Metallurgic Techniques

[frogling]

Hi!

I'm new here. I'm an artist, so I am very interested in all the creativity I see in the posts on this board!

As a sculptor, I have used some metallurgic techniques myself, so I'm interested to learn what specific techniques Swift was thought to employ.
Can anyone tell me other than smelting silver, what he was known to do with it? For example, was he using advanced techniques like casting to counterfeit French crowns? Do we have any photographs of his work (counterfeited coins)? Does anyone have resources that describe his background in metalwork, and where he learned his skills?

Certain techniques like lost wax casting were heavily guarded in the few European families who have had access to them since the Renaissance.

If he was using very advanced metalluric processes like these, he may have smuggled more than the basic materials needed. Just walking away with the knowledge alone with the intent to put it to use was an act of industrial espionage of the highest order.

I've only begun to look into these questions, so I would be interested to hear from anyone who can point me to some resources!

Best,

Pam

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[-Ki-]

Pam,
Let me be the first to welcome you to this forum.....
The metallurgic techniques you speak of, I'm currently studying.... After Swift melted the silver from the ore, slag or a "slag pile" would be a good sign to look for......this would be located in or near a good size rockhouse....This smelting process he would have formed his ingots, and pigs (bars) in the casting bed of the furnace...Remember it would take alot of work to feed the furnace with "ore" and "charcoal". The smelting process would take up to a few hours to a half a day depending on the size of the furnace. Also a thing to remember is the bigger the furnace the louder the roar...they had to be careful of Indians on warpartys roaming the area.... I believe Swift formed ingots to make coins with and the bars to store for a latter time. This is were the rockhouse just above the furnace comes in to play, this is where Swift or should i say "Montgomery" Struck the ingots into Crowns... They used the basic iron crucibles and coining dies to strike the Crowns. I have yet to see a Crown made by Swift, I have seen silver relics forged by Indians. The Indians would form a huge burn pile, placing the Silver ore on top, the silver would melt out of the rocks and gather at the bottom of the fire pit, from here the Indians would hammer or forge the silver to the shape or form they was wanting....
This makes me wonder what metals would have been found in the Silver ore Swift used, Iron, Silver, Lead, etc....



also which raises this question....Silver is a soft metal, like gold. Wouldn't these men have to add a stronger metal in the coin dies along with the silver to hold it together better.....if not looks like the silver coin would break apart over time.

-Ki-

 

[frogling]

Ki,

Thanks for your response! You have answered several of my questions. The other question that has not yet been answered: How were the dies made? Do we have any clues? This is where the artistry of counterfeiting comes into play.

Best,

Pam

 

[frogling]

Hi, Ki!

Sorry I forgot to answer your question! Yes, other metals would be added as alloys to maintain the strength of the coin. Ironically, the local counterfeiters were known for using as much or more silver in their mix as the Government that issued the official coins! I don't know if the other ores were relatively more scarce, or if the counterfeiters were just in too much of a hurry to care.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Y...A#v=onepage&q=beckler coins melungeons&f=true

Above is a link that refers to the legendary silver counterfeit coins and the furnaces used to produce them.

Best,

Pam

 

[-Ki-]

Pam,
Great question: How where the dies made?
The year following Swift's first trip into Ky in 1760, Swift added some men to his crew. One man named Seth Montgomery, Montgomery had worked in the royal mint in London, and had great knowledge on making coin dies, and molds for coining money. How his actual dies were made is unknown... I'll see what i can dig up on this for you, I'll reply it in a post this evening...

Thanks for the link above........ -Ki-

 

[frogling]

Hi, Ki!

Depending on how they were made, the furnaces you describe might also have been necessary to the process of creating the dies for the coins.

Maybe you will come up with something better than I have about how the dies were created! The sources I found said that "the process of cutting the dies [at the mint in London] was kept secret."

Naturally. Another question that interests me: if Swift got rid of Seth Montgomery and the rest of the members of the party, do we have any idea where the Mullins family got their metallurgic techniques? I understand they produced slightly different counterfeit coins than Swift did. Even if they were to stumble on Swift's abandoned dies near the site of the mine (assuming that he was absent-minded enough to leave them behind), that would not give them the secrets of producing new dies of their own.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Best,

Pam

 

[-Ki-]

Pam,
I don't think Montgomery made the coin dies from the furnaces they smelted silver from. In a great book called "Kentucky's last frontier" it tells almost the same story about Montgomery in the other books. Here is a ex-cert: Seth Montgomery, one of the party had worked in the Royal Mint in London. After his arrival at Alexandra Va. he began to engrave and cut the dies for coinage of silver and gold.
He gain his knowledge from working in the Royal Mint, and brought it with him to Virgina. He made his dies, and the company brought them into the wilderness with them. It is believed that they left these dies in the Great cave or the mine. The dies were engraved to make the French crown, most counterfeiters since made Spanish coins, like Sol Mullins. The French Crown dies have not yet been found.

 

[swiftfan]

It has also been stated that the coins they passed were of such quality, that they were accepted as legal tender of the time. That the silver content was higher than others made elsewhere. Further evidence of Montgomery's past being accurate.

 

[frogling]

Hi, Ki and Swiftfan

Yes, that is the completely amazing thing about these counterfeits. Everything you read about counterfeits assumes that something of lesser value is being substituted for the "real thing." All the techniques you read about involve substituting other metals for the precious ones. These are the exception to the rule: better than "real"--truly astonishing fakes.

First, it's no wonder we have few surviving Swift-mine coins. Being worth more than their "real" counterparts clearly made them vulnerable to being melted down and re-used.

Second note: Why make coins when you have scads of perfectly good silver? The problem is cashing it in. You will have to answer hard questions, like where you got it from, or if you refuse, you will be vulnerable to accusations of theft. Or someone could easily follow you to your mine, and bring a slew of prospectors along behind them. The claim to the mine could be disputed, you could be murdered in your sleep, and so forth. It seems the counterfeiters were more afraid of having to own up to their source of silver than they were afraid of the governments they subverted by producing their own coinage.

Third note: Since he may have completed the dies in Virginia, the fact that Montgomery had experience in the Royal Mint in London does not account for how the Mullins produced completely different coins (requiring different dies) that were also thought to be excellent fakes.

Fourth note: How interesting that the US Government began moving the Shawnee west just about the time that the Mullins counterfeit operation was exposed. Vast speculation on my part, I know.

More on metallurgic techniques as soon as I have a chance!

Best,

Pam

 

[lamar]

Dear Frogling;
You wrote:
Certain techniques like lost wax casting were heavily guarded in the few European families who have had access to them since the Renaissance.

This statement is wholly incorrect, my friend. Lost wax casting has been known for literally 1000's of years. In fact, the lost wax casting process was thoroughly described by the Benedictine monk Theophilus Presbyter in a text which he wrote between the years 1100 and 1120 AD. His collection of writings is known collectively as the "Schedula diversarum artium" or "List of Various Arts" in English. Not only does he outline in detail the art of goldsmithing, he also outlines the making of stained glass windows, the illustration and illumination of texts and walls, oil paintings, to include the manufacture of paints and inks and there is even a section on constructing a pipe organ.

The Gloucester Candlestick is an absolutely marvellous example of Medieval lost wax casting at it's finest and it was completed around 1100 AD, however it is by no means the oldest known example of the lost wax casting process. The earliest examples of lost wax casting are from the Aegean civilization of the Bronze Age and there exists examples dating as far back as 13th century BC. Also, the ancient Egyptians were highly prolific casters and they used the lost wax casting technique extensively as is detailed in the tomb of Pharoh Tutankhamun.

In short, the art of lost wax casting was well known by the time of the Renaissance period and it was not a heavily guarded secret, or even a secret as such. By the dawn of the later Middle Ages a very large proportion of gold and silver artifacts, especially those used as jewelry were manufactured using the lost wax technique.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[frogling]

Hi, Lamar

Great to hear from someone who is interested in metallurgic techniques!

Lost wax casting is largely known as an ancient technique, one that marked the beginning of the bronze age.
Yes, the Italians did have lost wax casting as late as the Renaissance. The techniques were not unknown in Europe. However, that does not mean the techniques were broadspread. There is a difference between knowing about the techniques and being able to carry them out. There have been remote pockets of civilization that have carried on lost wax casting in many areas of the world. But until farily recently, the USA was not able to carry them out. We only started using lost wax for industrial purposes in about 1850. In fact, lost wax investment techniques have only been used for industrial purposes such as dentistry in the United States since 1907.

http://www.lost-wax-casting.com/RESENT HISTORY.htm

So what is your opinion of what you read of the Swift counterfeit coins? Poured or struck? If struck, how do you think the dies were made? If poured, sand or lost wax?

And the Mullins counterfeit? Poured or struck? If you have an opinion, I'd love to hear how you came to your conclusions.

Best,

Pam

 

[lamar]

Dear frogling;
Actually, the art of casting jewelry by using the lost wax method was not unknown to the early Anglo-Saxon goldsmiths, as is evidenced by the many surviving rings, pendants and brooches which show an incredible amount of fine detail and a degree of sophisication which simply could not be duplicated by using chasing the gold or silver using the very rudimentary tools of the day. In fact, even the modern era pneumatic chasing and engraving tools are hard pressed to compete with the extremely fine details which can be attained by carving directly onto a wax model then transferring the model from wax into either gold or silver.

Lost wax casting was already in very widespread use by 1907, when the process was first introduced in the dentistry field. Prior to being utilized by dentists, the lost wax method consisted of making a wax model and then packing a metal frame (actually one half of frame, called a sandwich frame) called a *cope* with a special mixture of sand and clay. This is called green casting sand and it would be packed into the half frame very tightly, after which the wax model would be placed in the center of the packed sand along with a small diameter rod for the gold to flow into the cavity and talcum powder to act as a release agent.

At this point the other half of the frame, called the drag, is placed on top and is secured to it's mate via bolts and nuts. More sand is packed into the drag frame and then after the sand is tightly packed together, the two halves are separated and the metal sprue rod is removed. Then assembly is placed upside down and heated to permit the wax to melt out of the mold and out the sprue channel. When all of the wax has been melted away, the frame assembly is placed upright and the molten alloy is poured into the sprue opening, which flows down the channel and into the cavity made by the wax. After the alloy has hardened the halves are separated, the sand is washed off of the item and the piece is then finished.

The reason why many people seem to think that lost wax casting did not come into being until 1907 is because in 1897 a dentist named Dr. D. Philbrook in Council Bluff, Iowa wrote an extensive paper on making dental crowns and inlays using the lost was process. The use of lost wax casting was further improved upon in 1907 by a dentist named Dr. William Taggart of Chicago, Illonois and his biggest contributions to the lost wax casting process were the inventions and developments of a fireproof investment material and a casting machine which used air pressure to force the molten alloy into the mold.

This was the start of the modern era of investment casting, and while it is considered to be a form of lost wax casting, the use of the fireproof investment material, which is similiar to plaster of paris, and also the centrifical casting machines, ushered in a new era of casting precious alloys. This was followed of course by vacuum casting machines and other refinements until the modern process little resembles the traditional lost wax casting process of yester year.

If Mr. Swift did in fact counterfeit coins then undoubtedly he would have cast them as striking them would have entailed hydraulic machinery. He also would have undoubtedly used a master mold, made from a low melting point metal such as pewter or even aluminum in which to produce the wax models. At that point the models would have been placed in a sand investment as this was the only known investment material of the day.

Strictly as an aside, my mom's family have been making jewelry for about the last 800 years or so, therefore I do happen to know a bit about the art of manufacturing jewelry. I was also a jewelry maker for about 15 years. :-)
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Sandpit]

Wow, 13th century jewelry.

 

[frogling]

Hi, Lamar!

Great, someone with more experience with casting than me!

Woo hoo. You're a treasure in yourself.

And I don't mean to contradict you, but you do make my point that these techniques have been passed down in families for hundreds of years. Knowing of them, and knowing how to do them are two different things, as I'm sure you will agree. And your family has known how to do them.

So back to my question: how do you think these coins were made? I'm particularly curious about the Mullins coins. They were not made with the same dies Swift's operations used, because they were different coins. One family member claimed, "I have found the money making type at my dad's. It had hinges."

http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/BLAIR-JACOB/1999-10/0939086579

Does this suggest anything to you about the methods used in producing the counterfeit coins?

Best,

Pam

 

[lamar]

Dear frogling;
To start at the beginning, the art of making European jewelry first originated in the courts of the nobility. Royal jewelers lived and worked either inside of the boundaries of a castle or within sight of the castle's walls. In this manner the leige was able to provide a certain measure of security for His subjects. Jewelry making was often handed down from father to son and it was not unusual for several generations of jewelers to be working in the same shop at the same time, however this was not always the case.

As in all of the ancient tradecrafts of the era, apprentices were being taken in to learn the various trades on a fairly constant basis. The family of the apprentice would work out some sort of payment deal and the shop master would then feed and care for the apprentice whilst teaching him a trade.

This system remained popular until the rise of the trade guilds. Once the trade guilds become powerful enough, tradesmen started leaving the manor estates and started settling in communities. As time passed, these communities ranged further and further away from the leige's castle and this is how towns and cities rose to prominence. Also, the rise of the trade guilds ushered out the fuedal system and in it's place arose a new period in Europe, the Renaissance Era.

During the Renaissance period, being accepted into a trade guild became a much more arduous process and one that entailed strict controls and measures. The time-honored system of a father passing his knowledge onto his sons was still deemed as acceptable, but the guilds further restricted the amount of skilled craftsmen working at any one place at any time and they also regulated the price of labor for the tradesmen of the guilds. This was also the start of the modern-ay trade unions and even today in parts of Europe the older trade unions still refer themselves as trade guilds.

It was because of the strict controls of the trade guilds that the local nobility often imported foreign trade workers, as was the case in England when the nobility brought in large numbers of Eastern Germanic silversmiths in order to ease the stranglehold that the silversmith guilds of England has placed upon the local economy. These East German silversmiths were called Easterlings by the British and in time the Easterlings became so well known that their name persists today as Sterling. This is how the word STERLING silver got it's name. The Sterlings worked only with .925 silver and over time, if a piece of silver was worked by an Easterling, then it was called sterling silver, being that it was manufactured and worked by an ancestor of the original Germanic silver working immagrants.

Therefore, while the trade guilds heavily restricted and protected the craft trades of the day, there were always those who worked on the fringes, or completely outside of, the regulations and dues of the trade guilds.

And now onto the question which you asked me:

To have produced silver coinage by casting would have been a relatively simple process during the time of Swift. All one needed was an actual coin, a two piece sand casting frame, some sand, a parting agent, and a source of heat.

The cope is packed full of wet sand then the coin placed in the center. The drag frame is placed on top then the parting agent, such as finely ground chalk or even flour, is sprinkled on the sand. Then the drag is placed on top and secured to the cope after which time the drag is then packed with more wet sand. When both halves are tightly packed with sand, the cope and drag are separated at the part line where the parting agent was sprinkled and the coin removed, then the two halves were placed back together then re-secured to form a two piece mold.

The mold assembly is then heated, such as by placing the assembly in a fire, while at the same time the alloy is being heated to the melting point. Once the alloy has reached the melting stage and the frame adaquately heated, the alloy is poured into the frame. After it cools the piece is removed and then finished by filing and polishing.

An even faster way of doing the same thing would have been to have accquired a master coin, or several master coins and have a master mold made of them. The master mold is of course made from an alloy with a lower melting point than the master coin(s) and once the master mold is constructed, wax coin models can be produced en masse.

Once the approriate amount of wax coins have been cast, they are placed inside of the sand casting frames in the same way as previously described, only without needing to use a parting agent. In this manner the wax stays inside of the sand frame until it is melted out by the frame. The advantage to this method is that a large frame can be constructed and 5 or 10 or even more wax coin models placed inside of the frame and cast all at once. Using this method a person would be able to cast as many as 25 coins at once.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[frogling]

Hi, Lamar

Do you think sand casting is a good match for the high quality of coins these counterfeiters were said to produce? Sandcast counterfeit was said to have a giveaway ring to it, if I'm not mistaken.

Scott's Counterfeiting in Colonial America mentions sandcast coins, but suggests they would have been quite crude and usually visibly detectable as fakes.

http://www.counterfeitcoins.com/marc-8reales/Counterfeit-Spanish-Milled-Dollars.html

Are there any particular reasons you would steer away from striking as the Mullins method?

Would there be any difference in the type of foundry needed to cast dies for any particular type of casting or pouring process? I just wondered if you could give us some clues about what sort of stonework might have been left by the counterfeiters. For the simple pouring method, you said the die requires a lower melting temperature than the master coin. So is "hot enough" just as good for any heat process as far as a counterfeiter is concerned? Would a muffle of loosely stacked kiln bricks be good enough?

Thanks for sharing your expertise!

Best,

Pam

 

[-Ki-]

Great topic you guys.... very interesting.........
To add just a bit of my 2 cents, i strongly believe the coins were struck.
Alot of Swift references refer to a sledge being used when coining the metal,
the sledge had a engraving of the French crown on the top side. It is believed
that the sledge along with the dies, and other apparatus was left in the
mine or one of the mines after operations had ended.

I'll share some of my research when i get some free time, I've been busy with
fieldwork these last couple of weeks..... HH -Ki-

 

[frogling]

Hi, Ki

I agree, Lamar has a wealth of information at his fingertips!

And Ki, I'll give you a whole Spanish dollar for your thoughts! And I have this bridge. . . smile.

I agree with you that there is no reason to think the Swift coins were anything other than struck. The Mullins coins were a different matter. You can't use dies for French Crowns to strike Spanish pieces of eight. Entirely different coins, and in the absence of Swift's expert out of the Royal Mint, very likely an entirely different process. Or no reason to presume the process was the same; the dies were, as you pointed out, cut in Alexandria, Va. Unless the Mullins were there watching, they would have used whatever methods they were conversant with to create the dies for the Spanish coins.

Look forward to getting your updates!

Best,

Pam

 

[lamar]

Dear frgoling;
The coin striking process is simply too much of a task for a small operation, my friend. In order for a coin to have been struck using the hammer method, one would have needed several assistants and of course the major problem with the hammer method is the fact that reliable finished weights were extremely difficult to have been achieved.

If mr. Swit used a striking mill then he would have been able to produce coinage of a quality and quantity approaching that of a national mint, however even the smallest of these manpowered screw type striking presses weight many tons and required many manual laborers to operate. The adavantage is that the rolling mill, blank punch and mill press were often times incorporated into a single unit and the finished coinage weights were notably accurate and precise.

Also, all US trade dollars had reeded edges, that is, the edges were serrated. This precluded them from being clipped by unscrupilious sorts. Also, reeded edge coins are notoriously difficult to strike using the hammer method and hammered coins are best manufactured with a smooth, or non-serrated edge.

In light of these facts, the coins could have only been produced via the casting method or the coin milling method as the denominational weight differences between individual coins using the hammer method was simply too great.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[BILL96]

Casting, sand, slurry or spinning is the one thing that I do know something about and I can tell you that casting is not the way to produce a coin. I could't think of a less efficient way of producing a coin, way to labor intensive.

Bill