| Author |
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,708 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
France
1591 Posts |
Looks like some here will post their new Heritage acquisitions soon :) I've scored some early catholic king reales which I was missing (I had the later ones only), and a Ferdinand VII 8 reales LVO (the cheap one, not the >1500 use one) I wish I had pushed harder on last week part, for the star of Lima (which went for a decent price compared to the next Crusafont sale in spain for example, which got a starting price way higher than the closing price on heritage ...) Plus two other Ferdinand VII coins at the last Ponterio sale :)
|
|
Valued Member
Philippines
386 Posts |
Quote: I'd say maybe it was simply someone who's loaded buying a pretty coin they liked... but who bid them up? sometimes, winning bidder is also the owner in disguise just to make a "high amount - record of the coin". Though the above specimen is a beauty, its price is high.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
France
1591 Posts |
Misattributed for sure, but still a superb coin - the Goldberg pictures are superb :)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
By the way ... this does appear to be a mint error and not a contemporary counterfeit of any sort ... I did XRF analysis on the 2 Reales FM inverts and all are regal silver. The execution of these is so high ... I agree its no surprise at all ... Never XRF analyzed an 8 R FM invert but these are interesting ...
John Lorenzo Numsimatist
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1801 Posts |
Colonialjohn, I have several examples of both the 1772MF and the 1772FM if you ever want to do a XRF on one or several.
|
|
New Member
United States
1 Posts |
I recently acquired some 1772 coins from a shipwreck and found a 1/2 reale with the initials FM and the mint mark M upside down... anyone know the value/rarity of this denomination?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
I own an 1829 EoMo graded XF-40 that was encapsulated and the title reads "1829 Mo Mexico 8R". In my case the TPG made a rarity a common. But these examples prove the old adage that you Buy the Coin NOT the Slab.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
As I'm going through and documenting any instances of certified PCGS portrait 8 Reales from Mexico, a small side hobby of mine, I find cases like these from time to time. I'm working on a number of portrait 8 Reales sets @ PCGS and the 1772-MF is part of the Charles III registry set. So, to fill that hole I could either hunt for the existing certified example (PCGS shows that it certified 2 of the 1772 Inverted MF variety), or look to get a raw example and get it slabbed. As a part of my research, I first found a record of this one: Certificate# 30019635: VF35. Sold in Heritage 2006 June Long Beach Signature Auction for $402.50 with BP. Here are the images:    It's clearly an FM and not an MF variety. Then I found the AU58 (certificate# 09105410) mentioned in this post, first surfaced in Goldberg's 2006 Pre-Long Beach Sale 37 and realized $432. It went quiet for over 5 years and appeared again this January in the Heritage January World Coin Non-Floor session. This time around it blew past any reasonable estimate and sold for $2,530 (including BP). :Q   PCGS incorrectly attributed this one, as well. It's also an FM. Now I know that in order for me to add a 1772 Mexico 8R Inverted MF I have to find my own example and grade or cross it into PCGS plastic. I've notified the owner of the AU58. It's currently residing in a PCGS mexico type set of Rosswb1. He said that he noticed the incorrect attribution after he already received the coin from Heritage, but decided to keep it anyway because it's a rather stunning example. I'm wondering if I should send this info including certification numbers and slab images to PCGS so that they're able to update their pop report by removing both of the coins and updating the certification numbers to the proper 1772 Inverted FM variety.
Edited by TwoKopeiki 06/05/2012 8:43 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
TwoKopeiki Am I reading your post correctly that PCGS has certified only TWO examples of the inverted MF variety?  Because if that is the case - and now we see two posts of PCGS errors - Doesn't that mean that PCGS has NEVER done a real one? Because if both PCGS slabs we see are wrong and they are removed from the tally you end up with ZERO.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
That's correct, Swamperbob. Both of the "Inverted MF" coins are misattributed. In reality PCGS certified 0 of the MF.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
In that case, is it out of the question to ask if anyone has ever seen one? Could the people who originally made the lists of varieties have also made the same error?
It definitely makes me wonder if any were actually produced.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
Hi Bob, I've definitely seen a few of the MF varieties - it's a known coin. For example, here's an XF example being offered for sale by Corey and Max (Mexican Coin Company):   There are also a few known MF varieties in NGC plastic, like this one sold by Heritage for $2,700 less than a month ago: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...&lotNo=25106They are definitely known varieties. Just not known to PCGS, apparently.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
After submitting my findings to PCGS, received an email today stating that they have investigated both coins and confirmed that they are misattributed. As a result, they have updated the certificate numbers to point to the correct 1772-FM coins and updated the population reports accordingly.
Edited by TwoKopeiki 06/08/2012 10:24 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1801 Posts |
Bob, as I noted earlier in this thread I have several examples of each variety if you ever want to examine them.
Edited by jfransch 06/09/2012 05:16 am
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,708 |
Page 2 of 2
|