Kleeberg Counterfeit 2 Reales Should Be Considered US Colonials?

Matthew Boulton and German Silver making in the 1770's!

Prior to this the GS West cut-off was considered 1829/1830'ish.

German Silver 1771 CC2R's are known as early as this year. Additionally for the first time I believe I have confirmed a GS Cross Pistareen dated 1771!

See below:

Keith Pinn, Paktong: The Chinese Alloy in Europe, 1680-1820. Suffolk: The
Antique Collectors' Club, 1999. 190 pages, 18 colour plates, 172 black and
white plates, 5 appendices.
Mei Jianjun1
[Mei Jianjun currently works at the Tokyo National Museum as a JSPS (Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science) postdoctoral research fellow. His monograph
on copper and bronze metallurgy in prehistoric Xinjiang has recently
appeared and his current research involves early metallurgy in China and its
relationship to the western influence.]

Among those technologies that spread from China to the West during the last
four centuries, Paktong, a copper-nickel-zinc alloy invented in China probably
as early as the 4th century AD, is undoubtedly the most intriguing one. The first
systematic research on paktong is Alfred Bonnin's treatise, Tutenag & Paktong,
published in 1924. This work remained the only authoritative account of paktong's
history in Europe until recently. The publication of Volume V, Part 2 of
Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China in 1974 provided some
new understandings of paktong, but not a great deal. It was not until the late
1980s that detailed scientific research on the metallurgy of paktong was carried
out in Beijing, revealing for the first time the smelting process used for paktong
in Southwest China.2 At the same time, fresh insights into the history of paktong
in Europe were also gained through the analysis of paktong artefacts in
collections in Britain.3 However, the most important and comprehensive study of
paktong undertaken in recent years is Mr. Pinn's book.

The present volume is beautifully designed and well written, and its 190
illustrations are especially impressive. It consists of 12 chapters, the first six
focusing on historical issues, the latter six on typological and chronological topics.
It opens by placing paktong in its historical context, from the earliest European
reference to the alloy in 1597 to the final success of attempts to imitate
paktong in the third decade of the nineteenth century. The processes involved in
the manufacture of paktong are briefly discussed in the opening chapter, and
new sources of information about paktong, such as Matthew Boulton's records,

1 The reviewer wishes to thank Mr. John Moffett for his kindly revising the draft of
this review.

2 Mei Jianjun, "The History, Metallurgy and Spread of Paktong," Bulletin of the
Metals Museum vol. 24 (1995-II): 43-55; Mei Jianjun and Ko Tsun, "Studies on Ancient
Metallurgy of Cupronickel in China," Ziran kexueshi yanjiu (Studies in the History of
Natural Sciences) 8.1 (1989): 67-77.

3 Brian Gilmour and Eldon Worrall, "The Trade in Chinese Nickel Brass to Europe,"
British Museum Occasional Paper 109 (1995): 259-82.

130 EASTM 18 (2001)are also highlighted. In the light of information newly discovered, Chapter 2
presents a brief review of Alfred Bonnin's book. Having acknowledged that
Bonnin's basic research was excellent, Pinn points out that there are some errors
in his book, such as Bonnin's insistence that paktong could only be cast. He then
explains some of his new understandings of the confusion between tutenag and
paktong, as well as a number of specific issues about paktong, such as importation,
costs, retail prices and advertising. Chapter 3 highlights what is known so
far about paktong in China, and also offers an interesting discussion of those
paktong pieces in Western style but of Chinese manufacture. In Pinn's opinion,
Chinese artisans did not produce large quantities of paktong goods in Western
style for export to Europe, although they were capable of reproducing them.
The most significant and welcome part of the present volume is Chapter 4,
which focuses on Matthew Boulton, a businessman who was closely involved in
the story of paktong during the late eighteenth century. Pinn's brilliant research
of the Boulton & Fothergill records held at Birmingham Library has revealed a
large quantity of new information, much of it very valuable and informative. As

Chapter 4 shows, Boulton's interest in paktong led him to request that his agent
in London acquire the alloy, his company becoming a major manufacturer of a
variety of paktong wares by using the raw material of white copper imported
from China. This is a fundamentally new perspective in the exploration of the
history of paktong, allowing the clarification of a number of long-standing mysteries.
One of the mysteries surrounding paktong is how it was imported into
Europe. Bonnin's search through the eighteenth-century trade files at the Public
Records Office indicated that only one entry for the importation of white copper
(50 kilograms) from the East Indies in 1760 was registered. This suggested to
Bonnin that the majority of paktong was not officially imported into Britain, but
was brought into the country as part of "privileged trade" (a system that allowed
officers of the East India Company to do their own private trade on a small
scale). This was just an assumption and Bonnin did not have any evidence to
substantiate it. But now, Boulton's correspondence with his agent in London
regarding negotiations for the purchase of paktong from two East India
Company captains provides clear evidence to confirm that paktong was imported
on a private trade basis rather than through official East India Company
channels. This clarification is significant for the correct understanding of the
social context of paktong trade.

The activity of analyzing and imitating paktong in Europe during the late
eighteenth century is another intriguing issue on which Matthew Boulton's
archives also shed some new light. Pinn's research suggests that Boulton had a
keen interest in paktong and was actively involved in investigating its constituents
in order to reproduce it. The letter from Dr. James Keir to Boulton on
March 4, 1781 shows that they once undertook joint experiments on Chinese
(white) copper. Dr. Bryan Higgins is another important figure in the story of
paktong, because he received a gold medal from the Society for the


Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce for "white copper made
with English materials in imitation of that brought from the East Indies" in 1773.

His letter to Boulton on 28 February 1773 is an interesting new find, showing
that he attempted to sell his "discovery" to Boulton. Also of great interest is
Boulton's letter to His Excellency Rodney Valtravers. As Pinn explains, this
letter includes important information about the so-called "Gotha White Metal,"
which, in Pinn's opinion, "came closer to imitating paktong than was to be
achieved in the West for another sixty years."

Matthew Boulton's archives contain very valuable information about goods
made of paktong at the Soho factory. Pinn's research suggests that as early as
January 1769 Boulton was already considering the potential use of paktong. A
letter, dated 8 January 1771, shows paktong candlesticks were manufactured at
Soho at that time. Other letters dating from 1771 to 1773 show that a variety of
paktong goods were also produced to special orders, such as buckles, salvers,
buttons, dish crosses and snuffer stands. Useful information about the variable
quality of the paktong available, public interest in paktong and the price of paktong
articles can also be found in those archives. This fresh information is undoubtedly
important in providing a fuller picture of the story of paktong during
the late eighteenth century.

Chapter 5, entitled "Paktong and German Silver," also contains significant
contributions to a new understanding of paktong. The central theme of this
chapter is to explore whether it is possible to distinguish paktong from German
silver on the basis of compositional analysis. Pinn first discusses the composition
of paktong, pointing out that the majority of genuine eighteenth century pieces
contain about 40-50% copper, 35-45% zinc and 5-15% nickel, plus 1 to 2% iron
and traces of a few other elements, such as lead and tin. This judgement is based
on the analysis results of 129 pieces in the W. A. Pinn Collection. Gilmour and
Worrall (1995: 267) reached a similar conclusion in analyzing paktong pieces in
other collections in Britain, such as Liverpool Museum and The Royal Armouries,
but Pinn notes that a few paktong pieces show some unusual characteristics,
giving high copper and low zinc readings. He suggests that this may have
resulted from the intentional or accidental alteration of paktong's composition
after its importation to the West.

Regarding the distinction between paktong and German silver, Pinn offers
the following important guidelines: paktong's composition is concentrated
within the range of 40-50% copper, 35-45% zinc and 5-15% nickel; while
German silver is within the range of 55-65% copper, 20-25% zinc and 15-20%
nickel. These parameters are a significant contribution to our understanding of
these two alloys, especially significant for identifying genuine eighteenth
century paktong pieces. Pinn also observes that there are some anomalies (less
than 10% of the analysis results), the majority of which fit into the parameters
for German silver, but other evidence suggests that they must surely be made of
paktong. A detailed and interesting discussion of these anomalies is then given,
showing that paktong may not necessarily conform to the basic guidelines.

Pinn's observation is quite acute. If we use his guidelines to look at Gilmour's
analyses of pieces from the Liverpool and British Museums, we can also see that
some typical China-made paktong pieces have compositions that would fall into
the parameters for German silver. The existence of these exceptions is not
surprising if we realize the fact that paktong pieces were produced at several
different places rather than one place in southwestern China during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Pinn further notes that iron content could also be significant in helping to distinguish
the Chinese alloy from the later European metal. This reviewer (Mei
1995: 51) had already suggested that the existence of a small amount of iron
might be regarded as a characteristic feature of Chinese paktong, in comparison
to the typical commercial German silver that usually contained no iron. But Pinn
makes it more straightforward by stating that nearly all of the genuine eighteenth
paktong pieces contain about 1% to 2.5% iron, whereas German silver wares
almost invariably contain less than 0.5% of this element. He also points out there
are exceptions, especially a small group of German silver pieces originating in
Austria that have a high iron content. In his opinion, English nickel alloy pieces
produced after about 1830 are most likely to have been made of German silver
rather than Chinese white copper.

In Chapter 6, Pinn clarifies the confusion between British plate and plated
German silver on the basis of advertisements in old newspapers, further showing
his capability of digging out useful information from various sources. He shows
us that, during the mid-nineteenth century, both plated and unplated German
silver wares were produced and traded in Europe under varied names, such as
Virginian Plate, Alpacca, Argentan and Packfong. The last name clearly
indicates the close association of German silver with Chinese paktong.

As a professional antique collector and dealer, Pinn devotes a great deal of
interest and attention to paktong and German silver pieces themselves. In the
next six chapters (Chapters 7-12), he presents a detailed discussion of paktong
and nickel alloy wares produced during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The themes he discussed include eighteenth century paktong candlesticks, nineteenth
century paktong candlesticks, domestic and other wares, firegrates and
firearms, and nineteenth century nickel alloy wares. These discussions explore
the forms, styles, designs and manufacturing techniques of paktong and nickel
alloy wares, successfully showing that their range is far wider than had
previously been recognized. His research in Christie's auction archives is
especially rewarding. It has revealed that hundreds of tutenag or paktong wares
were auctioned by Christie's in the thirty year period commencing about 1770.
Pinn's rich knowledge of paktong will definitely appeal to a wide audience,
especially antique collectors and museum curators.

Though the present volume is a most successful and welcome one in many
ways, some points require further comment. For example, Pinn suggests that
"Gotha White Metal" was the closest imitation to paktong, because it was made
by utilizing slag that contained a significant proportion of nickel. But no
concrete evidence is given to support this supposition. In Chapter 4 he mentions
that Matthew Boulton had asked an associate in Germany "to learn not only the
composition but also the art of making it," but the source for this information is
not clear. Appendix I includes all letters from and to Boulton, but does not
contain a letter from Boulton to his German associate. Pinn also considers that in
the letter to His Excellency Rodney Valtravers (pp. 57-58), the white copper
Boulton talked about is the Gotha metal. However, Boulton's letter seems to
suggest that the metal was most likely a kind of arsenic white copper rather than
a nickel alloy. Boulton clearly indicates in his letter that he was acquainted with
"a variety of methods of whitening brass with arsenic and likewise with cobalt."
This would be another interesting topic for further research.

It seems that Pinn did not pay much attention to the paktong artifacts in the
collections of Liverpool Museum and other museums in Britain. The research on
paktong carried out by Eldon Worrall for his doctorate during the mid-1990s
appears also not to have caught his attention. When he set the guidelines for
distinguishing paktong and German silver, he largely ignored the analysis results
of dozens of paktong pieces already published by Gilmour and Worrall (1995).
From the perspective of readership, it would be more stimulating to see to what
extent his guidelines can be confirmed by other analysis data. A quick check
with the analysis data offered by Gilmour and Worrall (1995: 272-4) has shown
a number of exceptions to Pinn's guidelines, especially those typical artifacts for
Chinese markets made in the nineteenth century, such as opium pipe (AM797),
censer (AM798), door knocker (AM853) and kettle (AM856). The compositions
of these pieces clearly fall into the parameters for German silver, but they were
undoubtedly made in China with paktong and were traded to Britain sometime
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Therefore, it would seem to
be rather too simplistic to consider all those nickel alloy pieces made after mid-
1830s to be German silver, because the production of paktong in China did not
cease until the late nineteenth century. The research by Gilmour and Worrall
(1995: 268) shows that there is "an overall drop in the proportion of nickel in
paktong objects of the mid-late nineteenth century." Pinn's work suggests that
the appearance of German silver is the reason for the overall drop of nickel. But
that seems not to be the whole picture. Further research is needed to explore ...

John Lorenzo
Numismatist
United States