1789 8 Reales

Sorry, I miss to tell the direction of the dentils shown in the red circle is wrong, not concentric.

austrokiwi In response to my statement:




You asked me:




So I did just that because what I believed I read was that questions of forgery were not uppermost in the minds of European collectors apparently because they do the job of authentication themselves and because the market is more "mature".

That self reliance is commendable, provided the individuals involved are aware of all the types of forgeries that exist and the newest clues to forgery detection that are being developed by serious US and world collectors are employed.

This was the portion of your statement that I was referring to:




I am stating that authenticity must come first in this market because of CHINA. Appearance alone is no longer a "guarantee" because forgeries have become better AND because certain types of forgeries made some time ago have been forgotten.

My response was meant to indicate that you now need to make that question FIRST and not place it somewhere down the line on the European radar.

So I was indicating that a review of the European approach (which I take it relies on subjective factors based on personal expertise) needs to be revised to also include the approach that couples simple scientific tests like Specific Gravity and complex tests like XRF along with familiarity based on personal experience.

My primary concern and belief is that Science can never be trumped by "expertise" whether that expertise is based on a college degree or 50 years of personal experience. I believe all avenues need to be explored before we can make a claim that any coin is MOST LIKELY GENUINE.

******************************************************

Henry Your last post is composite and contains several different issues, so I will quote your post and then look at the pieces of what you say.




Your first comment is essentially correct. The second coin dated 1805 is the coin given to me in 1960 which the forger himself said was made in the 1920s for use as money in China. This was not a coin made to fool numismatists - it was made to circulate alongside genuine examples. It is a Class 2 Silver Restrike.

The second comment is completely incorrect. The FIRST coin is the one that has the very low Specific Gravity proving it is a Contemporary Counterfeit. I am sorry but I purposely reversed the SGs so that only appearance would be in play.

The second coin has the correct SG and the XRF test done lacks gold and silver at the appropriate level. It was made with silver that had to be refined after 1878 because the silver is simply TOO PURE to have been made in 1789.

Your third comment that the luster is incorrect may be true because I purposely cleaned the surface of the 1805 coin before XRF testing to remove all surface environmental contaminants. I did this only because I knew the coin was a Class 2 forgery and I figured it was of low value and cleaning (NOT ACID ETCHING) could be done without effecting the value or tests. I cleaned it as is suggested by forensic scientists who test Museum artifacts. Nothing in the cleaning removed any metal.

The final section of your question raises other questions. You say:




First of all, once again the 91% range was very approximate and not actual results. I was indicating that both coins had silver surface levels that matched most genuine coins that have been tested.

I am very familiar with the work of L. Beck that you report. I have a copy of one published version on my desktop. But as you must know if you have read it - the report was intended for testing of silver/copper artifacts recovered in an Archeological context - ancient Roman coins were used. These are normally dug artifacts not coins that have passed hand to hand for only 200-250 years. If you read more on the topic, you will find that the complete reasons for the effect of surface enrichment is due to several factors which MUST be taken into account when evaluating the XRF tests. A coin of 200-250 years age is NOT as effected by the "Beck" effect as you are implying. Our tests of numerous period counterfeits bear on this subject and show that the effect is there BUT is LESS PRONOUNCED than is seen on ANCIENT coins. The 91% range which I stated for both coins is stated on the low side.

Here are the results for the 1791 for just the larger components. Surface in field - 91.8% silver, 6.4% copper, 1.1% gold and 0.19% lead. That leaves about 1/2% MISSING. Two things are notable. NO platinum meaning Mexican silver is unlikely and there are other components that were not disclosed in the test. Each component also has a range so that I have never seen a test result of exactly 100.00%. They can in some cases add up to more than 100% and should always be treated relatively to one another.

The conclusion you reach that the Beck effect makes XRF unreliable is anything but correct. That statement is totally wrong. The Beck effect is viewed and allowed for in our tests and it fully replicates in relation to GENUINE coins tested. The effect can therefore be adjusted out of the results within reason. It is the differentials in anticipated results that prove the forgery.

The 1791 coin, the Contemporary Counterfeit, was sold at several high end auctions and was always authenticated as real by experts. I have fooled self appointed "experts" at ANA shows with that specific coin. People most familiar with the details of the correct design of the Portrait 8R will immediately recognize it as a forgery without any tests as I did. I bought it in competition with people who believed it was real and paid a significant sum (full retail) precisely because I could recognize what the "experts" had missed. It is a counterfeit that is much rarer than any genuine 1791 8R actually is.

This coin (the 1791) actually has a very small break in the Sheffield plate only visible in person or a high resolution photo but the metal alloy UNDERNEATH the surface is VERY high in Copper - based on the color visible in a microscope.
The under-plate alloy was not tested using XRF because the break had not yet been discovered.

This 1791 coin has an oddity not seen on very many period forgeries. The silver ribbon applied to the edge (to cover the copper core) is VISIBLE clearly on both sides of the coin. The application method for the ribbon is both crude and early. It is also very consistent with the Birmingham style of forgeries. It was made using a full punch set created by individual engraving. These are NOT post 1830 punches. They are not made employing duplication techniques like galvanism.

My final conclusion is that this coin may actually be one of the actual counterfeits struck in England with the assistance of the English government for the war effort against Spain in 1796. It fits the model of what such a forgery should look like.

So my exercise was really intended to demonstrate that appearance can be deceiving especially for individuals who are only generally familiar with the appearance of old coins that are a very specific type.

Dosmundos

You certainly have grasped the topic. You have also reached the nearly the same conclusions that I draw after 600 pages and about 50 years of study.

There are actually 5 categories of Portrait 8R coins in my view.

The Class 1 are the typical off metal counterfeits made to circulate as money that we consider rare and highly collectible. My 1791 is an example of that class. These NEVER exceed 70% silver by SG test. Dates vary but they circulated. They are real counterfeits by everyone's definition.

The Class 2 are the "silver" counterfeits - the restrikes made without official approval and which range from 80-93% silver by Specific Gravity testing. These are the type everyone today seems to have forgotten and which were made between 1830 and 1930 for trade purposes which I am trying to get recognized. My 1805 coin falls in this class.

The Class 3 coins are the Numismatic Forgeries. These were made for Numismatic Fraud at any time (usually recently) but some are known to be nearly 100 years old. Most are worthless junk but some are very interesting if only of low value. They include purpose made cast and struck varieties of all metal types and range from No silver at all to 999 fine silver by SG test.

Class 4 are altered coins, copies, replicas and coin-like objects of all types. This is the most interesting category and could be sub-divided almost without end. There are Lima originals revised to read Mo so they could be sold to China at a premium (a sub-variety of Class 2 almost). There are also Replicas with the word COPY removed or Tourist replicas sold to suckers at flea markets worldwide. There are VERY rare dates made from originals that fool high end auction houses - even in Europe. There are colorful anodized aluminum copies made for Mardi gras and alterations done for unknown political or satirical purposes which date to the 1820s and as Hobo coins dating to who knows when. There are bowl bottoms cast from "counterfeit" hosts. Also included are buttons made from genuine coins and buttons made to look like coins. There are two headed buttons and two tailed buttons. There are advertising coins and Unusual coins that look like 8Rs but with weird legends. There are even religious amulets that the owners thought protected them from bullets by magic. This is the eclectic part of collecting portrait 8R coins. It is a subject I have been fascinated with for decades.

Class 5 are the genuine coins - which I do not include in the book and for which I hold little interest or enthusiasm.

The Ringo sale with prices approaching $500 each certainly showed those willing to listen (like ebay) that there is a genuine market for some counterfeits. The key is knowing how to recognize the good and chuck the bad. I also hope that this first introduction to the GNL numbering system will prove useful.

You were also right to place the "value" issues near the end. When I first heard about the silver restrikes I was fascinated. My appreciation of the class as very distinctive and historically important took over 30 years to develop. These restrikes exist and in very large numbers measured in the millions.

I wonder if I was the first to realize that there are more Charles IIII 8Rs in existence today than all of the First Republican Cap and Ray Mexican types even though they had comparable original mintages? Has that never struck anyone other than me as odd?

I am trying to answer that question - still after 53 years of asking WHY?

Realize Dos Mundos whether its a $10,000 XRF machine or a $250,000 XRF machine the results should STILL be adequate and trustworthy. Its CHOOSING the proper assay metals for analysis - such as - minimally: Ag, Cu, Fe, Sn (tin) Pb, Au and Pt. This is a new learning frontier beyond appearance, S.G. and the good old ring test. Test yourself - at this year's NY International Show auctions - just by appearance see which Portrait slabbed 8R's in high circulated conditions (VF-AU) are probable Sheffields. There are always a couple being sold ...

John Lorenzo
United States

The following is a mental exercise meant to focus on some odd statistics that exist with relation to the numbers of Mexican dollars (8Rs) in the market today.

I think many of you are aware that I scan every auction on ebay that contains the word Mexico and Reales every day. I also search a few other parameters as well. Those who wonder if I ever get out are also correct - I don't.

The 24 hour period ending at Midnight on 11/22 ((9PM ebay - California time) set a new record. My base search returned a total of 5,673 active auctions using those words (normal is lower). In the 24 hours 1,660 new items were posted matching my criteria a large 1 day total.

But the interesting fact to me was that the percentage of counterfeit 8Rs posted in one day was the highest in the entire period I have maintained statistics.

That sounds really bad - but here are the actual numbers.
These are daily posts only.

Total new items 1660
Total Portrait 8Rs 48 A slightly above average number
Class 1 coins 6 Highest individual day this year
Class 2 coins 9 Highest individual day this year
Class 3 coins 2 About average

That is 35.42 % of the total of all Portrait 8Rs posted were clearly not genuine using my criteria. That is the highest percentage I have seen this year.

To compare that with the average for this year:

Total new items per day 973
Total Portrait 8Rs/day 36.841 (no shipwreck coins)
Class 1 coins/day 0.544
Class 2 coins/day 1.545
Class 3 coins/day 1.586

This average matches well on a percentage with past years. The shipwreck coins (mostly el Cazador) average 13.5 coins per day. They are not included in the figures above.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a stark contrast when these numbers are compared with the Cap and Ray coins produced from 1823-1857 (the era when the US imported silver from Mexico for use in coinage). Anyone who knows 8Rs realizes that simply huge numbers of 8Rs were made in this era which is why prices for typical circulated examples remain very low.

But here is what occurs on ebay.

Total Cap and Ray 8Rs/day 1823 to 1857
Raw coins/day 5.343
Graded coins/day 0.828
All Cap and Ray 8Rs 6.171
Class 1 coins/day 0.069
Class 2 coins/day By present definition ZERO
Class 3 coins/day 0.455

To complete the data of interest the post 1857 coins:

Total Cap and Ray 8Rs/day 1858 to 1897
Raw coins/day 28.521
Graded coins/day 2.655
All Cap and Ray 8Rs 31.176
Class 1 coins/day 0.069
Class 2 coins/day By present definition ZERO
Class 3 coins/day 0.352

To me these statistics make a strong statement and raise critical questions for collectors of Portrait 8Rs. There are 6 times as many Portrait 8Rs as there are early Cap and Ray types. The Portrait coins average 3 1/2 per day counterfeits versus 1 for the Cap and Rays.

Given that Mexican mint production is fairly well known and stable on an annual basis at least to the 1840s - WHY HAVE so many Portrait 8Rs survived compared especially to the earliest Republican issues when mintages were HIGHEST?

The presumption here is that ebay is a non-biased and representative sampling of the 8R coins that are in existence. I do not want to get bogged down in the statistical approach used here - just the facts on a macro level.

Filters to keep in mind.

Confirmed Class 2 coins to date are predominantly from the Mexico City mint and are dated between 1785 and 1810 using the Charles III, Charles IV and the Fantasy portrait of Ferdinand only. They were therefore representative of a 25 years period. All but three of the 81 confirmed examples are actually dated 1789 to 1810.

The data posted side by side makes the case:

Total coins per day

Portrait 8Rs 36.84 : Early C&R 6.17 : Late C&R 31.17
Issue period 48 years 34 years 39 years

The cap and ray types show a clear tendency for later dates to survive at a higher rate.

Why do Portraits appear as often as all the C&R types combined? Why are they so much more common than early Cap and Ray coins?

Theories? I can think of a few;

1. The Portraits were all hoarded by the Chinese.
2. There were far more Portrait coins made then C&R coins.
3. Both types were still used as currency until 1935.
4. There was an influx of added portraits not reflected in the official numbers.


Comments?

Swamperbob:

this fact may or may not be true because the identification of a counterfeit from the scans on ebay needs some sorts of expertises especially for those class 2 CC. I don't think this is an easy job. Some coins you need to do an XRF analysis in confirming it is an class 2 or not, so the ratio of portrait coin to C&R (3 1/2 to 1)might alter tremendously. That is, ACCURACY TO MAKE OUT A COUNTERFIET DETERMINES THE ACCURACY OF THE RATIO.

theory 4 is more likely. If the statistical data obtained above is accurate, I agree the presence of unofficial strikes is a strong reason to explain the fact.

Henry I am not sure of what your comments mean.

Identification of counterfeits using only pictures is obviously possible. I am trying to show others how it is done.

I list only Class 2 coins I am sure of because I have tested the variety. So yes, it is obvious that the ratio is going TO INCREASE not decrease as new varieties like the Keyhole/porthole type come to light.

I have never believed it was going to be possible to identify every single Class 2 coin. But we can not stop hunting for them and a very cautious buyer can avoid coins with fewer and fewer visible clues as they choose.