| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 3,341 |
|
Valued Member
Spain
108 Posts |
Although this topic is closed http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/...PIC_ID=68671I would like to refresh this topic and try to add information. Coronado took the description of types 2.0 and 5.0 from a report printed in 1910, (originally it was a handwritten report made in 1797). I will explain this concern: In order to get information about "reales de a ocho" forgery in Birmingham, in 1797 the spanish ambassador in London prepared a report and sent it to Madrid. He collected letters, documents and, mainly, a report written by a doctor (probably chemist) commissioned to Birmingham to investigate that forgeries. This two links are, the first: PDF printed in 1910 (Pablo Bordeaux "Los falsos reales de a ocho de Birmingham"). It moves to printed letter the original handwritten document. The second is the handwritten document (1797). Both permit download. http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obr...irmingham-0/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obr...la-historia/This report has interesting information about Birmingham forgery, it defines five types: Type 1, Coin is pressed to reduce his thickness, then cut in order to get the same diameter as in original coins. As the coin is flattened, they minted again each coin. Report says that they got about 4-5 gr. of silver per coin. Type 2. It corresponds with typo 2.0 Type 3: Using a poor alloy of silver with copper in excess (counterfeit coins were equivalent to 6 reales only) Type 4 (or double sandwich): copper core and two sheets of silver Type 5: It corresponds with typo 5.0 (tin core and two sheets of silver) I am agree with swamperbob , type 2 or typo 2.0 should be hard to do, but the ambassador sent several counterfeit coins as example of each type... so any must exists (or existed). v. Edited by Veton
02/21/2015 1:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
I am not sure what your question is?
JPL
|
|
Valued Member
 Spain
108 Posts |
Well, this is not a question, I do not know if "forum" knows this information and documents; only I try to share it.
v.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Veton Welcome to the forum.
The references you provided were very interesting. In Appendix 2 of my book "Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales" I included a complete typescript of the Bordeaux report translated into English as it appeared in 1915 in the Spink & Son's "Monthly Numismatic Circular". I had not been able to locate the original report in French. That was very helpful and allowed me to check out a few words I was concerned about in the translation. It was also interesting to see the original draft of the Bordeaux article which provides a great cross-check for the wording. That hand written document was apparently produced about 1909 just in advance of the 1910 publication -- "Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia". Tomo 57, Año 1910.
I really wish someone would someday locate the original written documents which should be written in Spanish.
As I pointed out in the book there are some types listed by Bordeaux that seem difficult to believe happened especially in large numbers. Shortly before we completed the manuscript we conclusively located the pressed version that Bordeaux called Type 1. The discovery coin had been known for years but I had not seen one in person and it was not until someone submitted very detailed photos of one that I finally recognized what it was. There are two die combinations discovered so far. It may be a rather limited original issue.
Types 3, 4 and 5 are much more common and there has never been any problem with those.
Getting back to Type 2 - I think the jury is still out on exactly what it is or was. I personally can not accept the description as it was written in Bordeaux because it makes little sense from the perspective of effort expended versus results achieved. However, there are two methods that the original reporter may have seen and which he could have easily misunderstood. Either or BOTH methods could have produced what appeared to be a filed down original over a core of copper. The first and best candidate for Type 2 is a cold rolled Sheffield plate. These coins often suffer from surface layers peeling away. This very thin silver layer could easily have been misconstrued as a filed down original. Type 2 could also be a foil transfer image glued or soldered to a copper core. This last type was first discovered in the Ringo collection and while I was aware the coin existed I had never gotten to examine it closely before the Stack's sale in November 2014. I now own the coin and recognize it is an entirely new type. A thin silver foil was rolled or pressed into a genuine coin making a complete impression with a hollow back. The hollow backside of the impression was filled with glue or paste or plaster or .... and then the whole face was soldered onto a core of copper. This may have been more difficult to see as a filed down original but it is possible.
I can see how a chemist or physician in 1797 (who had only 5 exemplars to work from) could have made the mistake.
|
|
Valued Member
Spain
108 Posts |
Many thanks for your information, it is very interesting. You are right, hand written document is a draft of Bordeaux article, it is not the original document (1797) as I said.
I think that -cold rolled Sheffield plate- is coincident with Bordeaux type 4 and does not match with type 2 description (if chemist did not mistake that).
New type is amazing (congratulations for that find), and it is also very laborious.
For trouble shooting we should find those 5 coins sent to Madrid in 1797.
v.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
I would love to locate the original coins that were sent to Spain in 1796 - it would settle all of the issues. However, I doubt they actually exist any longer. There was no good reason to retain them after the defeat of Napoleon.
Veton Why do you think that cold rolled Sheffield Plate is not a good candidate for Type 2? Type 4 is the Hot rolled version which does NOT separate while Type 2 would be prone to separation since the surfaces were only soldered onto the core.
If you notice in the Type 2 description the writer says that the "sound is almost perfect". That is a hard statement to accept if two thin silver layers were only soldered to a copper core. The resulting coin should not have been sonorous at all. A solid bonded Sheffield plate is sonorous - so type 4 would sound fine. Both would be off in weight unless the core was thickened slightly.
|
|
Valued Member
Spain
108 Posts |
First of all I am not expert, and it is a pleasure learn something about these coins. Thanks for your explanations.
I did not understand why it is different the sound of type 2 and 4 (as defined in document) because they seem to be (almost) the same two layers od silver soldered on each side of a copper sheet. Your explanation (type 4 is not cold rolled plate, it is actually a solid bonded Sheffield plate, I think, explains that "good sound".
Then reporter was wrong, wasn,t? I copy the original and traslation:
"El núm. 4 es una pieza de cobre chapeada. Extienden primero el cobre en una plancha delgada, luego sueldan sobre las dos superficies planchas de plata más delgadas aún, despues (las) planchas unidas las pasan por el laminador ó (prensa de ) cilindro hasta quedar reducidas al grueso de la moneda, las cortan en redondo, las acuñan y hacen el cordoncillo."
The no. 4 is a piece of plated copper. First, they extend a thin copper plate, then they solder on both sides thinner silver plates, after they pass joined plates through the mill or cylinder (cylinder mill ? ) to be reduced to coin thickness, cut into round, they are minted and make de edge (cordoncillo)
V.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Veton I think I now understand why you made the comment that you did initially. I agree with you that they (Type 2 and Type 4) seem to be very similar in nature until you understand that the Sheffield plate process can be seen as two different methods which created two different end products. The cold rolled version was a method ONLY used by counterfeiters because it was a poor quality end product that did not stand up well when used. The hot rolled (welded) version of the process could withstand both circulation and use for utilitarian items like flatware. So yes, I do suspect that the original reporter was fooled by what he saw. One question - what was the source of your quotation in Spanish of the type 4 description? Quote:
"El núm. 4 es una pieza de cobre chapeada. Extienden primero el cobre en una plancha delgada, luego sueldan sobre las dos superficies planchas de plata más delgadas aún, despues (las) planchas unidas las pasan por el laminador ó (prensa de ) cilindro hasta quedar reducidas al grueso de la moneda, las cortan en redondo, las acuñan y hacen el cordoncillo."
The wording is not exactly what I have seen in any of the three versions I am already familiar with.
|
|
Valued Member
Spain
108 Posts |
It is from PDF downloaded from Cervantes virtual library, I have only added words within parenthesis to clarify text.
These 5 coins (or pieces of them) could be in the Real Academia de la Historia (founded ca 1735, I dont remember exactly), they keep counterfeit coins of other eras, I will try to track this way.
v.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Bob & Venton in my new book I am working right now I am trying to differentiate in the laboratory and from past research papers the difference between foil silver wrap and the early crude so-called silver plated pre-Sheffield types. There is a good paper on this matter. See here: http://www.britnumsoc.org/publicati...BNJ_64_4.pdfSEM analysis as was done in this paper that can differentiate silver foil, early Sheffield and eventually Birmingham Sheffiield late 18th/early 19thC types which are adequately explained in GNL. Currently there are (7) types of ways IMO to silver coat/plate/wrap a copper core or debased core. I am also as you know exploring electrodeposition of silver in the Cap and Ray 8R's but will discuss further with Gurney if I am heading down the correct path. So far my research indicates a post 1840 process based on advances of this process overtaking the "inferior" Sheffield process in terms of its manufacturing advantages from 1840 and beyond. It's a bit complex - I have never seen a CC8R foil type IMO. I have seen & examined several for 16thC British counterfeits but even in the 17thC we see early Sheffield types. Foil types IMO seem to have the characteristics of poor silver/copper adhesion and most times the edges will be VOID of any silver plating. Silver also is diffused into the copper core and Ag reading seem as Northover has indicated to be in the 80% range. Please - this silver value HAS NOTHING TO DO with the extrmemly well made non-foil intentional Sheffield Birmingham China Type 2's. Trying also to correlate some 1797 political report to actual scientific findings of silver plating research in the last 25 years by Northover, LaNiece and others ... well ... you can fill in the blanks <VVBG>. To be continued ... JPL Edited by colonialjohn
02/24/2015 08:09 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Veton - Definitely let me know if you ever find out anything about the disposition of the actual counterfeits that came with the 1797 report.
John - Since your new book will overlap and cover part of the Cap and Ray series I would definitely be interested in looking at the material you uncover. I have already begun the "planning" phase of my Cap and Ray book which is step two in the Riddell update. I do plan to cover the transition away from Sheffield plate to electro-plate as part of the overall topic. The Cap and Ray series compliments the Portrait series since together they cover the period during which the most rapid evolution of counterfeiting technology occurred.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
It will be just 10 pages or so of information and coin examples and probably illustrating a couple of your coins. After reading Napier it all makes perfect sense and will reference primarily this book. The ability to move away from a high copper alloy host for proper Cu/Ag bonding and going into multiple debased alloy hosts. The key being to describe the texture of electrodeposition on a CC8R C&R and then to define the multiple alloy debased hosts. But how diverse can this be? High Copper, brass, bronze, brass/bronze mistures, etc. - so here WE go again ... LOL.
JPL
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
OK then I will add some info. There are reports that Maria theresa thalers were counterfeited in Birmingham in the 1890s. I tracked the original documents and found it wasn't Maria theresa thalers but Spanish silver dollars I don't know what type). They were produced for companies in Lagos. Are these 1890s forgeries known?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
austrokiwi Your question regarding an 1890s production of counterfeit Spanish Dollars is a very good one. I was unaware of this late UK production of coins for any area other than China, but it makes sense. In Birmingham, coin production was a business and any business must make a profit. So the question shifts to what kind of Spanish Dollar was being made? This is the area that needs to be explored further. These could be either Class 2 or vary late Class 1 Portrait coins because they too were silver Trade dollars. They could also be Mexican Cap and Ray coins as well because they were often mislabeled as "Spanish Dollars" at times and they were used as Trade dollars as well. Since the same counterfeit coins were apparently also mislabeled as MTTs - I suspect that "Spanish Dollars" in this context may be being used as a generic for silver Trade dollar. Identifying the actual coin so that they can be distinguished from other trade coins is essential. I would be interested in reading the reference to the 1890's counterfeiting operation in context and trying to trace sources. In the 1890s most off metal counterfeits would have been silver electro-plated. I am wondering if the manufacture was of Class 2 silver counterfeits for another market that paid a premium for the "old bustman" dollars, eagle dollars or some other issue.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
I should never rely on memory. I was wrong on the decade its was the 1880s. The main reference and I have learnt to distrust it( read on) is Ofnonagoro "From Traditional to British Currency in Southern Nigeria: Analysis of a Currency revolution, 1880-1948. In the journal of Economic History Volume XXXIX September 1979, number three. pages 623 -654. That should be enough info to get you a copy through your local library. Even if they don't have it they will be able to get through the interloan system photocopies of the article.
I tracked down the article because it was cited in a number of articles as providing evidence that the MTT was struck by the Birmingham mint in the late 19th century. Up until I got a copy of the article I trusted those reports. When I got the article I learnt a valuable lesson in research....always check the original references: All Onfongoro(page 640) wrote was that when the value of dollars were higher in Europe than in Lagos locals arranged with Birmingham manufacturers to supply them with counterfeits. Subsequently I learnt that in Birmingham in the 1880s there were numerous die sinking companies who could do the counterfeit work ( some of these companies actually produced tokens for use in Australia and New Zealand using old Soho mint dies) what later authors did was assume when Birmingham was mentioned that it must have been the Birmingham mint. The Birminghams mint's stature at that time was such counterfeiting coins would have risked their legitimate business, so though its not impossible it is unlikely that the Birmingham mint was responsible for the fakes.
In regards to the MTT I then went back to the Original Colonial Office records cited by Onfongaro. Specifically CO/147/41 an Official letter from Griffiths to Ussher. This record was the one Onfongagoro cites as saying Maria Theresa Dollars were counterfeited. Problem is the actual letter makes no mention of Maria Theresa dollars, in fact the letter just refers to silver dollars. Given the context of the letter and what was going on at the time it was more likely to be "Spanish dollars. Swamperbob's surmise it could have been mexican dollars is probably correct: At that time the Nigerian treasury held Mexican dollars ($28320), Peruvian($7200),Brazilian Dollars ( $8160) and $960 of Spanish pillar dollars.( there was not a single mention of Maria Theresa dollars despite Onfonagaros clear statements to the fact that it was mentioned I have to go back and get copies of the original colonial records ( my photo copies are unreadable mostly). What I do know is every time I went to confirm the mention of Maria Theresa dollars by Onfonagoro all I found was the term silver dollars or Spanish dollars/spanish derivatives. I know from reading numerous papers from that time that Silver dollars can mean any of the silver dollars produced at the time. I know from other research and the failings in Onfonagoros paper that the MTT can only be proved to have been used in Northern Nigeria( current location of Boko Haram) and the Maria Theresa dollars in that region probably came from the Saharan trade routes not from Lagos. If it all reads like smoke and mirrors then I have communicated the problems with the article appropriately. Swamper Bob if you can't find a copy of Onfonagoro PM me I can scan my copy. As already intimated my photocopies of the Colonial Office records are not reproducible.
Edit Of course I have slipped into the 19th century style of referring to Maria Theresa Thalers as Maria Theresa dollars. I do that often when I go back to old references.
Edit2 From memory. The Colonial Office records I found in the British National Archives catalog.....but I dimly remember that the actual records are in the British National Library building in London.
Edited by austrokiwi
02/26/2015 05:17 am
|
|
Valued Member
Spain
108 Posts |
Swamperbob, be sure, if I get know where they are, I will inform you.
v.
|
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 3,341 |
Posted 02/21/2015 1:11 pm
