Cast 8 Reales ?

Cast coins are always difficult to evaluate because the techniques for making the molds did not change much over a long period of time.

I was reading last night about a mold making technique developed in the late 1830s that persisted until the 1940s and throughout that interval it was state of the art. It was used to make high resolution copies for museums and did a great job - even picking up details of erosion lines and cracks. It was capable of producing a better looking mold than I see here - but just because an older casting material with large grains appears to have been used - there is no guarantee the casting is actually older than 1830.

As a rule of thumb you can date the beginning of a new process relatively accurately but once a technique is known it can be used anytime right up to the present.

One test that might be informative would be the determination of the precise alloy. These tests can exclude modern copies but can not absolutely guarantee that the coin is original.

As far as Swamperbob's comment is concerned:




The Morelos counterstamp was applied to sub-standard coins to qualify them as acceptable. Sub-standard at that time were the cast copies of regal coins and the local emergency issues, such as the Zacatecas coins.

The Morelos counterstamp is ususally not found on good regal coins, since no counterstamping was needed for them.

There are, however, other War for Independence counterstamps on regal coins, such as the Osorno and Liceaga stamps, and the host coins are indeed rarely well worn. One example to the contrary are the issues from Veracruz "L.C.V." with the "7", "7 1/2" and "7 3/4" stamps to indicate lower value due to silver loss by wear (here you can usually spot a fake by the fact that the counterfeiter failed to do his homework and applied the counterstamp to a coin that does NOT show the wear needed for the coin being devalued!)

We know that in the case of the copper 8 reales, the Morelos counterstamp was even applied to "legalize" contemporary counterfeits. This could, of course, have been done on silver 8 reales as well. However, from simple economic consideration I would deduct that for the contemporary forger, it would have been much more lucrative to produce fake copper Morelos coins than the silver issues. This is why I guess that the fake silver issues were made at a later date to defraud collectors.

Also, and in this regard I stand firmly on Swamperbob's side, there are fake counterstamps on good coins, an act committed by inventive people who want to pass on inexpensive coins as rare ones.

Tokenmast Great questions with NO simple answers.

1. Are there clues to authentic counter stamps to look for? There are - pictures of documented real examples are a good start. While there were many stamps employed like Morelos, any NEW stamp not previously documented or a different shape stamp are suspect. There are also specific catalogs or reference books that list large numbers of stamps but these are ALL RARE.

2. Are they all one complete stamp, or made up of segments? For the majority of stamps a single punch was used. I always view stamps made from multiple punches suspect until I find documention to the contrary.

3. Sounds very difficult to determine. Maybe die match to known fake? Difficult but not inmsurmountable if you do your homework first. A die match to a fake is an obvious give away BUT who exactly is documenting all the new fakes as they are released?

I have found that it is often useful to examine the BIG PICTURE before the specifics of one stamp are scrutenized. For example, above I pointed out that wear should be consistant. That applies to BOTH sides. A well worn coin with an MS strike is RARE and suspicious. The way tio tell wear level on a deeply set punch is by the reverse side. The sharp border line produced by the concusive force of the counterstrike leaves an upwhelled edge that being higher than the reverse wears off quickly and first. In some cases, as noted above the wrong host coin is stamped. The number of YII Philippines overstrikes seen on coins dated after 1840 is shocking. The host was not made before the stamp went out of use. The same applies to all overstamps - were the host coins available for stamping?

Logic is often missing when collectors spot a bargain of a rare item they have been searching for a long time. Keep your "wishes" in check so that your wallet does not suffer.

Also know what surface was used opposite the stamp. Was the surface you see transferred to the coin actually used. A coin placed on a resilient surface like some woods will bend slightly. A steel surface will not bend but dings will transfer. In one case on ebay, I was able to match the dents in the reverse of 2 counterstamped coins to the same flat metal surface. The two coins were supposedly stamped decades apart in countries located 100's of miles from one another. But that seller is then labelled and avoidable.

Look at Chinese counterfeiters inventories to see what they are producing. Many will send you pictures of the coins they are selling. Keep track of their stamps for when you see the same one on ebay being sold by a US seller but which has been artificially worn and tarnished to hide obvious clues.

Of the (6) Chihuahua pieces analyzed so far and since this core group here has sent me coins of Chihuahua we might as well discuss the findings HERE then I can take these comments for my first Mexican Numismatic Society article (<BG> ... feel like a nervous rookie ... well not so nervous). Preliminary XRF data has shown two things: 1- Chihuahua pieces with proper countermarks with regal edges are good silver (Ag~90%). 2- Two pieces: One I purchased from the Mexican Coin Company (my first Chihuahua) at the NYITL was debased silver (Can you believe it - but loving it) and the France specimen was silver plated like the Sheffield CC8R types. Both these pieces "did not" have a regal edge (squares/circle edge).
Bob - I am not so sure we should immediately cry "FOUL" here - the countermarks came in late but it DOES SEEM these may be counterfeits of the period or later. Why Sheffield these pieces? I can see debasement of Ag - Gord Nichols is sending me another non regal edge piece that I just purchased. Germany coins are in route - three pieces - some countermarks - this should be a great paper. I will extract some comments from this thread for this MNA paper. Just FYI - more coins/analyses ... VERY SOON. Bob - check your inventory. Yes - France - your Sheffield is in route back to France. The jury is still out in my opinion as its probably a contemporary counterfeit of the period. Care to mention the company your purchased this very nice high grade piece from? SEND ME MORE READERS!

John Lorenzo
United States

Hi John - the XRF results are interesting but not unexpected at least to me. I think I originally was of the opinion that the first coin of yours I saw was a forgery of some sort. That was the one from the Mexican Coin Company as I recall. Did I tell you that one of my Class 2 coins that you tested and was slightly debased also came from them? They are not 100% up to speed on the Class 2 issues. I think I was talking to Corey and he is interested in the book.

But to address the issue of manufacture and date - debased coins between 70% and 90% silver are usually not dated prior to 1830 - they are Class 2 but debased silver strikes in the 30%-70% range are definitely to be suspected as Class 1 Contemporary Counterfeits.

One of the keys for detection is edge examination and the other is SG. If I had XRF like you do that would be far better. The coins are at minimum "Low Standard" fraudulent originals described by Riddell but not yet proven to actually exist. I still believe they will all prove to be contemporary forgeries made to make a 20% and up profit on silver content.

Sheffield plate French coins are likely part of the Birmingham emission made during the French War at the same time and place as the Spanish types. In Bordeaux's write up it mentions thay were also making French ECU's.

I have been collecting counterfeit Ecu's for that reason for about 3 years. They are scarcer than the portrait 8 reales but made rather the same way. I think the "more common" varieties especially the Sheffields will trace to Birmingham.

Regarding the platinum gold ration - that points to use of locally circulating silver that came from a Mexican mine before the introduction of the cyanide refining process in 1970. A modern forger could melt originals BUT doesn't it make a lot more sense for a forger in 1815 to 1820 to just start with coins from circulation and add 30 or 40% more copper? The raw material was available at face value.

When the ratio of Gold to platinum reverses (2x more platinum) you are possibly dealing with melted Bolivian coins. The use of a Potosi coin to manufacture a Chihuahua cast would make me suspicious of a Numismatic forgery.

Finally the rare earth super conductors I presume are missing entirely right and there is ZERO cadmium?

Sounds great. I would love to comment on the article.

BTW the book is done as far as the 444 different phrases that I wanted to make consistent. I think I got most.

Also finished the entire text body which shrank a few pages.

All that remains is applying standard rules to the Footnotes (end notes) and to the Bibliography.

I planned to send a copy to you and Phil by the end of the week so he could start the final edit. The notes and bibliography will follow shortly,

Wow, I'm impressed to see that my coin is a sheffield !
It comes from Cayon (Spain) - from a big duros collection - which came from America (Highly Important Collection of Spanish and Latin American 8 Reales and other Coins from the Spanish Empire - in Spain under a temporary import regulation).
Here is the auction link with the loooong description for that particular coin
-> http://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?a...0&lot=262067

The counterstamp on it is perfect - could this mean the coin was counterstamped after having been made ?
I don't really see the interest of making a sheffield of a such coin, which was not widely accepted nor widely circulating (unless to make a numismatic forgery)

Wow, I'm impressed to see that my coin is a sheffield !
It comes from Cayon (Spain) - from a big duros collection - which came from America (Highly Important Collection of Spanish and Latin American 8 Reales and other Coins from the Spanish Empire - in Spain under a temporary import regulation).
Here is the auction link with the loooong description for that particular coin
-> http://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?a...0&lot=262067

The counterstamp on it is perfect - could this mean the coin was counterstamped after having been made ?
I don't really see the interest of making a sheffield of a such coin, which was not widely accepted nor widely circulating (unless to make a numismatic forgery)

Response: On the reverse in the HISP area the XRF results read ~ 50% Cu & 50% Ag. So your piece is silver plate over a debased copper alloy and not a brass alloy - but a high percentage copper alloy. Sheffields can be over copper, brass and rarely a bronze type alloy. The next question is why? ... on a cast run of the mill piece? I rechecked the Au/Pt levels ... on my debased alloy piece they were very low (0.1%) but on yours they were typical (0.4%). The silver plate read good Pt/Au levels like the regal 8Rs. Your piece was plated with silver of the period or from silver of melted down 8R's. Why would you melt 8R's to produce this coin ... makes no sense. To be continued!

John Lorenzo
United States