The strange thing is that, according to the OP, the coins pictured are mounted to a vertical surface. So, how are they held in place? Wrigley's Spearmint? Double-sided whacky tacky? Coat hook? The point is that the coins posted could be museum copies. Although, as pointed out by CCU, the strange toning pattern is visible on both images posted in this thread of the larger Noe-2. That would indicate that it is the real Noe-2 donated to the museum. I know some people here have worked on the National Collection. Any ideas on how the coins are mounted? Do they use museum copies like some other institutions?
Another strange thing is that the variation in size between the two Noe-2 shillings. They should be about the same size. Most are in the 67-72 gram range, but the variation shown would be greater, I think. And, finally, maybe it is just due to quality of the photo taken at the Smithsonian, but all three pieces shown have a strange look about them (similar color and "look").
They are glued down. Many of the coins in the display were.
Russ, NCNE >>
It is possible that the bright photo of the coin I linked from the Smithsonian site is after NCS'ing (to remove glue) - which would explain it's bright silver look, and which is consistent with the really bright coins we saw on display at the Smithsonian exhibit 2 years ago during the Baltimore Show.
<< <i>messydesk, that would sure be one interesting spatial geometry that allowed two different sides of a planar polygon to have dissimilar shape !!
CCU, nice pic of the Noe-2 from the Smithsonian ... now THAT looks like the real thing !!!!!!
Sunnywood >>
A hyperbolic geometry wherein the sum of the measures of a triangle must be less than 180 degrees would allow such a polyhedron to exist. Unfortunately, photography in such a geometry would not produce usable results, as there are no such things as similar triangles that form the basis of accurate Euclidean magnification. Instead, there would be a distortion dependent on the degree of magnification.
Of course, now that I know that both coins are both real and Euclidean, my hyperbolic numismatics conjecture is out the window (non-rectangular, convex quadrilateral with angle sum of less than 360 degrees -- I've removed one of these from our house once). >>
Ouch that makes my brain hurt.
I'll see your bunny with a pancake on his head and raise you a Siamese cat with a miniature pumpkin on his head.
You wouldn't believe how long it took to get him to sit still for this.
They are glued down. Many of the coins in the display were. >>
I think the SI used archival wax rather than glue.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Comments
The strange thing is that, according to the OP, the coins pictured are mounted to a vertical surface. So, how are they held in place? Wrigley's Spearmint? Double-sided whacky tacky? Coat hook? The point is that the coins posted could be museum copies. Although, as pointed out by CCU, the strange toning pattern is visible on both images posted in this thread of the larger Noe-2. That would indicate that it is the real Noe-2 donated to the museum. I know some people here have worked on the National Collection. Any ideas on how the coins are mounted? Do they use museum copies like some other institutions?
Another strange thing is that the variation in size between the two Noe-2 shillings. They should be about the same size. Most are in the 67-72 gram range, but the variation shown would be greater, I think. And, finally, maybe it is just due to quality of the photo taken at the Smithsonian, but all three pieces shown have a strange look about them (similar color and "look").
<< <i>So, how are they held in place? >>
They are glued down. Many of the coins in the display were.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>So, how are they held in place? >>
They are glued down. Many of the coins in the display were.
Russ, NCNE >>
It is possible that the bright photo of the coin I linked from the Smithsonian site is after NCS'ing (to remove glue) - which would explain it's bright silver look, and which is consistent with the really bright coins we saw on display at the Smithsonian exhibit 2 years ago during the Baltimore Show.
<< <i>
<< <i>messydesk, that would sure be one interesting spatial geometry that allowed two different sides of a planar polygon to have dissimilar shape !!
CCU, nice pic of the Noe-2 from the Smithsonian ... now THAT looks like the real thing !!!!!!
Sunnywood >>
A hyperbolic geometry wherein the sum of the measures of a triangle must be less than 180 degrees would allow such a polyhedron to exist. Unfortunately, photography in such a geometry would not produce usable results, as there are no such things as similar triangles that form the basis of accurate Euclidean magnification. Instead, there would be a distortion dependent on the degree of magnification.
Of course, now that I know that both coins are both real and Euclidean, my hyperbolic numismatics conjecture is out the window (non-rectangular, convex quadrilateral with angle sum of less than 360 degrees -- I've removed one of these from our house once). >>
Ouch that makes my brain hurt.
You wouldn't believe how long it took to get him to sit still for this.
<< <i>
<< <i>So, how are they held in place? >>
They are glued down. Many of the coins in the display were. >>
I think the SI used archival wax rather than glue.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire