| Author |
 Replies: 50 / Views: 19,837 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Dcap, the fact that the SURFACES (tone/texture) on your two pieces are pretty much exactly the same (aside from sharing the same peculiar physical strike/planchet traits)... That alone negates any possibility of these being anything BUT modern numismatic fabrications (mid-1900s up) that were produced at the same time in the same manner... Even if we just took the 1732 Mo MF piece alone, no other examples of this type with even a chance at being genuine have ever surfaced except for Fisher's pieces, which all were "shipwreck effect" (natural or artificial). I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's pretty much that. You can go ahead and study the varieties of the early pillars (FYI, thee are a few 1732 F non-salvage known, more 1733 non-salvage, plus 1732 and 1733 dates from, obviously, the 1733 Fleet, and also the Rooswijk wreck), but it doesn't change what these pieces have to be, in spite of whatever features they may or may not share with known genuine 1732 & 1733 8R.
The only thing left here is whether they could in fact be "pre-treatment" specimens of the pieces Fisher procured - again, just because your 1732 Mo MF looks to match those dies. That would of course prove what was suspected by most people... they would then be interesting pieces of numismatic memorabilia, probably worth a few bucks to certain people as a collectible.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Upon XRF Analysis only two things could happen with these pieces: The Platinum/Gold levels would be above or below 0.1%. If below this marks the piece as MODERN - if above then we rely on experience and probability that they are real or melted from good silver of the same period. The silver level (~90%) and Pt/Au levels >0.1% have never seen an exception yet with any legitimate regal pieces from my research. Of course on the Class 2 China Debased issues which will be explained fully in the new Gurney book these also exhibit good Pt/Au levels above 0.1%. Testing these doctored issues would prove interesting on their Ag/Pt/Au levels.
John Lorenzo
United States
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36878 Posts |
Great thread guys, it has been a good learning experience for me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
John, hypothetically, if these were indeed tied to Fisher's pieces... these may very well be done from melted down sea-salvage slugs... in fact, I would expect them to be. If these are indeed at least 10 years old as the poster says, at full weight, they probably are silver...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Realeswatcher - I just caught up on the thread and was surprised to see a Shulman Catalog that I actually own a copy of. I had never known of the correlation with the first aborted attempt by Fisher to sell some of his salvaged coins. I was repacking my catalog collection today and that was one of the Shulman catalogs I found. I was doing some sorting in anticipation of getting rid of catalogs I did not want and that one went in the keep box because of the 8Rs that were included.
I was not aware that Fisher had actually located a wreck as early as 1973 so the presentation in the catalog is - very interesting. I also have most of the columns written by Virgil Hancock in my collection so I need to do some further research as well.
The connection between the Fisher discoveries/creation and the existence of an 1732 8R in total was not my primary intent. I was merely trying to point out that I have harbored suspicions about the origin of this particular 1732 coin die variety for some time and I have always wondered if Mel was possibly involved in the production of "some" of the issue.
Most forgers who sell in quantity know better than to make only one die variety. It was my impression from his partner that dies were created using the coins discovered as "prototypes" for the manufacture of molds to create the "new copies". What I heard was that the molds were created to "stretch out" the availability of the nicer looking coins because most of the salvaged coins were in bad shape and they got more for higher grades found "on the wreck". The scam involved salting the copies on the wreck site for later retrieval by amateur divers who would attest to provenance in return for the gift of a small part of their "discovery."
I agree that for some time, the store in Key West has identified the "copies" they sell but it was not too many years ago that the - distinction - was not all that obvious and was at times rather difficult to extract from the sales folks. I think if you go back to very early sales - the stories versus the 100% truth may have been more difficult to discern.
|
|
New Member
 United States
7 Posts |
Very interesting stuff everyone has brought up. I have learned a lot more about the history of the pillar dollar coin, and more specifically the probable history of the exact coins I have. It is interesting to know of all the different theories and such.
From the looks of it, I agree that I have, in all likely-hood, the Fisher reproductions of the coins. That being said, they are still remarkable and beautiful coins, even if probably not completely authentic. And I agree with what another poster said that there is still some numismatic value here to the right enthusiasts, given the alleged stories and history behind the coins, and given the grand allure that the pillar dollar has a tendency to create.
I also find interesting the one poster who said that Fisher took the badly eroded coins that were salvaged and melted them down, using that original silver to create his reproductions. That idea alone has me pretty excited in knowing that my coins, though probably not produced in the 1730's, at least could be made of the exact same silver originally used to mint 1732 coins. If true.... that is pretty cool!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3229 Posts |
Fantastic thread!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Quote:
From the looks of it, I agree that I have, in all likely-hood (sic), the Fisher reproductions of the coins. I'm not sure anyone said THAT was indeed "likely", just that they are some sort of fakes... you really can't necessarily assume the Fisher link to be fact. All of the ACTUAL known Fisher fakes of this were "shipwreck" coins... with surfaces which exhibited salt water effect/accretions (or something pretending to be that). Your pieces obviously are not that. There is a possible connection based simply on the fact that your 1732 happens to match the "dies" on the Fisher 1732 from what I see. I haven't compared your 1733 to any of the 1733 he procured... I don't have many pics of those to go on, and there are more varieties of (known genuine) 1733 to compare them all too. So, your 1732 COULD be a "pre-treatment" version of a Fisher fake...presuming that Fisher had them crafted solely for his use. Or, they could also have been part of a larger grouping of pieces that Fisher simply bought SOME of, as Bob speculated... OR they could simply be from a later batch of fakes, where at least the 1732 happened to be copied from the earlier Fisher-era fake. Studying the 1733 further might shed some light, or maybe someone might have more insight into who your relative may have dealt with along the way. Even so, the best you may ever do is having the knowledge that these MAY have be connected to those Fisher fakes. Edited by realeswatcher
06/18/2013 07:07 am
|
|
New Member
United States
7 Posts |
I had a friend take the 1732 coin to a local jeweler and perform an XRF chemical metal composition test. The results came back 95.1% silver, and 4.9% copper. What do you think this means? Could this perhaps be the original metals used? Thanks for any additional thoughts.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
As John Lorenzo will probably concur that is likely the result of surface leaching of copper. As a silver coin corrodes in salt water the copper being far more reactive leaches out of the coin. This normally gives a slightly higher surface reading for silver. There is also surface enrichment caused by the process of striking. If you combine leached silver and make planchets for striking - I could see that adding both effects might produce a reading over 95%.. John will have a better handle on the numbers but neither alone is enough to get 5% high.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Must be a pretty large-scale jeweler to have an XRF machine!!
To be fair, that would only be high by .034 fineness high for that period (.917 fine). There's also no sea-wear (simulated or real) to cause any copper leeching here... Regardless, John would note that it's the trace metals that really matter. Without those figures... simply tells us the surface is slightly elevated fineness coin silver.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Later this year I will be doing a paper on the L. Beck Silver Surface Enrichment process actually through my company (EDAX) for a Historical Type Material Analysis Conference. Beck's paper was on cast pieces and he showed silver being drawn to the surface creating high silver surface readings and a silver poor core. I am doing the study now with a 1964 Kennedy half dollar and a Carolus III 2 Reales from the El Cazador shipwreck. Interestingly the 1964 Silver Kennedy half when cut in half showed NO silver surface enrichment - so time is critical/essential to see this effect on struck issues. The 2R piece has already been confirmed with 98% Ag surface readings. It has yet to be cut up and tested throughout the inner areas both in composition and microstructure. Regal 8R's have demonstrated elevated readings like the dcap47 piece. When selling 8R pieces on E-Bay sometimes that turned out to be regal (legitimate) and not contemporary counterfeit I had to explain why my Ag readings were above 90% with some buyers - some commenting my XRF machine needs to be re-calibrated! <BG>. True - I just should have not said anything ... As realeswatcher has alluded to XRF is just the FIRST STEP - even with good Ag/Pt/Au you still need to compare/confirm the piece is genuine by its diagnsotics (i.e., edge devices, obverse/reverse comparison to regals). This can be difficult as we shall soon see in the Gurney book with the Birmingham Sheffield 8R's particularly in grades above AU since there is no breaks in the silver plating (i.e., normally seen on the edges by the denticles) and if in a TPG holder its impossible to determine unless cracked out and examining any underlying exposed debased alloy areas. The two areas I am still looking at are the cast 1733/1734 Klippes which are debased silver issues with good Pt/Au levels and probable 20thC early products melted from good silver but debased and the 1811 Mexican Plain Edge Chihuahua cast pieces in which the PE piece have IDENTICAL Ag/Pt/Au levels to the regal edge 1811 pieces in my collection and from other sources. Suggesting the regal edge may have been added later in 1811 as an anti-counterfeiting measure. This later paper already submitted to the MNA people. John Lorenzo United States |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
686 Posts |
Mathieu, I apologize but I am wary of libel liability. I commented previously on this board about hearing that "dive guys" may have altered dates on early pillars and someone objected.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Quote:
Mathieu, I apologize but I am wary of libel liability. I commented previously on this board about hearing that "dive guys" may have altered dates on early pillars and someone objected. Yeesh. Really, it's almost worse gossip to say well, I've heard something but I won't repeat it... that leaves the sky as the limit for how nefarious it could be. Obviously, as pertains to this case, the charges leveled were pretty severe and clear-cut. But, reading between one line... in this case, there isn't any issue of altering dates... The Fisher pieces are either real or not real. But that's a good segue to this, something I found on ebay while puttering around on this topic. Purported to be an attributed shipwreck piece:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
What stands out to me as ODD is the size and condition of the number 2 in the date. The fact that this one digit out of all the letters and numbers is so pristine makes me wonder  . I do not think that anyone should accept that digit as legitimate. I don't.  |
| |
Replies: 50 / Views: 19,837 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 06/14/2013 07:24 am
