| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 1,391 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
Hello to all, Well... the seller's photos looked ok but when I got the coin in hand things started going down hill. I'll wait for someone with more edge experience than me to render their opinion on the edges, but here is what I found. Weight 26.8g SG 9.87 Ring test: Failed. Sounds dead compared to known regal pieces in my collection. Other than the edges being a mess and not being able to discern any clear overlaps, the only unusual thing I see is the small lateral line between the mint mark and the dot above. Would that be something left over from a transfer cast or a stray mark on the die? Sometimes it's pretty easy to tell a non-regal mouth, but I still have trouble. Even after studying the examples in Bob's book and looking at hundreds of 8 reale pieces on ebay. The only options that present themselves seem to be a debased mint issue or a numismatic forgery. What say you all? Thanks so much. 1778 Mo 8 Reales |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
I will let Bob chime in but after a 30 second look (at work) I see the rectangles on the edge are of different shapes/sizes - internally ... no coin ring and a good weight does suggest some lead in the alloy above 1%.
JPL
Edited by colonialjohn
03/28/2016 10:16 am
|
|
Valued Member
59 Posts |
IMO, coin looks OK but your Sp Gr figures don't lie. Did you run the test twice to make sure?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
63 Posts |
Hi Skippypnb I took the test along with a known regal piece which tested at 10.33 so was pretty confident with the result. Just to be sure I retested this morning. I came up with a slight variance (9.67) so it still seems like debased metal.
One other piece of info is that the coin seems small at just over 38mm. The regal piece I tested at the same time is 40mm.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
Not to flog a dead horse here, but...
Would I be correct to assume that the only way to tell an 8 reale debased mint issue from a modern numismatic forgery is with an XRF test?
Given the information that I have discovered, and having looked carefully in Bob's book it seems to me that the various metals would need to be parsed out in percentages in order to come to a scientific conclusion.
Anyone?
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34428 Posts |
I think that colonialjohn can help you with XRF.
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Quote:
Sounds dead compared to known regal pieces I have a similar experience on such piece. My piece is Peru 1797 8 Reales. It has a S.G. 9.978 corresponding to about 70%Ag. My piece and your piece (RockyRoad) do not look like a modern numismatic forgery. Modern forgery won't be so stupid to mingle lead in a silver coin. My conclusion is it is a contemporary counterfeit piece. I even suspect these nice pieces were made from an official mint as a specimen. But I have no proof to confirm this hypothesis. See my previous thread. https://goccf.com/t/191360&SearchTerms=1797,Peruhttps://goccf.com/t/191360&SearchTerms=1797,Peru |
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
<b>wonghinghi</b>-Thank you, I just read through your older post and after reading <b>swamperbob's</b> thoughts on the matter, I'm leaning toward the idea that these are Class I counterfeits intended for circulation, although made at a later date
Regarding your comment that the mint may have made them as specimens: other than outright theft by mint employees I don't see the motivation for any mint to make debased coins, as I would imagine the amount of labor required to make and edge the planchets is about the same regardless of the metal used. I could be wrong...
Why would a modern counterfeiter reduce the diameter of a known coin and introduce lead or some other metal and imagine that it would go undetected by collectors?
On the other hand, it is probably impossible to understand the thinking or motivation of any particular counterfeiter.
That being said, it seems to me that debased, well made coins like ours (your 1797 and my 1778) would have aroused little if any suspicion in regular domestic trade of the period.
I don't believe that they are Class II counterfeits made for the China trade because they would have been subjected to SG tests which would have revealed the low silver content.
Quite a puzzle...I await swamperbob's opinion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
If you want since you are in the U.S. contact me privately. On this coin a $25 fee plus P&H ($10) I can run it in the lab (SEM/EDS - XRF).
JPL
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 1,391 |
|
Posted 03/28/2016 10:42 am
