A crazy way to make a few dishonest bucks?! 1860s-style.
Dentuck
Posts: 3,819 ✭✭✭
I’ve read about fraudsters in the 1860s “hollowing out” $20 gold pieces and filling them with platinum (at the time less valuable than gold), to profit from the difference in metal values.
This has to be the most outlandish thing I’ve ever read—ever, anywhere, in any medium, on any subject! Outlandish, I tell you.
I’m envisioning tiny drills, tiny funnels, and buckets of molten platinum—a recipe for disaster.
It smacks of hokum and urban legendry.
If anyone has concrete knowledge of this phenomenon, please advise.
This has to be the most outlandish thing I’ve ever read—ever, anywhere, in any medium, on any subject! Outlandish, I tell you.
I’m envisioning tiny drills, tiny funnels, and buckets of molten platinum—a recipe for disaster.
It smacks of hokum and urban legendry.
If anyone has concrete knowledge of this phenomenon, please advise.
0
Comments
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>I’ve read about fraudsters in the 1860s “hollowing out” $20 gold pieces and filling them with platinum (at the time less valuable than gold), to profit from the difference in metal values.
This has to be the most outlandish thing I’ve ever read—ever, anywhere, in any medium, on any subject! Outlandish, I tell you.
I’m envisioning tiny drills, tiny funnels, and buckets of molten platinum—a recipe for disaster.
It smacks of hokum and urban legendry.
If anyone has concrete knowledge of this phenomenon, please advise. >>
The affected coins were sawn in half down the middle using a fine jewelry saw, and then reassembled as a sandwich with a disc of platinum in the middle. The edge was re-reeded and gold plated. The profit was the value of the gold removed in the cutting, less the cost of the platinum disc and the cost of the labor. In an era where a wage of a dollar a day was considered good money, the practice was profitable.
The drilling of holes in crown-sized silver coins and filling them with metal rods was a cruder and less profitable deceit, but no doubt a temptation to people so inclined.
TD
Oh wait, I would sweat it, it seems easier!
<< <i>I’ve read about fraudsters in the 1860s “hollowing out” $20 gold pieces and filling them with platinum (at the time less valuable than gold), to profit from the difference in metal values.
This has to be the most outlandish thing I’ve ever read—ever, anywhere, in any medium, on any subject! Outlandish, I tell you.
I’m envisioning tiny drills, tiny funnels, and buckets of molten platinum—a recipe for disaster.
It smacks of hokum and urban legendry.
If anyone has concrete knowledge of this phenomenon, please advise. >>
I've read this story too, but the trouble is no one, to my knowledge, has discovered one these debased frauds to show as an example that it was really done.
About the closest thing to it that is in numismatic circulation are the boxed Trade Dollars and other item (e.g. Columbian commemorative half dollars) that have been hollowed out and had one of their faces hinged. These things have been called “opium dollars” with romantic stories about how they were used to smuggle drugs, but the more likely use was to house the photo of a loved one.
I bought this one years ago for less than $50. I’ve seen some fancy prices on them at the shows recently.
<< <i>
The affected coins were sawn in half down the middle using a fine jewelry saw, and then reassembled as a sandwich with a disc of platinum in the middle. The edge was re-reeded and gold plated. The profit was the value of the gold removed in the cutting, less the cost of the platinum disc and the cost of the labor.
TD >>
Cap'n, do you have any primary-source information to confirm that? I mean, it sounds plausible to an extent, but it seems . . . well, not to over-use the word, but it seems outlandish.
"This was a big threat, as, for example, $10 worth of gold could be taken from a double eagle by drilling it out, multiple tries, sort of like slant drilling on oil wells, filling the void with platinum (not valuable at the time), and patching over the opening with gold leaf. This particular situation resulted in the 1860 pattern gold coins, the idea of Dr. Barclay, that were wider and thinner. I have a lot of info on this, but it would take me a while to dig out."
I don't know if that last phrase was intended as a pun.
Anyway, I replied:
"But did such a drilling ever actually happen? It seems like such a specialized and technical operation that, combined with the platinum cost, would yield a negative for your time, labor, and materials. Also, wouldn’t someone with those kinds of skills (a jeweler, medalist, minter, etc.), combined with a fraudulent bent, be better off just counterfeiting a $20 gold piece? To get $10 of gold from a $20 coin, you’d have to remove half of its volume!"
I've read the executive documents of the first session of the 36th Congress, which discuss the fears of drilling and filling gold coins with platinum. I don't doubt that the fears existed in certain quarters. But I wonder if the activity feared ever actually took place?
BTW The comment about reeding as a preventive measure is OTM (pun intentional) and the practice goes back to long before the 1860's
"similar contemporary counterfeits of coins from several European countries with dates usually varying from the 1850's to the 1870's. These counterfeits were made from platinum, which was cheap at the time, and gold plated."
taken from: http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/newsletter9.html
<< <i>If it hadn't actually happened, my take on it is that no threat would have been perceived. Two very estimable numismatists who contribute strongly to our institutional memory have given cogent explanations. I'd be satisfied with their response. Perhaps RWB could find some references in Treasury correspondence. This is in no way a suggestion that he spend his time thusly. >>
However, if you read the related congressional records and historical context, you almost get the feeling that either
a) it's the 19th-century equivalent of a wacko conspiracy theory,
b) the platinum-swapped-for-gold rumors could have been fueled by special interests,
c) some low-level congressional staffer was told to write a report on ways U.S. gold coins might be counterfeited or faked, and the resulting essay has been circulated as truth in numismatic circles ever since, or
d) some combination of such factors.
I'm all for trusting long-held "conventional numismatic wisdom" . . . and I do love me some institutional memory . . . but everything needs to be verified at some point. People used to think that Indian Head half eagles carried germs in their recesses, but was it true? Not at all. And for decades it was "common knowledge" that "a public outcry" forced the Mint to cover Liberty's exposed breast on the Liberty Standing quarter, when in reality there was no such outcry, and the design change was made for other reasons unrelated to prudery.
I feel the inquiry is valid: Was a single $20 gold piece ever really hollowed out and filled with platinum?
I understand that the fear of this activity may have been real. But was the feared activity itself real?
<< <i> However, if you read the related congressional records and historical context, you almost get the feeling that either... >>
Almost get the feeling? Are you letting your gut, rather than hard, verifiable data, inform your opinion?
Another variation on the old conundrum "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a sound?"
No disrespect to Christians intended, but by your standard of verifiability the very existence of Jesus as stated in the Gospels can be discounted as "somewhat contradictory anecdotal evidence clearly produced long after the period during which such events are purported to take place. No irrefutable documentation can be produced. QED it probably just never happened ".
Yes, reductio ad absurdum....
It makes me wonder.
Wee little funnel.
Bucket of molten platinum.
I'm just sayin'.
<< <i>Tiny, tiny drill.
Wee little funnel.
Bucket of molten platinum.
I'm just sayin'. >>
That's why the simple straight slice and a simple replacement disc would have been a much easier way to do this. I never saw such a coin. When I was in training as an authenticator, one of the other authenticators told me that was how it was done. The technique is mentioned in the Judd catalogue under 1860 and 1861.
Since it was a pre-Civil War problem, it is possible that some coins so adulterated were shipped overseas and melted. Any pieces that came to the attention of the Mint would certainly have been destroyed. I don't know if a bullion house finding such a coin would have attempted to have the Treasury replace it with a good one, or what the Treasury would have told them (either "Here's a good one, now keep quiet about the problem" of "Tough luck, sailor!"). Either way, the coin would have been destroyed. Nobody would have kept one for the benefit of future collectors to ooh and aah over.
TD
I'm familiar with the Judd text on the subject, but I'm curious to go back to editions earlier than the 8th and check something: did Judd himself include that information, or was it incorporated into the new expanded text when QDB took over as editor? I know some of Dave's sources, from recent conversations. Still, the whole scenario as described (going back even to the congressional references and Dr. Barclay) trips a skeptical mental alarum.
The authenticator who told you about it --- what was his source? Is he still around?
I think of numismatic consternations such as "Who was the model for Fraser's Indian head?" --- riddles and conundrums that were mysterious and confused and cloudy well into the modern age, when such things, you'd think, would be fairly cut and dried, well documented, spelled out in black and white.
Lady Liberty's breast was covered up because we Americans were scandalized by it.
Or were we?
People set up cottage industries sawing double eagles apart and making platinum sandwiches.
Didn't they?
Or . . . did they?
Has anybody asked the Smithsonian if they have one?
Has anybody asked the Mint Lab if they have one in their counterfeit reference collection?
TD
I'll continue scratching the surface of this coinundrum to see if it's gilt as charged.
The affected coins were sawn in half down the middle using a fine jewelry saw, and then reassembled as a sandwich with a disc of platinum in the middle. The edge was re-reeded and gold plated. The profit was the value of the gold removed in the cutting, less the cost of the platinum disc and the cost of the labor. In an era where a wage of a dollar a day was considered good money, the practice was profitable.
The drilling of holes in crown-sized silver coins and filling them with metal rods was a cruder and less profitable deceit, but no doubt a temptation to people so inclined.
TD
The Captain’s explanation of this is correct. Senate Executive Document 53 of June 1860, for example,
describes the process in detail. The Dr. James Barclay experiments of this time were meant to stop this
fraud though it really stopped when gold was hoarded during the Civil War.
The Senate document noted above does not mention platinum, only base metal, but I have other Mint
letters specifically mentioning platinum and this method.
Mint officials noted that they had examined the platinum frauds and considered them very dangerous.
Denga
I await corrections on specific gravity or whatever. In my opinion they are quibbles.
No disrespect to those better informed than I on on history and documentation. I defer to TD in this matter. His knowledge and practical experience with this situation probably makes him as well or better qualified to answer this question as anyone posting here.
<< <i>CaptHenway January 17, 2011
The affected coins were sawn in half down the middle using a fine jewelry saw, and then reassembled as a sandwich with a disc of platinum in the middle. The edge was re-reeded and gold plated. The profit was the value of the gold removed in the cutting, less the cost of the platinum disc and the cost of the labor. In an era where a wage of a dollar a day was considered good money, the practice was profitable.
The drilling of holes in crown-sized silver coins and filling them with metal rods was a cruder and less profitable deceit, but no doubt a temptation to people so inclined.
TD
The Captain’s explanation of this is correct. Senate Executive Document 53 of June 1860, for example,
describes the process in detail. The Dr. James Barclay experiments of this time were meant to stop this
fraud though it really stopped when gold was hoarded during the Civil War.
The Senate document noted above does not mention platinum, only base metal, but I have other Mint
letters specifically mentioning platinum and this method.
Mint officials noted that they had examined the platinum frauds and considered them very dangerous.
Denga >>
Thank you!
TD
<< <i>A recently completed research article on Dr. Barclay's experiments (and others) indicates that drill-n-fill and sweating (acid dipping) were the two most feared methods of adulterating gold coins. >>
RWB, have you run across any source material indicating where the fear was coming from, other than the Senate and Dr. Barclay? Was there a public outcry? Any police records of counterfeiting operations?
The Treasury didn't heed Barclay's recommendations to alter U.S. coinage. Why not?
The Treasury, mints and assay office were the most common places for adulterations to be discovered, so they had a special interest in preventing fraudulent alteration.
Barclay's ideas were poorly articulated and poorly executed. Most of them had already been tested at the Mint and rejected as impractical or causing more harm than good.
A much more important counterfeit, or class of counterfeits, to us, is the imitation of our gold coin, lately brought to light; and which is as interesting to the man of science as it is dangerous to the commercial
• dealer. The varieties include the eagle, half-eagle, and quarter-eagle; there is not much danger of a false gold dollar of that manufacture, for reasons which will be obvious in the examination.
These various counterfeits began to make their appearance in 1847, although some of them bear earlier dates; and they perfectly agree in character. They are of so perfect execution, that strong apprehension was at first entertained of the surreptitious procurement of genuine dies, notwithstanding all precaution in that matter. However, upon a minute inspection, the impression, although entirely "brought up," is not so sharp and decided as in the genuine coin, and from that circumstance they have exteriorly a family character by which a practised eye may perhaps single them out. The details of impression correspond to those of the genuine, to the last microscopic particular. The most skilful and deliberate artist in the world could not take up the graver and make such a fac-simile; their dies must have been transferred from our coin by a mechanical process.
The coins have rather a dull sound in ringing, but not as if flawed; although they are actually each in three distinct pieces of metal. Some few of them, where the weight is kept up, are thicker than the genuine, and necessarily so; but generally the half-eagles run, as in the good pieces, from 55 to 60 thousandths of an inch, within the raised rim. The diameter is sometimes rather too great. The composition is as follows. A thin planchet of silver (of Spanish standard, as we found byassay) is prepared, so nearly of the right diameter that the subsequent overlaying of the gold plate at the edge will make it exact. Two other planchets, of gold, whose quality will be stated directly, are also prepared; one of them is of the right diameter of the projected coin, the other is about a quarter of an inch larger in diameter. Here are the three pieces which make up the coin. The two gold plates are then soldered upon the silver, the projecting rim of the larger disk of gold is bent up to meet the smaller, and to constitute the edge of the coin, and then the whole is finished by a blow in a coining-press. The suggestion that the coin may have been perfected in an electrotype battery is disproved by several considerations, especially by the conclusive one, that the effects of the blow are visible upon the silver planchet, when the gold is lifted off; and the process of sawing out a good coin, so as to make use of its two faces to cover a piece of silver, could not have been employed in this case, because the edge of the coin actually appertains to one of the gold surfaces; and besides, the gold is sometimes of a higher fineness than our standard.*
The eagle, of which we have had but one sample, was not particularly noted, as it came after some others of the lower denominations.
Of the half-eagle counterfeits, we have had the dates of 1844, 1845, and 1847. Of the quarter-eagle, only the date of 1843 has been shown, and this had the mint-mark, O, of the branch at New Orleans.
The half-eagle of 1844 weighed 129 grains, just the right weight; the golden part weighed 84J grains, and was 915 thousandths (about British standard) fine; value of the gold $ 3.30. The silver weighed 44 grains, was 897 thousandths fine, and worth 10 cents; whole value of the piece, $ 3.40. Another piece, 1845, was 10 grains light; another of the same date, of which only a part was furnished, gave the assay of 902J thousandths for the gold on the head side, and 901J on the eagle side; both higher than our limit, but very near it. Two other pieces, 1847, were each about 13 grains light; specific gravity of one of them, 14.1. (That of the true coin is 17.2 to 17.5.)
Of the quarter-eagle, no less than five were offered in a single deposit for recoinage; they were severally from one to nine grains light. One piece, however, from another source, was a little over weight; the specific gravity, 12.83; fineness of the gold, 915; value of the whole piece about $ 1.25.
It only remains to inquire how these counterfeits are to be detected and avoided. First, it may be said, that to lay down any rules which
* This counterfeit is knowingly accounted for in a late newspaper paragraph. The writer says, — " The dies, under the present rules (at the United States Mint) are all pressed; hence the ease with which they can be counterfeited by any die-sinker. In England and France, the most eminent men in that branch are selected to coin dies, and such is the sharpness and perfection of their dies, that counterfeits are almost an impossibility." It was from the mints of England and France that we borrowed the improvement of transferring dies.
would protect the careless and indifferent is out of the question. Any man who can afford to take a half or quarter-eagle from any but an undoubted source, without some attention, can at any rate afford to be cheated out of half its value. And yet the best test we can propose is altogether an inconvenient one to any but a bank, broker, or shopkeeper. That test is the weight. In every case except one, which has come under our notice, the balance would have settled all doubts. An error of a grain, in an unworn piece, would be conclusive; even worn pieces of our gold coinage are never deficient, on that account, more than one grain and a half. If the counterfeit should happen to be of right weight, then its too great thickness would be apparent to a careful examiner.
As the balance is not a very portable or ready apparatus, several instruments have been contrived expressly for the purpose of trying gold coins, upon the principle of combining the tests of weight and dimen sions. They are no doubt worth examining.
On the whole, it is difficult to say how far the appearance of this class of counterfeits should alarm the public, and make them shy of a gold currency. It is certainly the most dangerous imitation that has come to our knowledge. Yet, when it is considered that in each counterfeit of the half-eagle there is and must be from three to three and a half dollars' worth of precious metal; that the manufacture must require a good deal of machinery, and consummate skill, both artistic and mechanical; that the investment of a considerable capital is requisite, as also a wide organization for pushing the issues quietly into circulation, it may be hoped that prudent and competent persons will find it better worth their while to pursue a more honest and honorable calling. The public have an additional security, in respect to gold coins, that they are constantly passing through the various treasuries of government, the banks, and the brokers' offices, by whose vigilance that currency is kept nearly or quite pure.
We have also seen counterfeit half-eagles of the Dahlonega mint (D), of brass gilt, pretty well executed, but very light; date 1843. „ Also a quarter-eagle, 1846, no mint mark, copper and silver, heavily gilt; well looking, but weighing 48 grains instead of 64|.
GOLD AND SILVER COINS, COUNTERFEIT COINS, AND BULLION; WITH MINT VALUES. THIRD EDITION, REARRANGED, WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS BY JACOB R. ECKFELDT And WILLIAM E. DUBOIS, ASSAYERS OF THE MINT OF THE UNITED STATES.
They were still around in the 1890s, as a Banker's Magazine I have warns of the same dates nearly 50 years later.
Relevant to the original question, I think this sort of adulteration is even older. Some "regulated" gold coins of the late 18th and early 19th centuries show just a gold plug near the center of the coin -- no countermark, no clipping, just a gold plug -- which some experts in the field believe is a relic of the coin being drilled to ensure it was gold all the way through. If it was, the hole was just filled in with gold and back into circulation the coin went. If this explanation of the occasionally-seen phenomenon is accurate (I believe it is), that suggests that folks worried about hollowed-out precious metal coins even earlier.
I think I have an 18th century reference to this phenomenon somewhere, but it will take some digging to find it ....
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
1. obviously an altered coin
2. text reference to a discovery of such an actual altered coin.
<< <i>Dentuck, if you've already made up your mind that this is all myth and remain skeptical of all that those better informed than you can provide, why even bother to ask the question?? >>
Check the dates on the postings. I thought we had convinced Dentuck back in January that his supposition was wrong. He has not asserted otherwise since.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i> The affected coins were sawn in half down the middle using a fine jewelry saw, and then reassembled as a sandwich with a disc of platinum in the middle. The edge was re-reeded and gold plated. The profit was the value of the gold removed in the cutting, less the cost of the platinum disc and the cost of the labor. TD >>
Cap'n, do you have any primary-source information to confirm that? I mean, it sounds plausible to an extent, but it seems . . . well, not to over-use the word, but it seems outlandish. >>
You don't understand the relative value of labor back then. Even growing up on a farm in MO in the 60s and 70s, if we could make it we considered it a free item. So perhaps a hinge or a gate that we could buy at the Farm and Home relatively cheaply, would be home made whenever possible. Labor was essentially free.
In this case, it was not a "recipe for disaster" when in the hands of a jeweler or machinist. It sounds like you would consider many of the processes used in modern manufactur to be a "recipe for disaster" unless they are done by and SP500 company because large companies know what they are doing and individuals end up on Youtube Fail videos. Don't assume that competent home machinists, frelance jewelers, or even petty crooks, end up there. Only the incompetent ones do.
We made our own fishing sinkers from melted lead wheel weights when I was a kid too.
This reminds me of the old story during the cold war. The Russians made the smallest axle they had ever seen. It was smaller than a human hair and perfectly round and straight. They sent it to us as a display of expertise to show their superiority. We bored a hole down the middle of it and sent it back. Probably an internet folk tale but a good one.
--Jerry
<< <i>The platinum counterfeits noted in AngryTurtle's quote were actually struck in platinum. They were of excellent quality -- over the years a few of them (particularly the 1844 half eagles) have been sold as "patterns," which they're not.
They were still around in the 1890s, as a Banker's Magazine I have warns of the same dates nearly 50 years later.
Relevant to the original question, I think this sort of adulteration is even older. Some "regulated" gold coins of the late 18th and early 19th centuries show just a gold plug near the center of the coin -- no countermark, no clipping, just a gold plug -- which some experts in the field believe is a relic of the coin being drilled to ensure it was gold all the way through. If it was, the hole was just filled in with gold and back into circulation the coin went. If this explanation of the occasionally-seen phenomenon is accurate (I believe it is), that suggests that folks worried about hollowed-out precious metal coins even earlier.
I think I have an 18th century reference to this phenomenon somewhere, but it will take some digging to find it .... >>
I don't see "platinum" in AngryTurtles post.
What it does talk about is a manufactured planchet of silver and gold that is later struck with a faked die.
--> "that the effects of the blow are visible upon the silver planchet, " (it's saying the silver has an impression on it. So it was a struck sandwich.
--> and besides, the gold is sometimes of a higher fineness than our standard (they didn't saw a coin in half because the fineness of the gold is too high (comical error))
The rest talks about the fakes being too light or heavy and detecting them via weight and dimension.
There isn't really anything addressing "drilling" or "sawing and sandwiching"
I will add, "tiny funnel" does not need to be.
Hole of size X, Rod of size X. Insert rod into hole.
This is claimed to be "urban legend."
An example coin so altered would close the case.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Monday January 17, 2011 11:24 PM
A riddle wrapped in gold wrapped in platinum sandwiched into an enigma!
I'll continue scratching the surface of this coinundrum to see if it's gilt as charged.
well, that doesn't sound to me like he's convinced of anything other than "myth" as originally expressed, but you're right about one thing, i didn't realize the thread was old!!
<< <i>I was at Larry Briggs' table at FUN when a questionable $20 territorial gold piece was being weighed. It was way too heavy (at least 10%, IIRC), but not too big. If platinum filled rather than a die struck counterfeit, I'm not sure of the method, but I don't know what else it could have been filled with to be that heavy. >>
Hmmm.... no method proposed.
what metals would have been readily available back then besides silver and platinum? lead?
this site lists these densities:
Metal Density (g/cm^3)
Gold 19.3
Silver 10.5
Platinum 21.4
platinum is about 10.9% denser than gold.
Mint of the United States.
Engravers’ Department
November 3, 1857
Dr. Barclay called on me and wished me to make a die for him from the Quarter Dollar or Dime, which was to be sunk on the surface in a disk form from the stars to the figure (the plane of which was not to be changed) deepening towards the center of the piece to about one half or one third the thickness of the coin. He seemed to think it a new idea and destined to be an improvement. I told him “it was a form, with which we were more familiar already than we desired to be in our coinage: from the tendency of the dies to rise in the center in the process of hardening which gave us trouble in working without any apparent advantage and that the idea so far from being new was known and wrought upon by the ancient gem engravers, so far as a sunken or hallowed relief to the figure or device was concerned: which in some cases made the parts in relief appear to stand out as if projecting from the bottom of a cup.”
I had in my mind for instance the cast in my collection marked 430 (and called in the catalogue the head of Sestus Pompey, the same however which Baron Stock has had engraved in his collection as Capt. Igustum) besides many others: There is in fact no form of more frequent occurrence amongst antique gems. Yet it is justly considered an improper form for coinage, as the coin could never be struck up by any commercial process.
November 17
The die referred to on the preceding page was prepared from that used to coin the Quarter Dollar, but Dr. Barclay did not present a requisition for its delivery; after consulting the director of the Mint, he declined to release me from the legal custody of the die: but consistently with this responsibility left me at liberty to make any arrangement for its use by Dr. B. that I might consider safe to myself, in other words, I might loan it to him. I so informed Dr. B. but he did not see me again until he had obtained an impression from my foreman.
November 20
This impression taken in silver was shown to me and subsequently Dr. B. came to me to get a similar die prepared from the reverse die of the same coin. (the Quarter Dollar), asking how long it would take to prepare it, I told him 4 or 5 days.
He then commenced a digression from the subject referring to opinions respecting his project of a grooved or indented surface to the coinage. His manner was uncourteouse and menancing: charging me with the pre...anitation or double-dealing, in stating at his house that there was no difficulty in the way of making the grooved indentation in the coin, (claimed by him as an invention or improvement) and then, stating before the Director of the Mint “that there was an insuperable difficulty.” I told him in reply that I never used the word insuperable in that connection.
I am very certain also that I never told him at this house or anywhere else that there was no difficulty in the way of making such dies by our present process: because I knew it would not be done in our usual way if at all: and if I had ----been regardless of truth, I had no inducement of any kind to make a statement at variance with my own belief and with facts that were obvious to any man acquainted with the mode in use for preparing dies for coinage.
He also charged me in the same connection with having been the cause of preventing him from getting into the Mint: this I consider most unfounded and injurious. What ever opinion I entertained of the merit of his (so called) invention, I never used any influence or effort to keep him out to the Mint--the opinions I expressed were only in reply to authoritative interrogatories, and in conformity with my convictions of truth and my obligations to the ...service. It was not even discretionary with me to with-hold the expression of those convictions, when called upon, without disrespect to the authority of my superior officer, and remissness to the trust reposed in me.
November 23
The Reverse die to make coin hollowed out or sunk in toward the center was requested by Dr. Barclay, was commenced by making a hub from the Quarter Dollar reverse die, and is placed in the hands of Mr. Paquet for that purpose.
November 27
The hub described as above was hardened and a die made from it: which was finished and a piece struck from it in my absence by foreman Geo. E. This proceeding was not as I intended but Dr. B. seems to prefer giving directions to my workmen without my intervention.
November 30.
Dr. B. called on me to show the piece that had been struck as before mentioned, remarking that it was not what he desired in respect to depth of curvature in the radius--I told him that the result was owing in all probability to its having been done or attempted to be done in the abscence of my own supervision. That it was my purpose to have had the die finished by a different process which I considered necessary to carry out his intentions, to have the hub annealed and sunk deeper; placing it again in the hands of Mr. Paquet.
Dr. B. now wants the head die of the Dime treated in the same way; starting the curvature from the inside of the beaded border; and worked proportionally still deeper. I of course, told him I would have it done.
Dec. 1
The reverse Quarter Dollar hub as again wrought on by Mr. Paquet was placed in the hands of my foreman for hardening and again making a die from it. The work thus far on these Quarter Dollar dies is estimated at six days by the engraver.
Dec. 30
Since the last date, i.e. during the present month, Dr. Barclay has had several alterations made in the dies that were made to present the devices with a deeply sunk face around these--the Quarter Dollar obverse; he had rounded out, or the convex surface of the die extended to the beaded border, so as to take out the stars (which at first he told me he did not want done) corresponding with the die prepared from the Dime obverse; and he has had both dies made with a high polish on the convex faces--this work is estimated at 3 days additional labour of the engraver.
<< <i>what metals would have been readily available back then besides silver and platinum? lead? >>
Lead is far less dense than gold. The closest match is tungsten. Iridium and Osmium are both just a little more dense than Platinum.
this site lists these densities:
Metal Density (g/cm^3)
Gold 19.3
Silver 10.5
Platinum 21.4
platinum is about 10.9% denser than gold. >>
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I have a more positive take on Dentuck's question - I think he's just asking to see contemporary evidence (as RWB and denga have led the way in illuminating numismatic research by doing).
I think one of the best ways of examining counterfeiting in the 19th century is by reviewing the several publications aimed at bankers and businessmen that discussed counterfeit coins and currency in circulation, since they stood to lose the most by accepting counterfeits.
I tripped across this publication in Google books last year - it's a bit later than the timeframe we're discussing (it's from 1890), but fascinating none the less. As anyone who has searched Google books knows, the search feature is a bit erratic, but perhaps someone can find more issues than the one volume I found.
ickerman's&hl=en&ei=6PBuTdPxOYet8AaH98z7Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">Dickerman's Counterfeit Detector
Check out the Southern Gold Society
1844 half eagle
1869-S half eagle
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Just linking to some of the platinum counterfeits the ANS has.
1844 half eagle
1869-S half eagle >>
Excellent!!!!!!
TD
<< <i>Just linking to some of the platinum counterfeits the ANS has.
1844 half eagle
1869-S half eagle >>
Now these counterfeits make sense! They're 19th-century harbingers of today's Chinese fakes. Take a set of facsimile dies, and strike yourself some "coins" in a cheaper metal than that of the authentic piece. Platinum is cheaper than gold, so use fraudulent dies to strike a $5 "gold" coin with $1.20 (or whatever) worth of platinum, then plate it with gold to complete the illusion.
No tiny drills, no lilliputian funnels, no small buckets.
By the way, I hope nobody seriously thinks I don't respect the opinions of my numismatic betters!
<< <i>I must have missed this thread in January.
I have a more positive take on Dentuck's question - I think he's just asking to see contemporary evidence (as RWB and denga have led the way in illuminating numismatic research by doing).
I think one of the best ways of examining counterfeiting in the 19th century is by reviewing the several publications aimed at bankers and businessmen that discussed counterfeit coins and currency in circulation, since they stood to lose the most by accepting counterfeits.
I tripped across this publication in Google books last year - it's a bit later than the timeframe we're discussing (it's from 1890), but fascinating none the less. As anyone who has searched Google books knows, the search feature is a bit erratic, but perhaps someone can find more issues than the one volume I found.
google book link >>
Go to page 44.
I think we have a winner.
Genuine coins of all kinds, for the sake of gain, are tampered with in various ways. These operations are confined almost exclusively to the gold coins, which are sweated, plugged and filled.
Sweating is removing a portion of the gold from the surface of the coin. The process does not interfere with the ring and as the portion removed is generally slight, the coin is left with a very fair appearance, the weight only being defective. It is done in numerous ways, the principal of which is the acid bath: also by filing the edges or reeding, the operator finding a profit in the small quantities of gold removed from numerous pieces. The average reductions in value of coins subjected to these processes is from 1-20 to 1-10.
Plugging is done by boring holes in the coin, extracting the gold, and filling the cavity with a cheaper material. The larger coins -- double eagles and eagles ($20 and $10 pieces) -- are used for this purpose. The holes are bored into the coin from the edge or reeding, the gold extracted, and the cavity filled with a base metal. The small surface of the plugging material, where it shows on the edge of the coin, is then covered with gold, and the reeding retouched where it has been removed.
This is done with a file or machine used for that purpose. The average loss in value to coins treated in this way is from 1/2 to 1-6. Coins of this kind are very dangerous, as they are perfect in appearance, the edges only having been tampered with.
Filling is most commonly done by sawing the coing through from the edge or reeding, removing the interior portion, and replacing it with a cheap metal.
Coins of all denominations, from the quarter eagle to the double eagle, are subjected to this process. When platinum is used to replace the gold extracted, the coin has the same weight as genuine. (edit: I imagine they don't fully fill the hole with platinum.) By this process coins lose 4-5 of their value, as the original surfaces are left only of paper thickness. (edit: the mint has paper envy.) When the edges have been covered with gold and the reeding restored, the coin has the appearance of being genuine, having the correct size and weight, and a fair ring. In some instances the covering of gold on the edges is so thin that the filling can be distinctly seen. When other and less costly filling than platinum is used, the coins are of light weight, and have a bad ring. If of correct weight they are too thick.
Another method of filling is done by sawing the coin partly in two from the edge or reeding, on one side, leaving a thin and thick portion. The thin side of the coin is turned back, and the gold extracted from the center of the thicker portion. The cavity is filled with the base metal, and the sides pressed back into their original position, and are soldered or brazed together. It is difficult to give the average loss to coins treated in this manner, as hardly any two have the same amount of gold taked from them.
The are very definite in their wording, and I believe that what is written is from real accounting of altered coins versus "offered hypothesis and speculation."
Case closed, IMO.
And a very, very interesting read.
For detecting counterfeit coins, compare the impress, size, weight, ring and general appearance with the genuine coin of the same period and coinage; and if we take the three tests of weight, diameter and thickness, it will be found almost impossible for the counterfeiter to comply with these three tests without using genuine metal. Following we give a complete list and a thorough description of the most dangerous counterfeits known to be in existence, with the means of detection.
page 45:
Following are the various denominations of the most difficult to detect counterfeit coins, and thus the most dangerous to commerece. Anything RYK and Longacre own.