I of course accept your comments as completely sincere - however, as sincere as you may be - you have NOT seen the evidence I have gathered yet and you are already positive you are right and I am wrong. That in fact I should:
Quote:
be honest to yourself and to the public.
The scientific method which I have employed here and all my adult life says that you make hypotheses and then TEST them. You discard hypotheses that do not match the facts. And then you form a new hypothesis for testing and move forward.
You also say that I should:
Quote:
you need to stop the general assumption, that everybody is wrong
By preempting the facts with an opinion, even a majority opinion, - it is you and not me that is taking a decidedly non-scientific approach. Verifiable facts are verifiable facts. Opinion is only opinion. Do you have any facts?
All the opinions in the world are REFUTED by one solid proven fact.
My arguments are all based on or supported by facts.
For the last 100 years, people have been deluded by opinion. But for over 100 years prior to that time these coins were called COUNTERFEIT. That was in the era before these coins became collectable and were treated only as money. I see this as no coincidence (but that is a different topic).
These coins were called COUNTERFEITS by the founder of the British Numismatic Society in the 1830s.
They were called COUNTERFEIT by the US mint assayers in the 1830s and 1840s.
They were called COUNTERFEIT by the English mint assayers in the 1830s and 1840s.
In 1913 Spink and Sons published an Article that said they were COUNTERFEIT.
In 1905 the French Society of Numismatics recognized these coins were COUNTERFEIT.
In 1870 these COUNTERFEIT coins were prohibited by the Chinese Government from being imported into China.
In 1835 the United States House of Representatives published a report finding these coins were COUNTERFEIT.
Numerous books written between 1830 and 1900 document their existence and their large production numbers.
So, I take it that are you saying that all the experts and authors then were wrong and the experts since 1913 are right?
The past 100 years, has witnessed a substantial amount of scientific progress in authentication methodologies that have been systematically ignored by many people (mostly coin dealers) who were driven by purely PROFIT motives. It is the fear of harm to their business or reputation that causes them to at inconvenient times - oppose facts.
When science first determined the world was round - the vast majority of the learned experts rejected it as laughable. They too did not examine the facts before they made up their minds.
So time will judge who is right. Science will progress and silver restrikes will become accepted ONCE AGAIN for what they really are COUNTERFEITS of the 19th century.
I embrace both History and Science in my research. I categorically reject all of the "professional numismatists" who rely only on OPINIONS which result in their own coins selling for higher sums than they perhaps should.
In your last post on this forum you also say:
Quote:
And please do not make my fully sound countermark bad, you do not have any reason for that. This is a perfect countermark. This is not a crude forgery, that is the real thing. Your comment that if the countermark was contemporary a 200 year old patina should be there is ridiculous and shows, that you simply do not have anything else to put against it.
I agree that your counterstamp is not a typical crude fake. But that does not make it genuine. Just a good looking stamp.
I would ask you simply - if the coin was made after 1830 could your counterstamp be GENUINE?
The answer is YES it could. It could be a GENUINE original stamp - it just was not applied during the monetary emergency of 1796. Any stamp placed on a coin made after 1796 can not be a genuine historic artifact of 1796.
It is a well known fact that the original privy stamps were used as late as 1850 to mark coins for the new numismatic market. So it is possible that a silver restrike made between 1830 and 1850 but which was dated before 1796 COULD have been stamped with a genuine privy stamp. It is absolutely possible. It may have been made for a collector or for China. But that does not matter. The stamp
application would NOT be genuine in that case even if the stamp itself was genuine.
Proving when your coin was made is essential. To have a genuine stamp applied during the Emergency of 1796 the coin had to already exist in 1796. That is a fact.
As a fact, I can state that the coin was not made using the normal methods of manufacture that were employed by the Mexico City mint in 1789. The edger used to apply the edge design was not normal. I state that as a proven fact. One die edge mills were NOT used in Mexico City. Two die edge mills do not produce the edge you show. Therefore, can any countermarked coin made incorrectly be a Genuine Emergency issue?
To prove I am wrong you need to:
Prove it.
You need to prove your coin existed in 1789.
What is your scientific test proving that date?
The remark about patina is only one point of suspicion - it is certainly NOT the only point of suspicion. To reject all of the balance of the line of argument over that one issue is hardly professional. The coin may have been cleaned in the past 200 years at any time. It may have been cleaned recently, it may have been cleaned before or after the stamp was applied. There is ZERO positive evidence.
You have stated as fact that all the George III privy stamps are gone. Did you ever verify that fact?
It sounds nice to say they no longer exist but it is NOT true. The British mint museum collection includes over 30,000 die punches and
portrait master punches of all the Kings and Queens from the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) onward in "UNBROKEN succession" (to quote from the British Museum website) to the present date.
So the original "master" punches that created the privy punches still exist. How do you prove that all of the original privy stamps have also been destroyed?
How do you prove that a genuine stamp is still not in private hands being used to make new exemplars?
How do you prove that a forged stamp has not been created?
May I ask what FACTS you have put forward? In the past posts most of your facts have proven to be incorrect. I am referring to the following "facts":
1.) That filing the edge of a coin after the strike was practiced and referred to as "adjustment" by the Mexico City mint?
That is NOT a fact.
2.) That a perfect duplicate die can not be created by modern methods?
That is certainly not a fact. Ask Mark Hofmann.
3.) That the TPGs like ANACS, NGC and PCGS do not encapsulate COUNTERFEITS? {I am including them because you rely on them to prove your case.}
They absolutely do encapsulate fakes by error. I own several examples as do most of my counterfeit collector friends.
4.) That the George III privy stamp does not exist today? Not true at all.
5.) That the same experts you now rely on were all proven to be WRONG about the micro-O dollar for decades?
You may not like that example because it does not fit your preconceived ideas about the TPGs but it happened. You can not deny that fact.
It may not be a convenient fact for your way of thinking but it did happen.
It is, in point of simple fact, a perfect example of MOST people being wrong while a few real experts knew it or suspected it all along. The reason for this ---
Majority opinion is not always right. I am absolutely convinced after 50 years of studying and researching the topic of counterfeit 8 Reales that I am right and I have in my book the facts that support my contention. It is my life's work.
Every single fact that you have put forward - I have systematically and scientifically refuted. You are now expressing opinions NOT facts. No facts that I have expressed have been disproven by any your statements.
So all we can really agree on is that we hold different opinions. One of us is right and one wrong. My position is based on facts and yours are based on .......?
The facts will decide this question ultimately.
The fact that I CHOOSE not to, at this point, condemn all silver retrikes as Counterfeits on
ebay is my way of avoiding a red herring line of argument.
I am not doing so because I believe these coins are GENUINE, I believe contemporary circulating counterfeits should all be allowed on
ebay without the present restrictions. The coins I believe should be stopped are the Numismatic Forgeries coming from China and coins that are sold using fraudulent descriptions.
I take my position with
ebay because the Silver Restrikes (counterfeits if you prefer) are:
1.) Legal to own and collect. The
ebay regulation is wrong.
2.) Legal to sell anywhere if properly described so that potential fraud is not involved.
3.) Not genuine coins made in the year shown on the coin. They were monetary items - they were used as currency. They are Contemporary Circulating Counterfeits made of Silver.
So lets agree to let the facts speak for themselves. I am always ready to listen to facts and if necessary to modify my theories to accord with new information.
I will revise any part of the book found to be in error (factual) at any point up to publication.
For anyone interested here is a picture of a broken Charles II master portrait punch. The broken section could be added to each die easier than it was to cut an entire NEW punch.
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 11/15/2013 1:45 pm
