Cast 8 Reales ?

MathieuMa I only just saw your comment about the Potosi scandal which seems to infer that my statement as follows was not correct.




I still believe the statement is 100% correct - provided you understand what I am saying in historic and scientific context.

In the case of milled coinage made AFTER the establishment of the US mint's testing program for foreign silver coins (before 1803 but when I can not recall) there are NO debased coins equivalent to the Potosi cob scandal recorded.

I think that too many people and especially dealers use the well known early cases of the debasement of cobs coins to "justify" incorrectly the acceptance of counterfeit coins as actually being genuine just short on silver by 10-15%. That is an unsubstantiated assumption.

To justify these conclusions there are two facts you need to understand.

(1) The actual mint records about destructive assay tests run on newly issued foreign silver coins indicate THERE ARE NO CASES of actual debasement of Spanish Colonial coins reported where the coins were more than 3-4 % under assay. There is a 7 % debased Republican issue but Royalist colonial issues (milled varieties and the Royalist emergency cast issues) debased to that level greater than 3-4% do not exist. The US mint did notice the "secret" debasement of Charles IV dollars from 903 to 896 fine (0.7%)- so I am not being presumptive in saying that I see no possibility that any of the colonial Spanish mints could have issued a substantial number of sub-standard silver coins without the deviation being detected and reported by the mint. A few random copies perhaps but significant numbers no.

(2) Specific gravity testing has physical limits based on scale accuracy which does not allow for testing of alloys to the third decimal place of fineness except under laboratory conditions. SG is however very adequate to determine to two decimal places the actual alloy. The debased coins I was referring to were those that ARE detected by typical SG tests like we have discussed many times. In those cases the deviation (5%) exceeds the maximum deviation actually reported for genuine mint issues.

So any coin that fails a standard SG test has a minimum deviation of 50 or more points of fineness which exceeds the 30-40 point error discovered in a few cases.

That is why in the cases where SG can not provide an adequate answer - that a test like XRF is necessary.

MathieuMa You say




Okay - I could accept an alternate position (scientific theory) as long as there is proof that "debased" coins actually exist within the Portrait series. We were specifically discussing a Chihuahua cast royalist issue. That particular issue was tested by the US mint and a recommendation to BUY was issued because the royalist cast copies were typically HIGH in silver NEVER LOW. The US at least saw them as a "good deal".

The statement was not meant as being completely applicable to all series.

To accept a theory that debased coins circulated in commerce I would ask for specific examples and historical indications that royalist portrait 8 reales were discovered to be "debased". Otherwise in the specific context my statement was precisely correct.

Insurgent issues are another case all together. They were made as token issues (a form of fiat issue based on the insurgents winning the war). I would point to the Morelos SUD issues as a perfect example. The silver cast 2Rs are mostly of disputed origin. I suspect low assay counterfeits of Royalist issues that exist were made by insurgents but these never entered the world monetary system via official routes. Mint purchases from the royalist government (bullion sales) were never debased.

So since I have not seen any and I know of exactly zero historical records of this situation existing - I maintain that portrait 8Rs when found to be debased are simply NOT original.

I know that many people believe they exist based on coins they believe to be real - but in every case I have examined personally and have tested - the results indicated a simple counterfeit.

I do agree that the statement I made could be viewed as applying to all coins of all types and all dates. That was not my intent but I see the point raised and have some thoughts.

Is a debased coin always "counterfeit"? A debased coin is always "fraudulent" since it does not meet legal standards. So the question becomes is a "fraudulent" coin always seen as "counterfeit". I think so at least in terms of acceptability.

We should also establish what I am referring to as "debased". I am referring to a coin that would have been viewed as fraudulent at the US mint or in any world monetary exchange and which would have caused the coin to be rejected at "face value" or the silver equivalent of face value. It would have been an unacceptable coin in commerce.

Debased does NOT refer to the minute adjustment of silver content introduced by Charles IV to lower silver assay to 896 from 903 fine. That alteration is NOTHING that would have caused the coin to be rejected because the difference could ONLY be detected using fire assay in the 1790s.

I view the key element is one related to the market acceptance of a coin in commerce.

Error while loadind PDF file. Not readable anything here

http://www.futurs-bretons.com/coins...Rochunas.pdf

A good part of this book unlike most numismatic books which are just compiling already known historical datum between two covers or just updatimg mintage figures and attribution schemes to current population counts ... subjects like Class 2 High Silver China Market CCs and how much gold does a Mex WOI have to have to make it legitimate for the period may take some time or more evidence or analysis of specimens. But I am convinced having analyzed dozens of Class 2's and in the beginning asking myself why would someone debased a 90% Ag reale only by 5-10%? Its UNIQUE to this CC Family. On the second inquiry we do need to see some trace gold for it to be period silver as already researched/mentioned by Craddock of the BM... so far from my studies it can be something like 0.09 - 2.5%. But again like the GNL book SUGGESTS there are tools to use for each GNL Class or exception species like the Mex WOI issues where common sense, specimen experience and attribution tools all play a part in trying to determine is it regal and of this period ... the debased Ag issues in the MNA June 2013 Journal of Chihuahua casts they could be CC or regal - they are certainly not 20thC modern - we just need more data and specimens to ZERO IN (hopefully) on the correct assumption.
As with all CC series ... lack of historical data in most cases always leaves a gray area ... the other thing I am finding BTW is in the REX/MEX issues in calling something brass, bronze or copper. Obviously in this type of climate I am seeing a FEW erroneous assumptions on some numismatists calling pieces copper which I confirmed as TONED BRASS. When dealing with these (3) alloys I would be very WARY in paying any serious money for a copper, bronze or brass PATTERN ... you see my point ... <VVBG>.

JPL

That's an excellent conclusion :D
I long to read more about the later type, and will gladly participate :)
I'll post a couple of coins I've acquired from the period, at least one may be of interest to you (light cross on both sides - SG test is a good start for it but I still have to find a decent scale)