get surface contaminants. Results als=
o will
> > > > vary sometime considerably depending on where you sample on the sur=
face.
> > > > XRF also can not tell you anything about the micro-structural compo=
sition
> > > > 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 e=
ither
> > > > Zinc or Tin. But I believe that you can reproduce exactly this res=
ult by
> > > > melting a few old cheap coppers and using a centrifugal pressure ca=
sting
> > > > 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 li=
ke 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 =
not
> > > > follow from the data. About all you can say based on an XRF assay =
is that
> > > > the metallic content is similar to period coppers. Just because tw=
o 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 SE=
M/EDS
> > > > analysis will be done next week at EDAX utilizing five coins as des=
cribed
> > > > in a previous post and using the data generated by Eremin & Tate on=
their
> > > > Scottish Billon Coins paper showing different microstrutures of cas=
t/struck
> > > > coins as a basis for comparioson with our results. We are all baffl=
ed with
> > > > Ryder 40 based on lack of data and confidence of its source. This w=
ill 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. B=
yron
> > > > there is simply not many copper pieces during this period with diag=
nostics
> > > > 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 p=
eriod.
> > > > 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 e=
lse but
> > > > I'm baffled!<s>
> > > > >
> > > > > Byron
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, "colonialjohn" <johnmenc@>=
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The technology today and current databases do not allow a defin=
itive
> > > > 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 charact=
er. 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 l=
ike
> > > > Gurney believe all 8R Klippes are FAKES!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Rock <rosaamltd@> w=
rote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ... 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@> wrot=
e:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For M.56-n the XRF acted as a assay screen and basically pr=
oved it
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > struck and not cast. The metrology of the coin (diameter, w=
eight
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > thickness was virtually identical to the French 1 Sol). The=
re are
> > > > traces of
> > > > > > > > undertype but it would take time to unravel. The current ow=
ner
> > > > only wanted
> > > > > > > > to determine if it was genuine struck piece ... in my opini=
on ...
> > > > 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@> wro=
te:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm still trying to figure out why you think the Jozapait=
is 56-n
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > overstruck on a French Sol. As far as I can tell the only t=
hing
> > > > they really
> > > > > > > > have in common is weight, and the 56-n is a grain or so hea=
vier.
> > > > 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 ar=
ranging
> > > > 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" <jo=
hnmenc@>
> > > > 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 w=
ith 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 da=
te it
> > > > appears to
> > > > > > > > be British than Canadian but this has changed from my C4 Pa=
per.
> > > > 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 Blackm=
siths
> > > > of Wood
> > > > > > > > 34-46 of a "BASTARD" type composition with this example com=
posed
> > > > 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 bism=
uth
> > > > relecting
> > > > > > > > Cornish Copper. At the time (1730-1750'ish) the Cornish Cop=
per
> > > > mines were
> > > > > > > > dominant with the Swansea Copper mines coming around in the
> > > > 1780/1790's.
> > > > > > > > The analysis confirmed this copper source for all types ana=
lyzed
> > > > 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 th=
ese (5)
> > > > coins:
> > > > > > > > Ryder 40, a 1770 Cobwright pouch example, Vermont Ryder 5 C=
ast,
> > > > Ryder 25
> > > > > > > > and a V.13-88CT Machin Mills piece. See what happens.
> > > > Microstructure
> > > > > > > > (surface magnification), inorganic metal and organic profil=
es.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 t=
his
> > > > point. We
> > > > > > > > can only compare Ryder 40 to these (4) other pieces and dis=
cuss the
> > > > > > > > findings - CAREFULLY.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In all (25) coins were analyzed including a 1773 GIII B=
aby
> > > > Face.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Byron - its not dead ... unfortunately we have not even
> > > > scratched the
> > > > > > > > surface ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JPL
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >=20=20
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
|---|
