1782 8R MO Ff ... Fake ....

This piece has a twin - see the pic. Note the same surface markers, but the long scratch on the 2nd piece definitely marks them as (2) separate pieces. These two have very similar surfaces to many pieces I've seen certain promotional packaging, particularly those of the Postal Commem. Society. I'm very much inclined to believe these pieces and the others like them are numismatic fakes fabricated by these outfits.

Thank you to everybody for the feedback.
Swamperbob, I tried to send a message to you in private, however the site did not allow me. It would be my honor to send this coin to you as a small appreciation for sharing and educating people like me. Please, let me know where I should mail it.

Boris

The 1783 sure looks real. I would probably have bought it because it appears sea salvaged.

I will admit to not really grasping what the dentils should look like on a genuine coin vs what the dentils look like on a counterfeit coin thus this question : Will dentils that may be off center line up in the same off center pattern on the obverse and reverse sides of a genuine coin? The same for a counterfeit coin?

Larryh86GT The first thing to consider is the mechanism (screw press) used to make the coins. The anvil die is the stationary die that faces upward. This die is in a chuck in the base of the press. The precise position of this die is controlled by the screws on the chuck and therefore they CAN VARY. The traveling die (hammer die) is mounted in a chuck on the end of the screw. It also can vary in position slightly. The press operators attempted to "adjust the positions of the die to produce a SQUARE and ALIGNED strike. Theoretically the dentils on the two dies should be concentric, but in practice a small variation can be seen on many coins.

Counterfeiters are less likely to properly align their dies. Some did some did not. BUT whenever I see an alignment that is terribly wrong I get suspicious and check the coin more closely.

The next thing to consider is the size of the die versus the size of the coin. Original dies were made LARGER than the coins by several mm's.



There was a very good reason for the die being oversized. The purpose of the dentils was not just to be a decoration. The dentils like the edge design was to prevent clipping of the coin. When silver was actually money (the days of hard currency) silver was shaved off coin edges for a profit. To reduce this practice the dies were made with WIDE bands of dentils so that at least some of the dentils appeared all the way around the perimeter of the struck coin. When a coin was struck so that the entire band of dentils appear - the area outside the band can be filed off. So coins made that eccentric may have been rejected during NORMAL coining intervals. The vast majority of widely eccentric strikes with full dentils were made in the WAR era when pressure to produce caused more crude strikes.



The need for wider than necessary bands of dentils was because the planchet was placed between the MOVING dies manually. There was NO COLLAR on a screw press to position the planchet for the strike. Therefore the planchet was rarely centered on the dies precisely. Close to center was normal but not with the precision seen on MODERN coin presses. On the following sketch the red line is the edge of the planchet.




So placement of the planchet determines how much of the dentils you see in any particular place on the edge of the coin.


So a typical 8 Reale may have longer dentils on one part of the perimeter than on the opposite side. This is what counterfeiters miss when they make their fake dies.

The forgers copy the coin they have in hand and make dies. The dies they make from a coin with partial dentils has PARTIAL dentils.








So if the forger does not align the planchet precisely they often show the EDGE of the original coin inside the perimeter of the counterfeit.

Hi Boris - the coin arrived safely and it is a MODERN copy newer than I thought from the photos. The dies were transferred from an original coin which lacked a complete rim detail. The missing places have a ODD looking attempt at making dentils. There are also many areas in the fields that are raised to near the tops of some letters.

It is NOT Chinese in my opinion. The edge is done in a distinctive manner. The dies used to apply the edge were created from the repetition of a punch that had one rectangle and one circle. In the process of making the die - nearly all of the O figures were flattened on one side by the edge of the punch.

Thanks again for sending it along.

For those who have followed this thread - here is an in hand analysis of the 1782 coin. Many of the early comments were correct and some bear repeating.

1. This coin was produced from a transfer image of an Original Boston forgery in my opinion. In my initial post I said:





The splits in the surface of the coin are not actual splits in the metal surface but are a series of indentations that were created when the die was copied from a host that had actual die splits. Whatever method was used to make the copy of this coin did not fill the splits to their full depth. The result resembles a series of pixels which look like a line when viewed at a distance but become distinct indentations when magnified.

In that same post I mentioned:




These too are transfers from the host coin and also point to the host being a Boston type counterfeit.

The issue of the dentils stopping short of the edge is accurate - the dentils in several spots end incorrectly.

The coin has poor unreflective surfaces indicative of either casting or a very harsh cleaning.

The comments about the edge made initially by Boris were absolutely correct.




The details are impressed far too shallow to be real. This is likely due to the addition of the edge AFTER the coin was cast. The forgers have a difficult task when they edge POST "strike". Edging done to the correct depth after a coin has been made USUALLY distorts the faces of the coin. So if they cast the coin first and then distort the dentils by applying a correct edge how do they cover the distortion up? The solution here was a weak edge.

The difficulty of getting the edge right is why I usually use edge errors as a primary diagnostic.

Boris also noted how the side of each circle on the edge was "flat" and that they were spaced too closely together. This is something that I commend him for spotting. He was EXACTLY correct - the edge die was made incorrectly. After examining the edge I believe the edge die was created by repeatedly punching a two segment punch (a circle and a rectangle) along the length of an edger die. The second punch flattens the first the third flattens the second etc etc all the way around. He was also correct that there is ONLY ONE overlap on this coin.

I also have to admit that the first pictures fooled me about the way the coin was made. I thought we were dealing with a strike but that is NOT the case. The transfer molds copied the "effect" of a strike so that in a picture it was deceptive. In person the radial flow lines like the surface cracks show exactly what they are when magnified.

I would confirm that the eroded die crack above the mint mark is a transfer from the host as well.

This coin is an example of a counterfeiter copying a counterfeit. Very interesting - I have a few others that are similar so it tends to prove how often the Boston copies pass as real. Even the counterfeiters do not know.

I couldn't say better, thanks for this detailed analysis swamperbob !