Really Old Coin From 1721, Worth Anything?

I've added a new post at the same fourum(World coins and commemoratives) just for my collection if you wish to view it. Thank you

I don't think it is ridiculous to question the OP's coins based on the photos given and the obscure comments. Take for example of this comparison of the OP's own photos. One is similar to the original old coin, but the photo of what may be the same coin in his box looks more genuine. It's not hard to think one is a copy of the other. It's too bad this forum limits photo sizes to 300kb, otherwise I'd like to do better. SO take a good look at the coin he posted and the coin in his box.

Albert, the toning spots in/adjacent to "D. G." match up TOO EXACTLY to be simple similarity from, say, receiving the same type of artificial tone. That patch down near the date, also...

BTW, I think that one thingy by the AE ligature is a carbon/corrosion spot rather than a pit.

The one thing that can throw you is looking at the hairlines, which don't seem to match up at... but I'm willing to chalk that up to lighting. Different angling can make a coin's surface varyingly look either pristine or like it was scrubbed with sandpaper.

This is where the lesson is too always post clear photos - not doing so can often lead to irrelevant sidetracking.

Anyway, the cleaning on this piece makes judgment by surfaces more difficult here... but let's be fair, almost everything in his pics from the other thread is perfectly legitimate material.

I don't see anything particular damming here - especially from the new pics.

Again, you simply won't get toning spots that match as exactly as those two photos, blurry as they are, confirm at multiple points if you were dealing with two different pieces.

The area you highlighted with the rotation shows more of this - the spots above "S" and "I" in SVECIAE, which are tone spots rather than pits or pimples.

Whatever its nature may in fact be, those photos show one and the same piece, no question.

Also, note that blowing up a photo with not super high resolution to begin with - AND overdoing contrast or similar tweaks - is not really useful. The image gets to the point where it becomes too distorted to be reliable.

(edit ...)

Same toning spots - SAME COIN!!!

Here is what caused me to think one coin could be a copy of the other.
Perhaps lighting, angle and shadow may have fooled me.
I hope it is understandable.
If I was wrong about suspicions regarding the OP's initial photos and the manner in which he edit's his post titles suggesting ignorance about what he has, I hope I may be forgiven and apologize.
Since it appears I could be guilty of making improper claims, I feel foolish and perhaps I have no place here and can leave this forum to more sensible heads.

He definitely HAS done that... there is game-playing with him, for whatever reason.

But that doesn't necessarily HAVE TO extend to all aspects of everything... He's shown a large grouping of pieces, most of which appear genuine, some of which he's posted individually - so clearly he DOES have coins, at least that much is true. So we can't automatically apply his partial sketchiness as automatic circumstantial "proof" that these are "twin" fakes. Evaluate things at face value.

You can't get past the fact that we see that vertical spit coming down out of the top of the "F" in "FRIDERICVS", apparently clearly, on the one pic in the first post but not in the pic from the second post. Said vertical spit is NOT a feature on a genuine 1721 riksdaler and a die break or similar on a genuine piece would not present like what we "see" in that first pic.

I can't answer exactly WHY we're seeing that... but I see enough matching TONING SPOTS (again, NOT pores or extra metal or the like) between photos to be certain that those pics can't NOT be the same piece.

That first post pic is an odd-looking photo, from too-much lighting and probably also a strange photo-edit filter... Thus, I'm assuming that the lighting caught a scratch just so and because of the positioning, it ends up doing a good job imitating extra metal on the "F".

Question, btw - if you think what we see in Post 1, Obv Pic 1 and the pic have from Post 2 are different physical pieces..... which are we seeing in Post 1, Pic Obv 2? It would be most logical (unless we want to get really paranoid) to assume it is the same piece as the 1st pic from THAT post.

Noting that, there are toning spots that ABSOLUTELY no doubt match up between that center crop from Post 1 and the pic in Post 2. Look, e.g., at the spot on the edge of the hair, below "S" in the king's name - that is clearly toning, and clearly there in both of those images (noting, of course, slightly different rotation of the coin in the various images). Of course, if you look carefully on Post 1, Pic 1, it's there also... just a lot more washed out.

In the same area, note that we also see the another toning spot resting inside of the bottom curve of "S" in ALL THREE views.

Below that, the date area clearly shows that same remnant tone/stain arc through "BIL". The other pic jives with this also (showing the deeper residue below that blackish arc).