War Of Independnece 8R Silver Sud Issues

I would not buy that coin from this seller, it's a complete gamble ... I don't like it, I'm not sure why.

Anyway, here is the edge from mine, which looks smoothed (I should take better pictures, but I don't have it on hand now) :

In my opinion there is no real certainty, and there won't be. A simple reason is that the original coins are cast, which means that any cast copy will just look as cast as the original.

Most people apparently do not care. Many collectors simply stay away from the coin, especially once they hear that even the example that has been used for decades to illustrate the Krause catalogs is a modern counterfeit! So apparently is my own example, which I bought in a Ponterio auction a few years ago when they still were Ponterio - not even the largest auction house for Mexican material was able (or cared to) identify the fakes!

For many years, the "hand-reeding" of the edge has come to be taken by collectors as a sign of a coin's authenticity. The reason behind this is that, starting from the Fonrobert auction, not a single numismatic publication or catalog ever described the edge of the Morelos casts. As nobody cared, neither did the counterfeiters, and consequently the many modern forgeries all show plain edges. I haven't looked at many coins graded by TPG services, but the ones that I have seen in holders don't show the edge for apparent reasons, so I can't really tell how they assess the authenticity of a coin.

However, a counterfeiter knowing what to look for on the edge will not have any difficulties reproducing it. And apparently this is what has happened lately, at least in Mexico. Coins known by its style to be modern forgeries with "correct" edge reeding are beginning to appear on the market!

So, for the moment, it is difficult to establish a coin's authenticity, but it is at least possible to "weed out" the more obvious forgeries, such as the ones that look like "chocolate money" with unoxidized surfaces, the ones which are identical to the one shown in Krause, the ones that have plain edges (light filing marks could be present, though, otherwise one would expect to see the seam from the casting process), and the ones with the date 1814 (as one Mexican expert in the field told me that there are no known originals with that date). One problem is that most auction catalogs STILL don't mention the edge, if the coin is in a holder, you don't see it, meaning that it is an absolute gamble buying one of these unless you literally hold them in your hands.

Note that I have deliberately left out any mentioning of XRF testing. I guess most modern forgeries will be detected by this as I seriously doubt that the forgers used "contemporary" silver alloys to produce them. However, to my knowledge nobody has ever done such a study on these coins, at least not with published results.

That sounds like a hint to someone... OK, John, start buyin 'em up. Only $700 a pop - a slight savings vs. the klippes!

This series is absolutely a poster child for something which almost HAS to be verified this way.

In lieu of that... These are NOT my thing at all (I honestly never even read entirely through you guys' good discussions about a year ago on these and other casts - only so many hours in a day)... but a couple thoughts:





--- Hmmmm... I would think that if you could definitively isolate some examples that are KNOWN genuine, there should be SOME minute traits that are telltale for (or against), or at least primarily associated with (not with), the "real casts" as opposed to the "casts of casts". Like with wreck material... many/most people tend to say "oh, it's hard to tell salvaged vs. cast". I think, though, that when you know what you're looking at, you can certainly tell apart salvaged from cast, and even salvaged from "casts of salvaged". It's certainly more difficult in this scenario, and as John said, some simulated pieces can be scary good/nearly perfect... but maybe not impossible?

Something else to ponder... some of you are quite knowledgeable on these types and/or have access to people who are... and there is still confusion or what's real and what's not. If devotees or even EXPERTS can't totally be sure... how probable is it really that a given forger is going to get things EXACTLY right?

--- Seems that detailed study should be conducted on the silver MINORS to compare style points (edges as discussed, exact right surface texture as noted above, etc... I know there are certainly fakes of all ages for those also, but probably not to the degree that exists for the 8R, and I'm guessing it would be a bit easier to weed them out.



--- That always catches my eye right away... all of "those types" have that same bare look.
I saw a piece in an NGC holder last year with fairly detailed pics that I saved - almost bit, didn't, sold quickly for IIRC $600-ish - that to my uninitiated eye seemed much in contrast to that effect with a nice, deep patina... Posted below for your consideration... thoughts? I haven't taken a really close look at this, compared to others, etc... so I'm just throwing it out there as a piece that looks fairly old-toned, no claim beyond that:

Here is mine then, if you want chocolate, you have it (although it's also there on the high points) :



As usual, if you want it for some tests, just tell me - I'm always glad to participate in numismatic history research :)

I also have a 1 real silver minor for this type.
And a 1/2 real silver, but struck (and debased from what I can see)

MathieuMa, nice piece... resizing it and putting into a comparison pic now...

One thing, maybe you realized it and were just using a "play on words" - Yours has an almost chocolate-hued tone... I think, though, that dosmundos only meant "chocolate coins" in the sense of those molded coins like Jews use at Hanukkah... saying that they (the untoned pieces you see regularly) look molded and fake. Am I reading that right?

===========================

John, interesting-looking article study, will review later. Peeked at the microscope closeups you mentioned... finding a physical signature is excellent clear-cut evidence. As you said, the challenge is rounding up enough of them to create a baseline. In lieu of the technology, it would still be nice if some "tells" discernible to the naked eye (and a loupe) to the naked eye could be ascertained.

BTW, one stupid question (maybe I should actually read your paper first :-> )... So the surface enrichment effect... aka copper leeching outward to the surface. If the copper has steadily migrated outward from the core of the coin, yet the (outer) surface readings are coming up 96-99% silver... does that then imply that nearly ALL the copper has come out and that the core must be nearly pure silver by this point?

Can you link again to your paper so I don't have to search it? Thanks.

The "L.Beck paper":
http://www.bsaxton.com/stuff/silverenrich.pdf

And yes, with "chocolate coin" I was referring to the shiny silver or golden tin foil covered sweets in form of coins.

Thanks for the link/offers to provide, dosmundos & John... started to peruse the Beck paper, will do more later.



Well... note that the ebay piece (of the style which usually pops up, if my casual observation is accurate) shows the same die markers as the Krause-plated 1813... and both show the same markers as the Krause-plated 1814 - about which is stated, "most are considered spurious". Now, in general, common die markers don't automatically mean a piece MUST be fake (these are all casts, those features could appear on originals and any fakes of those originals). If all the 1814 dated pieces are forgeries, they "could" in theory have been produced by replicating a genuine 1813 which perhaps had those markers (which of course could also have spawned similar fakes retaining the 1813 date).

Or... the pieces with those markers are ALL fakes and those markers resulted from the process of replicating the original coin. Requires study.

Note Mathieu's piece and the NGC piece are from different "dies" (molds).

Realeswatcher I like your idea of testing lower denomination silver SUDS which probably have less of a chance on being counterfeited.

Silver in its most oxidized state is BLACK. I do realize that when you polish a silver coin to a shiny new and then hit it with a typical sulfur ointment it does create that unwanted black film (look) on the coin - UNDESIRABLE - however blackness from original toning has never bothered me on silver pieces - to me it means severe environmental exposure - realizing of course this noted exception above ...

One thing with Beck - I did cut a 1964 U.S. Kennedy half dollar (90%Ag) and there was no silver enrichment detected on the surface or in the core - it takes time (century or more) and is specimen-dependent. As an example one Sheffield I sold on E-Bay since as you know all my pieces normally come with a full suite XRF analyses - a potential buyer inquired - 94% Ag - you better recalibrate your machine Mister - sent him the L. Beck paper - he apologized profusely - such is life ... <VVBG>.

All this is explained of course in the new ANS book on CC8Rs for Portraits now under ANS review/publication (probably early 2015).

John Lorenzo
United States