| Author |
 Replies: 50 / Views: 16,778 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1758 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1608 Posts |
Not to change subjects (coinage) but in discussing fabricating pieces from silver ingots or melted 8Rs of the period at this point through the Mexican Numismatic Association I am trying to get published the 1811 PLAIN EDGE Chihuahua cast pieces as legitimate issues due to their silver and Au/Pt levels being EQUALED to their regal edge (square & circle) 1811 pieces and later issues (1812-1814). On this note the 1733/1734 Klippe cast pieces are interesting - of the three counterfeits I own and Realeswatcher I know you commented they seem to be made from melted good 8R's as they have LOWER Ag values (Ag range on the three pieces in my collection on these cast fakes: 50-85%) BUT good Pt/Au levels (0.2-1%). After MNA publishes the 1811 Chihuahua article I will submit a one page analysis report on these Klippe cast fakes where dealers like Sedwick infer they started to appear after 1900 or so. I have yet to analyze a so-called legitimate Klippe issue? This 1732 Mo F seems to have the same flavoring? I guess I consider the 1811 PLAIN EDGE countermarked (T & Pillar of Hercules) Chihuahua 8R LEGITIMATE as who would melt good 8Rs to produce this issue? The Klippe types - YES. My theory on the PE 1811 Chihuahua was they were regal edged after some counterfeits were discovered early in 1811. The regal edge being applied as an anti-counterfeiting measure ... BTW for this KM#123 type has anyone ever seen an 1812-1814 PE? This would I guess shoot down my theory ... PE's when seen seem to be linked only to the 1811 issues?
John Lorenzo
United States
Edited by colonialjohn
06/13/2013 10:15 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1766 Posts |
Colonial John
Would you be interested in doing the XRF on my 1733 and 1734 coins? I have both pillars and Klippes?
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
-Mark Twain
|
|
Pillar of the Community
France
1591 Posts |
colonialjohn : I have two klippe (one from a thick planchet, and one thin) - if you want those for your next article (I'll make a separate post with pictures of those in a minute)
Since last time, I acquired a new Chihuahua cast, but with a proper edge this time. I didn't saw other plain edges since then.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1608 Posts |
Again - the key point here is let me know if you find a Plain Edge 1812-1814 issue ... they should only exist for 1811 issues ... assuming good silver/platinum & gold levels.
John Lorenzo
United States
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1608 Posts |
JFransch - sure - but contact me in late July - we have a new EDAX Orbis XRF being tested which will not be ready till late July. Same for you M.Ma...
|
|
Valued Member
United States
80 Posts |
Fake to me as well. I post pics of my 1732 Mo F coin that I bought in Barcelona over 25 years ago. Weight 26.8 G, dia 39.1 mm. Mike    |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
Come on guys...the coin first posted is totally fake. The Plus Ultra ribbons do not wrap the pillars correctly. The Laurel leaves, not Tulips, do not overlap, they are disjoint, and I agree, flat. A couple other points left unsaid. Frank Gilboy is rolling.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1758 Posts |
Mike, you're aware yours is DEFINITELY fake, right? Completely improper detail - not a transfer copy or mold. As for the originally posted coin... despite the odd surfaces and certain elements like the digit punches being different, I was willing to at least consider the piece if only b/c it matches the Fisher piece's die style. While it seems that most numismatic weight decided "fake" on those in the 1970's, I don't know of any definitive conclusion to the saga... All else being equal, you have to at least consider the Fisher pieces... and maybe the odd physical strike characteristics as the wire-like rims and the odd edge (on dcap's piece, which sort of looks to be the same on that one Fisher edge) could be chalked up to some early variation in the pillar style. However, the extremely similar nature of the accompanying 1733 for me proves that they are essentially littermates of a modern origin. At this point, the question for me, just because that 1732 matches, is simply whether these two may be connected to, or actually derive from the same source as the Fisher pieces. I find that saga to be be an interesting tangent of Spanish numismatic/salvage history that seems to have vanished from common knowledge... odd considering that this was Numismatic News at the time, involving a notable development in a very popular type of coinage... and the central character (perpetrator?) went on to become, effectively, the most well-known name in numismatics. |
|
Valued Member
United States
80 Posts |
Realeswatcher. Yes I am aware that mine is a fake as well. Forgot to say it in the post.
Mike
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1758 Posts |
Quote:
Come on guys...the coin first posted is totally fake. The Plus Ultra ribbons do not wrap the pillars correctly. The Laurel leaves, not Tulips, do not overlap, they are disjoint, and I agree, flat. A couple other points left unsaid. Frank Gilboy is rolling. Westwood, definitely, if you simply look at the coin vs. a typical pillar, those traits are wrong, and the surfaces look wrong. It piqued my interest only because it matches the Fisher 1732 Mo MF die. Combine the fact that wrecks sometimes reveal heretofore unknown varieties (and it's at least worth considering whether those Fisher pieces could in fact have been real, even if assuming probably not)..... with the idea that it could be conceivable for there to have been some tinkering with technique/style in the first year or two of milled production and the pillar design...... it was worth considering. Do you happen to know anything about the Fisher pillars?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
I have heard comments of the Fisher pieces that I will not repeat.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1758 Posts |
Westwood, that webpage I've referenced from the "Mexican Coin Magic" site pretty much details the worst you could possibly say about it - that multiple numismatic authorities accused Fisher of straight out fabricating the coins. Yet the article teases with a story (a tale?) about Xavier Calico proclaiming them authentic (after receiving a nice consulting fee)... and then the story seemingly drops out of consciousness. Inquiring minds want to know the the final disposition...
The article is missing any real hard analysis of these pieces from either side... really no comments on style. Surely there must have been some style-flaw criticism noted by Hancock and Hubbard, who would be knowledgeable about anything known on early pillars up to that time, right? Of course, I've read that there were questions abut the legitimacy of existing 1732 pillars until the 1733 Fleet proved them... but that was already several years past. The one tangible criticism noted in the web article is:
"(Virgil) Hancock supposedly reported to (George) Vogt that both coins had been chemically aged to simulate being under water for 200 years. To make things clear I will again quote Daley here, " After peeling away the encrustations that covered that covered one of them, he had examined the bare silver with a thirty-power glass. Hancock said, ‘The surface has an absolutely regular pattern, like extremely fine sand paper. I've never seen anything salvaged with such an extremely regular surface.'"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
France
1591 Posts |
Westwood Arms : hey, don't tease us like that, please share ;)
|
|
New Member
United States
7 Posts |
Quote:
Combine the fact that wrecks sometimes reveal heretofore unknown varieties (and it's at least worth considering whether those Fisher pieces could in fact have been real, even if assuming probably not)..... with the idea that it could be conceivable for there to have been some tinkering with technique/style in the first year or two of milled production and the pillar design...... it was worth considering.
I think it was realeswatcher? that brought up a good point here.... Is it possible that the first two years of production (1732 and 1733) perhaps had slight variations from coins minted after those years, being that it was a revolutionary new minting process at the time, and was slightly altered after 1733 when the 1733 fleet sank? Are there any known real 1732 or 1733 pillars that were not salvaged from shipwreck that we could compare these to? Or perhaps were ALL of the 1732 and 1733 coins produced at the time were on the 1733 Spanish fleet which sank off the Florida coast? What I'm trying to say is, maybe the fleet that sank in 1733 was carrying ALL of the 1732 and 1733 coins at the time from the mexico mint, and that all coins of those first two years were immediately lost to shipwreck. If that were to be the case, how is there any basis of comparison between the true 1732 and 1733 coins. Maybe those initial 2 years of production had slight variances that were changed after the 1733 wreck, beginning in a new variant that was used 1734 and on? I'm not sure if any 1732 or 1733 coins were not part of the wrecked fleet? Does anybody know anything about this? Perhaps the Spanish 1733 fleet that sank was carrying all of the 1732 and 1733 pillar dollars from Mexico at the time of wreckage. If so, then maybe that COULD explain the minor variances from my coins (and many other 1732 and 1733 coins) from pillar dollars of a later and far more common year, say a 1736 coin.
|
|
Replies: 50 / Views: 16,778 |
|
Posted 06/13/2013 10:03 am
