Wnuck Coin - 1771 GIII Cast (GH counterstamp) Pubblico Deposited
- From johnmenc@optonline.net Tue Sep 11 07:14:31 2012
Return-Path: <johnmenc@optonline.net>
X-Sender: johnmenc@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 58859 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2012 14:14:29 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.34.45)
by m1.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2012 14:14:29 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO ng20-ip1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.215.120)
by mta2.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2012 14:14:28 -0000
X-Received: from [98.138.217.176] by ng20.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2012 14:14:28 -0000
X-Received: from [98.137.34.155] by tg1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2012 14:14:28 -0000
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:14:26 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <k2nh02+tss2@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: "colonial_john_c4" <johnmenc@optonline.net>
Subject: Wnuck Coin - 1771 GIII Cast (GH counterstamp)
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=111282553; y=WutCjimhR5orVb3KSbMlXWJYj3L8D1CNIkYEOyhjAySdk9Gtya7y5UcXiw
X-Yahoo-Profile: colonial_john_c4
When you look at the coin I doubt anyone can say this cast was made sometim=
e this year from its appearance and edge features. I may use this coin in t=
he Ryder 40 study to compare it to the 1754 GII cast which was cut up and p=
olished as a 18thC cast standard. For this coin since Wnuck does not want i=
t cut up we will look at the surface only and compare to see if there are a=
ny differences ... Surface XRF analysis yielded: Copper (79.4%), Zinc (19.5=
5%), Tin (0.75%), Iron (0.11%), Lead (0.09%), Indium (0.03%), Gallium (0.02=
%), Palladium (0.009%) and Iridium (0.00001%). I have yet to see a GII cast=
of the 18thC that did not have a good amount of lead say 0.5% or higher? T=
his work group that D.W. and F.Z. attended could have easily added lead and=
then even surface XRF would suggest its 18thC ... I remember D.W. telling =
me these were made primarily from melting Lincoln Cents and other? items wh=
ich seems to be the case with this very high zinc ... I recently dated a Li=
ncoln Cent N.D. lamination peel error to a specific striking period based =
on its copper/tin/zinc readings ... the very low lead (0.09%) and very high=
zinc (19.55%) tells me something is wrong here after examining about six o=
ther cast pieces and remembering the Mossman/Smith cast paper findings ... =
but a good forger would get the FORMULA right. All I can say Dan Freidus is=
lets see what the SEM has to say on the surface between D.W.'s 21stC cast =
and the 1754 GII cast. HMMM ... if Ryder 40 had an empirical formula of a c=
ast I guess you could throw in the towel ... I see no point in asking D.W. =
permission to cut up his souvenier ... but Dr. Anderhalt will compare the s=
urfaces and report differences in these two pieces ... after seeing this op=
eration D.W. sold all his casts in his collection ... I guess if you do not=
have a $100,000 XRF device in your back pocket things could get confusing =
... I agree ...
JPL=20 - 2012-09-11
- 1
