Finally Some Clear Pictures Of The 8 Reales 1770 Fm Mexico !

MF--are you going to send this in for authentication? I find these threads about your coin to be extremely interesting. I was looking at pillar dollars but decided if I ever wanted one to buy the Australian 2006 version--LOL--probably no fake problems with that.

MathieuMa
bonjour
je suis à ta disposition pour traiter de ma pièce 1770 Mo 8R autant que tu voudras , je suis enfin à l'aise en parlant librement ma 2eme langue qui est le français , je suis sure que mes idées ne paraitront pas incohérentes comme quand je me serre la cervelle pour passer mon point de vue en anglais.
lien web ? j'en ai avec des Espagnols comme je l'ai dit en mes posts précédents ; bref , je ne peux pas vous mettre en contact avec des gens que vous ne connaissez pas et qui ne vous connaissent pas sans leur demander une permission , toutefois je peux recommencer le débat avec vous depuis le départ autant que vous voulez en Français si vous avez assez de temps à y mettre loool
merci

@Gothic
thanks for contribution
I was glad to discover the 2006 Australian Pillar Dollar , really I have never seen it before ! it's very fine and heavily rich in pure silver ( up to 60 gr )
the ironic remark is that eventhough this australian very modern coin is made by up to time high technology ; and having correctly respected all authentic criteras to reproduce "genuine" like PILLAR , if we want to criticize that the pillar reproduced in it's center is full of defects , we can easily do it like : look at this letter it isn't pleazing me, look at that number it seems to fat , touch it! the surface seems too smooth than ancestral copies ; see this crown it's not well appearing there , the map in the globus isn't correctly made , has this modern dollar circulated to the point of having erased some scripts of the old pillar but not the modern dollar taking it , we must break this modern dollar to examinate the edge overlaps of the pillar looooooool
old people wasn't too perfect to the point of waiting to see their currencies manually made as perfected as our modern age of technology currencies loooool!

Moroccan Friend, While I lack the technical background of other collectors and "experts", I have in my collecting past held in hand and examined multiple hundred, if not a thousand, pillar dollars and I know what I like to see and I know what makes me very nervous when I see it. Your coin, based on this run of pictures, makes me very nervous. The details are washed out, the coin's fields do not look right, the fade in detail on the one pillar makes no sense, the flaw above the 7 in the date that extends into the waves is really odd, just to many "iffy" things for me to be comfortable. As for your comment that the coin spent years under the sea in corrosive water, there is no sea salvage effect on the coin that I can see. Possible land burial but hard to say since even the "pre-cleaning photo" does not display the common signs of a land burial. I will not make a call on genuine/fake based on a series of photos but I would shy away from this coin and choose to error on the side of my pocketbook. A friendly word of caution from one collector to another, don't be cleaning your coins with lemon juice, the acid will strip away all the coins patina and leave a dull flat look to the coin.

Hi again & thank you all people who had reserved all this valuable time to my modest coin request
thank you very much
no , I'm not here for fighting over a miserable coin which has cost to me no plus than 160 USD , but I settle for my opinion eventhough some of you are experts more than 40 years on this domain, because I have to this time been convinced by any of your arguments to judge my coin false!
1/ weight correct 27,1 gr
2/ diameter correct 39 mm
3/ Thickness correct 2,45 mm
4/ sound is very fine and kind to hear , something exactly like authentic 925% french 5 fr (1830 or else) sound , or authentic Morgan US Dollar sound !
5/ edge : tulip pattern rim , not trident one
6/ edge overlaps are making a circle aroung the coin , with 2 exactly opposit 180 degree marks.
7/ details are usual , nothing condemning clearly the coin , allthough some of you say that they look "washed out, the coin's fields do not look right" or making them nervous after long years of studying same coins family.
(( The most recognizable characteristics of the modern day fake dos mondos are the rim, the edge, the legend, and the wave.
Fake dos mondos have "trident pattern rim" compared to "tulip pattern rim" of the authentic.
Fake one have "sharper toothed edges" unlike that of the authentic.
The legend lettering of the fake ones are patterned over the portrait Mexican 8 reales particularly those minted in Zecatecas,
and finally, there is a wider gap between the globe and the waves on the fake dos mondos coins. ))
isn't this criteras that one of you has formulated here before? nothing of abnormal like described there is in mine !
8/ coin was "dusty" or If you want "covered of adhesive old black-green material ( a little green if observed in day solar light ) common to what we usually see in old coins not well preserved, I have cleaned it by citron juice beffore beginning posting here . I regret having done this before showing you the coin cause no one could say that "coin was brushed everywhere on surface" if they have seen it "dirty" in clear photos!
that's the "dirty" material which has "eat" spaces which some having thought "brushed" or "smoothed".
9/ right crown partially looking "erased" : someone says "no reason for the loss of metal at the crown" or "mold surface defect had been transfered to the coin surface" (something like that): right crown is complete to see except that a part of it is not looking in relief exactly like the remaining parts.
old manual striking methods can by occasions give some coins with some minor defects, that is logique to understand.
I GAVE YOU EXAMPLES OF SAME COINS PARTIALLY ERASED BUT ACCEPTED AS GENUINE BY MOST OF YOU :
https://goccf.com/t/191328
unfortunately some don't accept the comparison , saying that this defect is symetric on the 2 faces due to not enough pression or I wonder what!
I AM NOW GIVING YOU THIS OTHER EXAMPLE PF ONE SIMILAR COIN , UNDER-WEIGHTED + UNDER-DIMENSIONED + UNDER-THIKENED THAN MINE , STRONGLY "ERASED" EVERYWHERE , SURELY MADE BY LESS PURE SILVER METAL THAN MINE , BAD EDGED ..... ALLTHOUGH ALL THAT YOU JUDGED IT GENUIIIIIIIINE ? see
https://goccf.com/t/169530&SearchTe...dge,overlaps
see please the TOWER how is it "erased" in the first picture & then in microscopical one , no one had said "chines molded" od "not understanding the reason of the loss of substance in the tower" ,
note how coin surface is full of traces and loss-substances especially in macroscopic views, no one had said "brushed or "smoothed" ,
contrarily , Bob said "In all likelihood there is little chance that this coin is a counterfeit. I see nothing wrong."
I SWEAR BY ALLAH IF I HAVE MET SUCH A COIN , WITHOUT REGRET I HAVE NEVER BOUGHT IT , ITS BLACK LOOKING PLUS ITS TOTAL ERASED STATE WOULD BEEN SUFICIENT TO CONVINCE ME TO TURN OFF AWAY loooool
10/ finally, not fare than yesterday , SPECIFIC GRAVITY test on my coin gave 10,3 ! correeeeeect no ?
11/ to close the debate ( not the fighting please! ) I confirme that many Moroccan & Spain "well knowing" in such coins ( to avoid "experts" word which not pleazing to some ) have confirmed that's genuine , some of them proposed the double price to take it .
12/ no XRay test to expect from me ! debate for me is over thank you brothers :-) !
other detail : I bought the coin from a friend of me , who have found it by metal detectot in Tnagier areas , this Moroccan city was old Spanich dominated land for centuries, digging give pleintly of spanich remains out of the ground.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND PATIENCE , FORGIVE MY FIXE DEFENSE FOR MY NON-FAKE COIN OPINION , I HAVE GIVEN YOU MY ARGUMENTS , YOU STAY ON SAME LITTLE DETAILS WHICH AREN'T ENOUGH STRONG TO JUDGE IT WITHOUT ANY DOUBT FAKE ;
I am proud to have such a coin which are in the same time strongly genuine defended by "experts" and strongly fake confirmed by "experts" loooooool
thanks again & don't understand by mistake that I am doubting on your knowledge or fighting with you for a miserable 27 gr of metal bad coin :-) I give freely what I have to give in opposit to what you are freely showing me like remarks !

Moroccan Friend You seem to be essentially admitting that you were supplying information under two different identification names that was incomplete - presented one step at a time trying to entrap people on this forum to impeach our credentials as experts in the techniques of authentication. Personally I find that very disreputable and insulting as I have spent decades doing precisely this one thing. You should change your name to Moroccan Enemy. Do you work for the Spanish forgery ring I was attacking when I worked for ebay?

I think you must. Your Allah must be quite a forgiving guy if he approves of these tactics.

The physical dimensions specified by you 39mm x 2.45mm x 27.1 grams - yields an SG of 9.25 calculated by simple mathematics (which is a method that I never actually use because it is not completely accurate. Yet it is accurate enough to dispute you findings because of the magnitude of the error). I conclude that either the measurements are way off or 10.3 is not a correct specific gravity.

A 27.1 gram coin would have to have a volume of 2.6285 CC to yield an SG of 10.3. Back calculating this yields a thickness of 2.20 mm NOT 2.45 mm.

The differential is too large for the numbers to actually be correct. So, as a result, I would have to challenge the test results for SG. Something smells fishy. But that is not the only clue that leads me to my conclusion that you have been far less than HONEST.

You say:




The quote displays a complete lack of understanding of the coining process. The old manual striking process is NOT the direct cause of the strike weakness. It is the irregular thickness of the planchet. Weakness occurs on BOTH sides because the needed metal is lacking for complete infill of the die. The two comparison coins you provided actually display exactly that type of weakness caused by a lack of metal thickness at a given point. Weakness opposite the crown is MISSING on the coin in question but clear on the other coins. That leads me to wonder if the asymmetric features are due to the transfer of the image. You simply do not seem to understand the physics involved in a manual strike on an open sided screw press.

So your conclusion in point 9 is simply incorrect.

Then you next say:




Interesting that you not only used multiple threads but two different IDs one linked to Spain to attempt a clumsy set up in an attempt to impeach our efforts. I now am rather completely convinced that you represent some of the Spanish interests (forgers) that worked so hard to attempt to discredit the work of the committee at ebay. With ebay your concerted complaints caused them to back off because they are profit driven - but not me.

Your last quote attributed to me is taken completely out of context and to me proves that you are in fact NO FRIEND AT ALL. If anyone reads the entire thread you can see the character of the deceit being employed.

Pictures paint a partial picture taken one at a time but after a considerable amount of evidence accumulates the reasons for this extended communication become apparent. You were never looking for an honest opinion based on poor pictures - because you already had all the answers and better pictures. A web of lies and half truths.

The pictures in the second case were of a low grade - worn - common coin - the pictures were not great but were taken to hide the needed information by not providing a clear picture of the edge. A worn coin is NOT the same as a weakly struck up coin.

But the clincher is the numbers provided in the Lohengrin thread. I guess you expected me to use a mathematical approach to SG. I do not do that. A differential weight basis on an accurate scale is far better. But since you withheld not only your identity but the SG of the 1770 coin when I first asked - you methods are flawed.

I do not accept the premise nor conclusions you have reached.

The mathematical SG for the Lohengrin example is low 9.548 but not as low as the current one.

Shame on you and on your use of the name of God in your correspondence.

Our Friend also used the name Azzo Lamakla on another forum today,with regard to this same coin, and subsequently deleted his entire thread.