| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 4,787 |
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
Hello folks. Found this forum doing a quick Google search and thought I'd signup and post looking for some information. Looking for some comments as to the value of this coin. I found it a few weeks ago metal detecting. Had a great member on MDing board send the pictures to some Spanish II Reale experts and this is what one of them said. "Interesting: according to Cayón's book, a 1737 Pistareen minted in Madrid has the assayer's initials JF from 1732-40. The assayer from Seville in 1735-36 was AP. These are the halves of two coins." " one half is 1737 and was minted in Madrid, Spain and the other half is 1735 or 1736 and was minted in Seville, Spain" So needless to say this my new best find and the highlight of my collection. But not having seen anything like this or having been able to find any references to rejoined Pistareens, I don't know if it would be possible to put a value on it. So what do you think? Thanks for looking. Edit: and just FYI, it was not rejoined by me. It was pulled from the ground like this and judging by the corrosion on the joined area it was done long ago.   Edited by Madmardigan
12/25/2007 7:58 pm
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16832 Posts |
Aieee! It's a frankencoin!   Seriously, I'm not sure how you'd value something like that. I guess all you can do is value the two halves separately, with the joining being considered an "alteration" along the same lines as a jewellery mount or attached loop. Probably around $10 or so? Your absolute minimum is bullion value, which I assume is around $2.50 to $3. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
New Member
 United States
5 Posts |
Ha Ha Frankencoin. I love it. Think I'll start calling it that now.
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24163 Posts |
Swamperbob would get a kick out of this, I'll shoot him an email.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
What an interesting/odd find...I wonder why someone would do that?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
I love the name Frankencoin - it is appropriate in this case.
That is certainly an odd combination. There is no reason for someone to do that since the join is so obvious and the composit coin is worthless as a numismatic piece. But the coin is still silver, so bullion is the actual lower limit of value. It is certainly a shame that the two coins were cut - they appear to be a decent grade and would have been of decent value separately.
I looked at each half and I can not see any reason to presume that the coin was joined from counterfeits. Now, the two coins may have had holes drilled in them (preventing circulation) and perhaps whoever cut them apart felt that he could pass one this way. But that is pure speculation.
All in all an interesting alteration.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
812 Posts |
I would assume the coins were cut back when that was a reasonable way to make change (1700s). Might they have been rejoined in the same relative timeframe, when the value of the coin depended on the weight of the silver and numismatic value was of no concern? There would have been no good reason to do it, but no good reason not to do it either.
Swamperbob, did holes in silver coins of the 1700s prevent circulation? I thought that this practice with small silver coins of the 1700s was not all that uncommon and the coins could still be used.
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
Interesting thought on the possibility of holes rendering the "intact" coins unusable Bilbo.
Another theory someone put forth: Maybe when the US mint started to flouish and cut pistareens were no longer being accepted as payment, perhaps someone rejoined them to try and make a usable coin to pass off.
Someone else also said that whoever did this was an artist, preserving the detail of the halves up to the joined area on most of the coin. Perhaps it was just that after all, someone just trying to see if they could rejoin them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Bilbo - The practice of drilling a coin to stop them from circulating clearly dates to the first half of the 19th century. It started before foreign coins were demonetized in the US in 1857. I have heard stories about bankers drilling counterfeit dollars and placing them on a metal ring to leave with the head teller. It was an efficient tool used to spot the more common forgeries. I believe that is one reason for the overwhelming number of drilled "worthless" counterfeits that still survive. By "worthless" I am referring to the German Silver and copper versions that are of no intrinsic value.
The practice of retaining forgeries for comparison by banks and merchants dates to the era before any effective method existed to duplicate the images of the coins. There was no photography! Riddell made typemetal casts of coins to produce his book on forgery in 1845. But prior to that only hand drawn sketches were used and the quality of the artist determined how effective those were. So retaining originals was critical but the eccentric holes identified them as spurrious.
In the colonial era and earlier, a coin with a hole would possibly have remained in circulation because of the scarcity of hard money. It is similar to the situation in England in the 1700s when older Royal hammered coins stayed in circulation until they were worn totally smooth. Seaby reports that hammered coins often were reduced to below 50% of correct weight through clipping and wear.
But in any era, the hole would force the coin to be weighed each time it was passed. It would also cause the merchant or banker to examine the coin more closely before accepting it. The drill hole (or edge notch) also provided a "window" to look below the coin's surface. A Sheffield Plate was easily and permanently exposed this way.
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 4,787 |
|
Posted 12/25/2007 8:36 pm
