Hopefully we can now put to rest some of the open questions raised by several members without added personal attacks.
Filip congratulations on the sale of your coin for $798. Not bad for a test cut coin.
But I do take severe exception to your using terms of derision such as your recent comment of FAR-FETCHED when discussing facts that anyone can on their own research for themselves. The facts I am referring to are the silver restrike class which is thoroughly documented in numerous historical records many of which are now public domain and are on line. Just look.
Filip, you seem bent on twisting my words to come up with other meanings that you like and marginalize my work. For example "Continual revision" does not imply a work fraught with errors in need of constant factual correction as you imply. In fact is that as of right now, NOT ONE material fact in the book has been challenged or changed. I have re-written sections to make a very complex subject easier to understand and I added a section to summarize a series of points. But the basic theory is fully intact - so far after 14 months.
wonghinghi asked a couple of very valid questions that should be addressed BEFORE I review the recently posted edge photographs.
Quote:
Swamperbob:
Why are you so sure the presence of diagnonal lines on the edge is an implication to a CCC (post 1830 strike)? Would you elaborate more about this issue? For me, could it be an artefact due to long-timed circulation?
About the goofy windows:
Swamperbob, could the goofy windows be a defect/anomaly during official minting rather than another indication to a CCC by your views? Does it a well-established theory? How do you prove "goofy window = CCC", by XRF?
Is goofy windows unique to Mexico's 8R or it can also be found in other Latin American Mints?
The first question relates to the diagonal lines. What I am referring to are the presence of roughly 45 degree angled cuts running along only one axis along ONLY A SEGMENT of the edge of the coin that occur OVER the edge design. The priority is critical - they are POST edging in nature. It is also critical that they DO NOT appear on top of the edge on the opposite side of the coin at all. Scratches that are random all around the perimeter of the coin prove nothing but rough handling. The issue is the consistency of the appearance of these odd lines. They NEVER happen on the entire edge of the coin always one side not the other. They normally fill about half the perimeter.
I noted lines like this initially on Sheffield plate coins (Class 1) where the edge strip of silver that covered the copper core was applied by a single die edger that ROLLED on the silver strip and then subsequently applied the edge pattern in ONE apparently continuous Process. So since these odd cuts occur on the majority of Sheffield coins - which were edged in a continuous step AND the same lines are seen on some Silver restrikes produced after 1830 - I concluded that a ONE DIE EDGER could also be involved for the silver coins. Remember I am not referring to one or two examples but literally to hundreds of examples that look similar. You need to be aware that the same Birmingham facilities are believed to have made BOTH kinds of counterfeits so that the use or re-use of the same equipment is quite logical. Please notice I did not say FLAT or straight die single bar edger. I am making no presumptive tie into the use of a two bar parallel die edge mill (flat bar) where only one bar has a design.
Under a microscope it is also clear that on some high grade examples when the one die edger scratches occur they occur UNDER the face strikes on the Sheffield coins. Under the final strike implies that the silver edge ribbon and edge design were in place FIRST on this type. We also know from several exemplars that in some cases at least the silver ribbon applied to the edge wraps around to the faces of the dies and traces of the edge ribbon can be seen in the dentils. Remember that Priority of application will show best at the corner because the second strike (the face strike) will distort (bend or close) the scratches themselves (first strike) where the two die surfaces intersect. Scratches that are NOT effected at the corner or that occur generally all around the perimeter are not necessarily a diagnostic clue of a single die edger. They could be as you indicated the results of random acts of damage during circulation.
So with regard to why I feel so certain that these scratches are associated with a single die edger - it is because that is what is observed on known coins made with single die edgers and NOT on coins made in parallel flat bar parallel die edge mills. The PHYSICS of the operation of the two die edger precludes the contact needed to make the scratches. The only scratches that should appear on the edge of a genuine 8R made in the normal way on a two bar edger are scratches that result from RANDOM POST STRIKE DAMAGE. How often does random post strike damage occur in a predictable pattern? Why are all the scratches associated with the Silver counterfeits roughly parallel? Why do they occur only on one side of the coin and not both. And the final issue WHY would a random post strike scratch EVER appear to be distorted by the face strike? Answer that question and I may revise my theory.
The key is that I have seen examples where the random scratches on silver coins are ON TOP of the edge design BUT UNDER the face design. Please provide the mechanism for that to take place - PLEASE. I can not figure out any way for that to happen EXCEPT from a grip mechanism associated with a single die edger.
So Henry that is why I make the first association you ask about. Note I do not refer to these tested theories as Assumptions. These are working theories that match all available experimental facts to date.
The second question you ask - Could the goofy windows have been due to a stamp defect at the mint? The answer is of course yes. Any defect noted on a series of coins MAY imply it was made at the same place which could be the mint or a factory for forgery.
It may be equally possible that it is just indicative that a series of punches made from the same defective master die was used for each of the coins. If the mint master block was cracked resulting in a defective punch - how many years of production dies would be involved? One, two, five, ten? If a defective master was being used by a forgery ring that had all their fake punches made at one place that would also be a solution. How many master Matrix blocks were given to a mint at one time. Because some coins from the year show the feature and others do not two matrix blocks would be needed.
The "goofy windows" which I prefer to call the Keyhole porthole configuration to be more precise and to eliminate any old goofy looking windows is a very new association only noted on this forum AFTER the book was finished. It does not appear in the book. The example I used in the book was the cracked castle. That defective punch was noted on several different years AND A PUNCH BOWL that used a counterfeit coin in the bottom. In that case the continued deterioration of that punch did NOT correlate with the years stated on the coins. What I am referring to is the way the punch degraded over time. Once degraded you can not go back in time to an earlier year and make an earlier state die. That appears however to be the case with the cracked castle.
I am hoping some one with access to enough examples with the "windows" variation can solve the problem and come up with a final answer as to what they are. Are some genuine? Certainly all of them are NOT genuine. I have proven that.
When these began to show up I decided to experiment and buy a few of them. These were cheap ones with drill holes or damage that had the identical windows. My SG tests proved interesting. The SG on my examples VARIED over a range that was WIDER than and BELOW the range of SG variation noted in mint reports. It must be recalled that SG using very accurate scales (the glass boxed analytical scales used in labs that read to 1/1000th of a gram) can detect a variation of 10 points or less of fineness. That was mint standard a boxed analytical balance. You can see such a scale in mint museums like the one in New Orleans. So when one of my "windo .s tests 87% silver by SG, another hits 85% and a third 83%. I believe that proves I have found Silver Restrikes. Remember that NO example from Mexico city either Colonial or Republican era was ever found to be that defective by tests done at the US mints. On that basis and until XRF can be used to verify this result EVEN closer I believe I have proven that in AT LEAST SOME CASES the coins with the Keyhole/Porthole configuration are in proven fact SILVER RESTRIKES they are NOT made to the standard of Mexico City.
The answer to the part of your question referring to XRF testing is NOT YET. I have no present access so SG is the best test I can do. But as I believe John Lorenzo can confirm very few of my suspects that were submitted based on SG only came back as having a genuine Regal alloy. I say "few" here to allow for my memory. I can not recall any example of a coin I categorized based on SG that came back real but it could have happened. I would have to check my notes. A couple 8Rs that had other anomalies can back real alloy. Note that real alloy does not prove a genuine coin just a matching alloy. Melted scrap coins are postulated but unproven.
So we are really debating two distinctly different issues. The first is the existence of the entire class of silver restrikes - counterfeits made after 1830 which is proven in the historical record. I didn't make all those text book citations up. I think that the fact is there for anyone else to check for themselves. The books are there and the quotes were made. Anyone who disputes that needs to establish facts supporting a different conclusion.
The second issue which is far less certain is the identification of these restrikes that still exist. That is a different issue and is ongoing. There are many oddities you can see on 8R dies. Some are due to the mint some come from elsewhere. I AM NOT GOING TO DO ALL THE WORK AND RESEARCH NEEDED FOR EVERY POSSIBLE VARIETY, The book lists methods and tests that other collectors will need to perform to build the database so that future collectors will be able to know.
Of course collectors can all decide to accept any silver coin as real. If it is silver if it looks about right if it is about the right weight it is real. Why do most dealers do that? Because they are profit driven and determining the truth is secondary to making a profit. That is the big risk here. I know this is complicated. If it was really easy it never would have been forgotten or ignored in the first place.
I am really just dredging up an old topic that the collectors of 1913 were aware of but at that time they could not solve the problem because detection methods did not exist. I am looking at the topic again in light of NEW SCIENTIFIC TESTS and asking CAN WE DO IT NOW?
***********************************************
Now the edge of the coin shown in the new photos. What do they show? What do the features prove? What do they point to?
Clearly the coin has two joins in the edge design. There is a point of contact at two points but no clear overlap and no priority of laps appears to be able to be established. Odd since most Mexican coins have a clear 2-3 segment overlap.
The edge appears to have been placed in two distinct segments. One join appears at the D in Dei at the left side upright (if perspective is not too far distorted). The second appears to the left of the 1 in the date and about three segments to the left. There are two consecutive circles. These joins are approximately opposite one another. One join is aligned one is NOT.
So the edger involved appears to be a two die edger. That is evidence in favor of a genuine coin but not proof.
The next issue is the rapid side to side wobble that exists on the edge of this coin. The margin is thickest at the bottom and in 2 and one half segments (rectangle to rectangle) it is reversed. Pretty fast implying a very worn edger with a widened grove allowing side to side slip.
The next notable item is the THICK margin running along both sides of the edge. This is pretty early for that feature to be in play. In 1782 it was not standard. It does not appear on the matrix block.
Next I note In the first picture at the left of the test cut TWO segments a circle and a rectangle are double punched while the directly adjacent segments are NOT.
That is indicative of a 2 element punch being employed to make the edge die. The die was created with a punch that consisted of one circle and one rectangle placed end to end along the length of the edge die. That is WRONG.
The Mexico city Matrix die block that produced the edge punch (as proven from original photographs) was a THREE segment punch Two rectangles with a CIRCLE between them. This punch produces a very regularly spaced edge die. Each rectangle is overlapped BUT NO CIRCLES are overlapped. The two segment edge punch is WELL KNOWN on forgeries BUT not on genuine coins. This could be very critical.
Next on this edge die I notice that the circles are not always circles (and it is not due to post strike deformation). Some circles have SQUARED sides? This feature is seen most often on counterfeit edges, Strike compression sometimes deforms the edge segments but the sides of the circles should be round. They are round on the matrix block. Also potentially very bad.
I also noted that the scratches start and stop on only one quarter to one third of the coin. They all run in the same direction and they are deepest at the bottom and get weaker but do not die out at the top. They are ON TOP of the edge design. They are similar to the single die edger lines but do NOT match the edge I was referring to.
There are a couple scratches on the second picture from the top - directly above the first full circle to the left of the join where the tops of the scratches bend down and to the left. From the appearance it could be proof that the scratches were made during the edging step. That would not be a good thing but it can only be proven under a microscope.
I am still suspicious of the edge of this coin but no longer certain based on the new pictures that the coin was edged on a single die edger. It certainly looks like a two die edger but it does not using a die made in the correct way. Mexico City did not use 2 segment punches for the edge dies.
That is as far as a photo analysis can go at this time. Accurate SG might hold the key as might XRF. But the long and the short of it is that I see the coin as suspicious.
**********************************************
I have been getting behind in other work on adding the Ringo coins to the book and on
ebay referrals so I will consider this to be my last reply on this topic.
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 11/17/2013 11:45 am
