Please go to my website to view this amazing coin. If you can offer any assistance in identifying its origins, I would be most grateful.
www.mysterycoin.com
www.mysterycoin.com
Mysterious Tin Coin - part of Templar legacy?
- Thread starter vastik
- Start date
Silver Searcher
Gold Member
Vasticvastik said:This has now gotten way beyond silly.
I thought I could find some help on this forum. Evidently, I was wrong.
Since you guys are more interested in making fun of this more than helping, I am taking my questions to others who are more serious.
Stick with it my Friend, there are still plenty here that are still interested
and believe what you are saying, and not making assumptions on the item based on the PICTURES you provided Could you perhaps clear up the gray parts, which johnnyi keeps refering to as adhesive
SS
Upvote
0
johnnyi
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,887
- Reaction score
- 144
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- new jersey
- Detector(s) used
- minelab, white's xlt, deus xp, fisher aquanaut, white's twin box
- Primary Interest:
- Relic Hunting
"and believe what you are saying, and not making assumptions on the item based on the PICTURES you provided"
Yes SS, those pesky pictures! Anyway, here is a scan to show you exactly where cement is present. Look to the lower left in particular, where a blob of it is not only within the scored line, but mounds above it. You find the same materal in other spots if you look carefully.
The second scan shows the pry mark, and the spot where the tool used to pry this out slid and scratched the reverse (two thin lines consisant with a small screw driver).
Yes SS, those pesky pictures! Anyway, here is a scan to show you exactly where cement is present. Look to the lower left in particular, where a blob of it is not only within the scored line, but mounds above it. You find the same materal in other spots if you look carefully.
The second scan shows the pry mark, and the spot where the tool used to pry this out slid and scratched the reverse (two thin lines consisant with a small screw driver).
Attachments
Upvote
0
Silver Searcher
Gold Member
All I see is something greyjohnnyi said:
how do you know it's cement you are basically judging from a picture 
he has already said there is no adhesive on the find and I see no pry mark just a mark that you have pointed out, and have concluded it's a pry mark, just to fit your own assumptions Thank you for at least getting the SS right
SS
Upvote
0
johnnyi
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,887
- Reaction score
- 144
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- new jersey
- Detector(s) used
- minelab, white's xlt, deus xp, fisher aquanaut, white's twin box
- Primary Interest:
- Relic Hunting
"All I see is something grey how do you know it's cement you are basically judging from a picture he has already said there is no adhesive on the find and I see no pry mark just a mark that you have pointed out, and have concluded it's a pry mark, just to fit your own assumptions"
To answer your questions in order:
You see something grey. I assume you see it filling some of the line and mounding in small areas. The grey material is the fact. The judgment that it is cement is a judgement based on everything else: the fact it is scored on the back; the fact that it is a thin weak metal which needed some rigidity (you can tell it is thin by the impression on the verso, and know it is weak by the composition metal); the obvious discoloration and blotching not consistant with the front patina; and the appearance of what resembles cement itself.
As far as judging from pictures is concerned, this is all we have. Pictures are what U.S. courts rely on above verbal descriptions, and there is a reason for that. Clear pictures rarely "lie", and these seem to be very good pictures.
(Remember too, if we were to have relied on words rather than pictures we would be led to believe "this is either a coin or a medallion" (which the vast majority of posters experienced in coins and medallions see as very unlikely),
We'd be following the clue that "the lines on the back were not made at random" (I think virtually everyone would disagree with that observation):
and we'd be led to believe that this "coin was NEVER attached to anything" ever! (which is a baseless claim cosidering provenance is unknown.) Because of such statements, as well as the orchestrated drama surrounding this thing, we are then forced to rely on pictures rather than words.
Regarding the pry mark; yes, this was mentioned to "fit my own assumptions". Based on all the above, my assumptions (the assumptions of many of us) were that this object must have been removed from something else.
Because it was most likely flush with what it was in, I looked for the spot where it was pried off. If it was mounted, there had to be a spot somewhere. That spot can be seen on the top of the object, bright, dented in, and with equally bright shallow scratch marks beneath it (which logically would have been there also.) In other words SS, it's how all these things are related to one another tells the story.
To answer your questions in order:
You see something grey. I assume you see it filling some of the line and mounding in small areas. The grey material is the fact. The judgment that it is cement is a judgement based on everything else: the fact it is scored on the back; the fact that it is a thin weak metal which needed some rigidity (you can tell it is thin by the impression on the verso, and know it is weak by the composition metal); the obvious discoloration and blotching not consistant with the front patina; and the appearance of what resembles cement itself.
As far as judging from pictures is concerned, this is all we have. Pictures are what U.S. courts rely on above verbal descriptions, and there is a reason for that. Clear pictures rarely "lie", and these seem to be very good pictures.
(Remember too, if we were to have relied on words rather than pictures we would be led to believe "this is either a coin or a medallion" (which the vast majority of posters experienced in coins and medallions see as very unlikely),
We'd be following the clue that "the lines on the back were not made at random" (I think virtually everyone would disagree with that observation):
and we'd be led to believe that this "coin was NEVER attached to anything" ever! (which is a baseless claim cosidering provenance is unknown.) Because of such statements, as well as the orchestrated drama surrounding this thing, we are then forced to rely on pictures rather than words.
Regarding the pry mark; yes, this was mentioned to "fit my own assumptions". Based on all the above, my assumptions (the assumptions of many of us) were that this object must have been removed from something else.
Because it was most likely flush with what it was in, I looked for the spot where it was pried off. If it was mounted, there had to be a spot somewhere. That spot can be seen on the top of the object, bright, dented in, and with equally bright shallow scratch marks beneath it (which logically would have been there also.) In other words SS, it's how all these things are related to one another tells the story.
Upvote
0
- #107
Thread Owner
Thanks SS for all your support. At least you have the right idea.
I don't know why Johnnyi has this hang-up about cement or glue or whatever adhesive is in his brain....there is no adhesive. I don't care what he thinks he sees on the photos. You can't judge the finish by a photo.
Regardless, I have moved on and the photos has been sent to the Rosicrucian order in the US, who have now forwarded them to the order in France for identification of the symbols.
We will see where that leads.
I'll keep you posted.
I don't know why Johnnyi has this hang-up about cement or glue or whatever adhesive is in his brain....there is no adhesive. I don't care what he thinks he sees on the photos. You can't judge the finish by a photo.
Regardless, I have moved on and the photos has been sent to the Rosicrucian order in the US, who have now forwarded them to the order in France for identification of the symbols.
We will see where that leads.
I'll keep you posted.
Upvote
0
- #108
Thread Owner
johnnyi said:
Johnnyi,
When I first saw the pictures last year, I also thought it was adhesive. When I examined it in person, I found not only that the so called "raised" marks were actually flat, but there was no evidence of adhesive.
Sheesh! How many times do I have to say that?
Upvote
0
I'll jump out of the box and suggest the German words can be interpreted to mean: "In commemoration of the Holy Mission". This then is a commemorative medallion or medal. The cross then can signify a Mission Cross--one meaning of which is a cross erected in churches where the mission is preached; the mission being the sharing of one's faith with another person or group.
The 'all-seeing-eye', sometimes called the Eye of Providence was an explicit image of the Christian Trinity. Freemasons 'adopted' the Eye in 1797. Many people believe the Eye sybolizes God in that He sees everything.
Don........
The 'all-seeing-eye', sometimes called the Eye of Providence was an explicit image of the Christian Trinity. Freemasons 'adopted' the Eye in 1797. Many people believe the Eye sybolizes God in that He sees everything.
Don........
Upvote
0
- #110
Thread Owner
Thanks Don,
I tend to agree with you about it being some sort of commemorative medal. Question is, what religion? The flowery font was used by the Rosicrucians and it may be something from one of their missions. They adopted the all seeing eye as well, but I'm not sure at what time period.
I will keep you posted on what I hear back from the French order.
Glad to see that someone is finally paying attention to the symbology of it!
I tend to agree with you about it being some sort of commemorative medal. Question is, what religion? The flowery font was used by the Rosicrucians and it may be something from one of their missions. They adopted the all seeing eye as well, but I'm not sure at what time period.
I will keep you posted on what I hear back from the French order.
Glad to see that someone is finally paying attention to the symbology of it!
Upvote
0
Montana Jim
Gold Member
vastik said:Thanks Don,
I tend to agree with you about it being some sort of commemorative medal. Question is, what religion? The flowery font was used by the Rosicrucians and it may be something from one of their missions. They adopted the all seeing eye as well, but I'm not sure at what time period.
I will keep you posted on what I hear back from the French order.
Glad to see that someone is finally paying attention to the symbology of it!
Clearly Christian... IMHO, based on the "IHS" and the Jesuit's symbol (the three spikes)on the bottom. The Masons, i believe, claim no specific religion and I think the maker of this piece borrowed the symbolism for aesthetic reasons.
I also think the "font" is a common (fleur de lis?) style while the majority of the coin uses a times-new-roman style.
Upvote
0
The Trinity is symbolized by the three lines that encompass the Eye.
The rays do not depict the sun's rays; rather, they are rays of Glory (Heaven and the attributes and perfection of God), for example. Had the rays eminated from the cross (versus from behind the eye) there might be only 12 rays, symbolizing the 12 apostles.
The rays do not depict the sun's rays; rather, they are rays of Glory (Heaven and the attributes and perfection of God), for example. Had the rays eminated from the cross (versus from behind the eye) there might be only 12 rays, symbolizing the 12 apostles.
Upvote
0
Gents:
I believe you'll find that "mission" in English is also "mission" in German--except in the German 'old' style when it appears as 'miffion'
I believe you'll find that "mission" in English is also "mission" in German--except in the German 'old' style when it appears as 'miffion'
Upvote
0
- #118
Thread Owner
Montana Jim said:vastik said:Thanks Don,
I tend to agree with you about it being some sort of commemorative medal. Question is, what religion? The flowery font was used by the Rosicrucians and it may be something from one of their missions. They adopted the all seeing eye as well, but I'm not sure at what time period.
I will keep you posted on what I hear back from the French order.
Glad to see that someone is finally paying attention to the symbology of it!
Clearly Christian... IMHO, based on the "IHS" and the Jesuit's symbol (the three spikes)on the bottom. The Masons, i believe, claim no specific religion and I think the maker of this piece borrowed the symbolism for aesthetic reasons.
I also think the "font" is a common (fleur de lis?) style while the majority of the coin uses a times-new-roman style.
The fleur de lis is commonly used by the Rosicrucians, which is why it makes me think that's what it may be.
Yet, the 3 nails (spikes) are Jesuit. Somehow, I really don't think it is related to the Masons.
I'm not sure where the German language comes into play in this piece.
Interesting....
Upvote
0
Vas:
Somewhere near the beginning of this thread, I also mentioned that the letter "O" after Mission may represent either the engraver's initial or the mint mark (city). I don't see where that 'symbol' has yet been determined.
Somewhere near the beginning of this thread, I also mentioned that the letter "O" after Mission may represent either the engraver's initial or the mint mark (city). I don't see where that 'symbol' has yet been determined.
Upvote
0
- #120
Thread Owner
Mackaydon said:
It looked like just a dot to me, (kind of like the end of a sentence?)
Another interesting thing to look at for sure, and you might be right about it being the engraver's initials.
Since the "coin" has no monetary distribution value, I'm thinking it may not be a mint mark. Would the mint make commemorative coins?
Upvote
0
Top Member Reactions
-
2398 -
1775 -
1376 -
1237 -
1142 -
1081 -
1005 -
800 -
779 -
631 -
569 -
553 -
534 -
534 -
482
