swamperbob's Last 20 Posts
| 8 Reales 1753 Mexico Maybe Sheffield Plate
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
 Posted 08/01/2024 12:40 am
|
Doramas
Don't be disappointed it is an exemplar of an older form of counterfeiting. Sheffield Plate coins are very common. Several are on eBay right now.
If you ever want to dispose of the coin let me know, IU am still working on finding a name for the process used. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
|
| Progress On Cap & Ray Counterfeit 8 Reales Book.
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/31/2024 02:24 am
|
I have also started a numbering system that mimics Davignon's expansion of Riddell. I think it will work well and still be simple. The notes will have to include references to redated dies of die pairs that show evidence of hubs being involved. Riddell numbers will be retained as a reference and all Riddell examples will be listed first.
The earliest published work on counterfeit Cap and Ray 8 Reales is Riddell's 1845 "Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad." I have numbered all of the Riddell coins using numbers for Cap dies and Letters for Eagle dies. I chose to follow the US system when referring to Obverse and Reverse. The Cap is the Obverse and the Eagle is the Reverse.
Riddell lists no counterfeit types for 1823 except for the Iturbide series which I included in the Portrait book (2014). HoH includes one Numismatic Forgery NF for 1823 and 3 for 1824. These will be listed along with CCC types as a distinctly numbered set for each date and Mint. Assayer differences will be noted for each coin but the assayers will not be grouped.
In 1824 Mexico City produced two types of 8 Reales - the short lived Hookneck type and a facing eagle type. I believe these should be numbered in two groups by type to reduce confusion.
In Riddell's book the list was intermixed as follows:
1824 Mo 187 facing eagle
1824 Mo 188 hookneck eagle
1824 Mo 189 facing
1824 Mo 190 facing
1824 Mo 191 hookneck
1824 Mo 192 hookneck
1824 Mo 193 hookneck
Riddell lists 4 Hooknecks and 3 facing eagle coins. Two of the facing eagles use the same dies and therefore have only two numbers. To define each type I used H for hookneck and F for facing eagle set in between the die number and letter.
1824 Mo 1HA
1824 Mo 2HB All four die pairs are all different.
1824 Mo 3HC
1824 Mo 4HD
1824 Mo 1FA The 187 and 190 use identical dies.
1824 Mo 2FB There are three Riddell numbers but only 2 #s
There is only one published work on Mexican Cap and Ray 8Rs which includes genuine and counterfeit listings "Hooknecks" by Hubbard and O'Harrow (HoH). In the Supplement to the book, they illustrate 8 counterfeit varieties which is an expansion of the three shown in the original book itself. They also have 2 examples of Numismatic Forgeries not numbered. The counterfeit die pairs are designated by letters. A,B,C,D,E,F and G. F and G are a single die pair (according to HoH) which are distinguished by different edge designs.
I do not plan to give a completely different number to coins with different edges. I will cover the edges in the notes accompanying the pictures. I will however use a small letter after a die number for a small variety that otherwise matches and a small number after the letter for an Eagle with a Minor difference. Significant differences will cause a new number. Die fills or worn any details will be ignored whenever possible to avoid adding extra die number for no visible reason. Noted items will go in the verbal description.
After adding the HOH dies to the Riddell's I added my own collection of 8 counterfeit hooknecks and 3 counterfeits with facing eagles. Placing the lists together in order of development it looks like the following (which remains preliminary):
Hookneck Types
1824 Mo R# 188 1HA
1824 Mo R# 191 2HB
1824 Mo R# 192 3HC
1824 M0 R# 193 4HD
1824 Mo HoH A 5HE
1824 Mo HoH B 6HF
1824 Mo HoH C 7HF
1824 Mo HoH D 8HG
1824 Mo HoH E 2HB R# 191
1824 Mo HoH F 9HH HoH believed F & G matched -Caps do not
1824 Mo HoH G 10HH Caps F & G do not but Eagles do
1824 Mo RG 3 6HF
1824 Mo RG 9 4HD match R# 193
1824 Mo RG 12 4HD
1824 Mo RG 13 11HB uses R#191 eagle
1824 Mo RG 14 6HF matches HoH B eagle Certified by NGC
1824 Mo RG 15 5HE matches HoH A higher grade
1824 Mo RG 21 2HB Riddell # 191 but a cast made from dies.
1824 Mo RG 22 12HI A second R# 191 style die pair (but DIFF)
Facing Eagle Types
1824 Mo R# 187 1FA
1824 Mo R# 189 2FB
1824 Mo R# 190 1FA
1824 Mo RG 20 2aFB Close to matching 2FB - 3 rays spaced
1824 Mo RG 23 3FC Cap & Eagle similar to 2FB
1824 Mo RG 24 1FA Dies both match 187 and 190
I wish to accompany each variety with Obverse, Reverse and edge photographs.
As I noted I did uncover a mistake in HoH which indicates coins F and G are identical. The Cap dies are actually significantly different. More than what I would call a minor re-cut. It has to do with the spacing and angles of the rays.
I started this project by numbering all of riddell's coins to indicate a ray count. I start with the high point of the cap and number the Long Ray nearset the top of the Cap number 1. I count clockwise and number the die nearest the Gs. Usually that is ray 5 but sometimes 6 or 7. The right corner of the cap I number the corner ray (or pair if neither is on the corner (usually 9, 10 or 11). I number the long lower ray 2 away from the left corner (usually 15 and often placed at or near center of the cap opening.) The next ray numbered is the left corner or pair bracketing the corner. Then the long ray after the star in front of the 8R. This is usually 25 seldom different. The total ray count is 32 which is the matrix standard and that is rarely a different number.
This numbering applies to HoH and RG listed coins as well and it quickly allows me to spot tiny spacing differences in rays or angles. The case in the list of the 2aFB coin 3 of the small rays 19, 20 and 21 viewed together show that ray 20 is slightly different on the two examples. One ray at a different angle but it means a difference in the die. This is how I spotted the HoH revision also in the rays.
So far from a simple straight forward set of die pairs, there is die sharing that occurs and some distinctive die styles that are shared on different die pairs. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 8 Reales 1753 Mexico Maybe Sheffield Plate
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/29/2024 11:53 pm
|
Coinfrog The method used to manufacture this 1758 8R was actually used well into the Sheffield plate era which began shortly after 1770 for two sided objects like coins. The original discovery that silver could be fused to copper dates to before 1750. One sided Old Sheffield Plate was used in the 1750s and 1760s for items that showed one silver side only. The double-sided process was invented about 1770 and the edge treatment to cover the copper center was mechanized in 1785 by Matthew Boulton at Soho.
I wish I knew more about the way the thicker plate was made but it is still a mystery to me.
BTW did you derive your moniker Coinfrog because you are French? I am half French Canadian and I have used Frog as well. I was called a frog as a kid but I did not object. I was also called a Swamp Yankee which is another derogatory reference, but I embraced that as well. At one time I had the eBay name Swampfrog. Better to embrace a slur than to get all bent out of shape over a word. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| Counterfeit 8 Reales - Interesting Newspaper Mention From 1854
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/29/2024 11:29 pm
|
Dearborn From that report it seems a net 3 cents per dollar coin was worth refining. To me that makes complete sense. In the 1850s, three cents had some buying power.
Also consider that every time the mint reduced silver content they usually marked the coins or changed designs (putting arrows at the date was one marking). The type without arrows quickly became scarce in higher grades. The mint pulled (via banks) the high-grade older coins to recycle them. The 1852 25 cent coin contained 0.1933 ozt silver and the 1853 0.1800 ozt silver. The reduction of 0.0133 ozt silver was significant enough to mark the new coins for identification. Once the older issues were worn down to VF-EF the weight of silver was no longer worth refining. So only AU-MS examples of the earlier type hit the melting pots. The difference in value in this case was 1.66 cents. London was still maintaining the Sterling fix at this point in time (it was $1.25 US per troy ounce.)
I have read other newspaper reports (before 1870) that range from 4 cents to 12 cents per 8R coin. The 12 cents was for a genuine 8R from the war for independence that could be melted at a profit due to excess gold. I know that the gold found in these same coins was melted to recover the gold from the 1820s onward. Riddell reports melting 80,000 such coins before 1845. Of course, that all stopped when the coins became collectors' items. (I recently heard from a Mexican collector friend of my age that in the late 50s and early 60s he was still melting culls of the Independence issues to make a profit over face value. As coins they were worth a dollar in circulation and no collectors wanted them (provided they were common issues.) He could get more simply by melting thenm and selling the silver and gold raw.
All to often, we think in modern terms as if it has always taken a double-digit profit to drive a business. Remember Francis Henning making nickels in the 1950s? His profit was only 2 cents each, but he apparently made a decent income before he messed up and got caught.
One cent Indian head pennies were counterfeited in large numbers in 1893 in Boston. The profit was well under 1 cent. But the Secret Service took great pains to halt the operation.
My uncle lived very handsomely on his share of the profits from making 1805 Mo 8 Reales for the China trade which were full weight silver. He made even more of a profit when his operation converted to Morgan dollars that he could pass locally after 1933. Those coins cost about 45 cents each to duplicate so there was a 55 cent profit each. He didn't stop until he died. But after US coins became tokens in 1965, he modified his output substantially. He could not make sandwich coins.
When looking at counterfeits always try to think historically. A nickel was worth a lot at one time. As a kid I remember penny candy. A nickel bought a much larger candy bar than you can get for $1 today. In the late 1950s when I started collecting coins silver dollars were very common. Most were worn to VF or EF and tellers NEVER looked at the dates and mint marks. Imagine that.
My uncle said that it was better to never be greedy or you will get caught. A small profit on a counterfeit that attracts absolutely no attention is better than getting caught by making collectable coins that will be looked at closely.
I wonder what my Uncle Edgar would think about the modern Chinese Numismatic Forgeries selling on eBay. His work was several hundred percent better. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 1776 8 Reales. Good Fake Or Real Deal?
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/29/2024 6:57 pm
|
So, all the coins came from a dumpster. The charity is definitely doing a very poor job of reviewing donations. Coins should always be referred to a dealer or collector because virtually every coin has some value.
I find it difficult to believe coins are not collected for periodic review. Perhaps you could go to someone in charge and ask about the coins. For a couple bucks they might agree to toss them all into a box. That way you could possibly help them out. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 8 Reales 1753 Mexico Maybe Sheffield Plate
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/28/2024 12:43 am
|
Doramas
The quotation you included describes one of the methods discovered by the spy Charles de Gimbernat in his letter of 19 May, 1796 to the Ambassador of Spain. This letter is quoted in full in my book and was originally published in French and then English by Paul Bordeaux and then Spink Company in 1903. Pradeau included the list of 5 types without citation. He also re-wrote Gimbernat's descriptions and made some changes in terms.
That is a different process that removes a face from each side of a genuine coin and fixes them to a core of off metal and the whole thing is edged with solder or silver. I have spent decades hunting for an example of that type from before 1796 without success. I believe the description is simply incorrect. I did find what I believe is an example of what Gimbernat saw. It was in the collection of Mike Ringo, but it was made with silver foil pressings of a genuine coin that were attached to an off-metal core. It is an exceptionally rare counterfeit type which I illustrated in my book page 594. Mike Ringo believed it was unique since he had never seen another. In fact, it remains unique up to this time.
The process of cutting the faces off the coin, actually does exist but not in the 1700's - I have discovered many of the type I call "mined coins," but the technique was first reported in 1885. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 8 Reales 1753 Mexico Maybe Sheffield Plate
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/27/2024 11:58 pm
|
Doramas Very interesting coin. Clearly it is not genuine.
It actually does not fit the description of a Sheffield type because the thickness of the silver layer is far too great. Sheffield plate started out as a way to make inexpensive ornaments that looked like silver.
The key for identifying the Sheffield plate types is that the two metals are fused one to another. The seam is not easy to see. The metals blend one into the other completely unlike metals glued or soldered together.
This coin looks more like an earlier process for making counterfeits that has no specific name as far as I know. It also involves a very thick silver layer over a copper (or alloy of base metals). The difference is the seam between the silver and the core. The seam is usually sharp and often separates when corroded or bent.
This kind of plate is seen on older English coins, on the Dog dollars of the low countries and on various Spanish American 8 Reales.
Coins of this same nature may have inspired the experiments that ultimately produced Sheffield plate, but the fusion is never present.
|
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| Mexico 8 Reales 1838 Zs Overweight - 27.6g
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/27/2024 10:16 pm
|
realeswatcher
Do you recall the eBay name of the seller from Louisiana? From December until May, I was almost out of commission with regards to postings on eBay. I know I missed many individual days.
I also have not located an inexpensive method to secure XRF data. It is one of the drawbacks here in NC. In the Boston area it was far easier. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| A Fake That Is Actually Modern 1816 8 Reales
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/25/2024 11:49 pm
|
I am glad to know it is not a scratch. However, I wonder why that fold went so deeply into the metal? To pass deeply into a coin, allowing the higher metal to wear away leaving just a groove in the portrait, the corresponding feature on the die would have to be a standing fin.
Albert Would you be interested in sharing Photos of your counterfeit Cap and Ray coins? You have some interesting edge designs and I would like to associate them with dates and mints of the counterfeits. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
|
| Progress On Cap & Ray Counterfeit 8 Reales Book.
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/25/2024 11:32 pm
|
I know several of my competitors. It is a small world when it comes to collectors like myself. Only one resides in the US. But when I last checked I have the third largest individual collection of Mexican counterfeits in the world.
Today I completed all of my 1826 Durango coins. There were only twelve left, but I had to take my wife shopping which took up most of the day. I started by tentatively divided them into three primary types (non-Riddells). Nine of the twelve appeared to use the same Cap die with several different eagles. However, when I studied the ray locations closely everyone was slightly different. I didn't expect this because the rays were arranged according to one matrix pattern.
When I reviewed the point of attachment to the Cap all twelve were about identical. The legend began and ended at the same Rays number 25 and 5 in every case. There were 32 rays in every case. The rays alternated long and short - the angles of the long rays were all close to radial. I had actually wasted several hours creating a matrix of end points for each ray and checking all of them individually. When I completed hours later only two coins were actually made from the same die pair.
Now what I am looking for is a thin transparent protractor that I can use to spot deviations from radial positions quickly. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 1776 8 Reales. Good Fake Or Real Deal?
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/25/2024 10:23 pm
|
realeswatcher
I know that you are a champion of the other side when it comes to several coins. I do not presume that the coin is either genuine or not UNTIL a scientific range of tests are run on the coin.
The Potosi mint is as I also understand noted for its poor control of assay and somewhat substandard die craftsmanship. However, poor craftsman ship is not involved here. When dealing with metal fatigue you need to consider how long die punches could possibly survive when they are used to make dies. Remember die steel used for making working dies is virtually in the same class as the punches used to create the impressions. The difference lies in the ability to soften iron in one case and harden it in the other. So how long did die punches last in practice? That is the key question.
Based on what period records still exist (mostly for Mexico City) die punches were replaced quite often. Matrix sets of punches were secured by the mint officials and were replaced when breaks occurred. A die maker was retained on staff for that reason. Based on discussions I have had with Dave O'Harrow, he believed that the smaller punches were replaced several times a year.
When he wrote "Hooknecks" it was along with his partner Clyde Hubbard one of the very few American citizens who has ever been allowed to examine the collection of the Mexico City mint including all of the dies and die making equipment that are normally kept from view. I had lengthy discussions with Dave O'Harrow on the topic of just how long die punches survived. That was back when I was considering an attempt to do a study like Overton did for US Bust half dollars. He cautioned against any such attempt because of the enormous number of dies used annually in all high output mints. The number was not in the hundreds per year but thousands. We also discussed individual die making tools and how dies were made. He indicated that a blacksmith was employed specifically with making die punches. Hubbard was the source of the information I put in my first book about how coin blanks were edged. His description of the process was what I used for my book.
However, I see it is far better to rely upon science to settle the issue. Weight is one thing, but density is far better as a test of authenticity. XRF is better still.
You said about the coin
Quote:
that's absolute textbook honest "circulated cameo" tone. Perhaps it is, but it could equally well be artificial toning applied by a very good Numismatic Forger.
I will wait on making a decision until more scientific data is available.
30FromTheNorth
Thanks for posting the weight. It is within normal range for an 8R but that is absolutely no guarantee that the coin is genuine.
The other four coins you posted represented a wide range of collecting types. Were they found together?
|
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| Progress On Cap & Ray Counterfeit 8 Reales Book.
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/24/2024 9:23 pm
|
I certainly believe at this point, that dwelling only on the Riddell listed dies would be a huge mistake. Riddell # 350/351 proves that.
The two Riddell numbers 350 and 351 were created using the same pair of dies. However, the coins shown in his book are late die state. They have die chips. Riddell did not locate the original version of 350/351. There are coins struck from an identical die pair that lacks two specific die markers which indicate a later state. All of the later style represented by 350/351 have a die chip on the lower side of the 23 Ray. The length of this chip increases - but on the later state die it is always there. One other thing is the second dot after the Do mint mark. The double dot after the mint mark is clear in Riddell's book. The stop started with a partial small lump but on more than one example it is an absolutely round stop placed to the right of the original stop. I am wondering if it was a correction by the die sinker who sank the stop slightly too far to the right and repaired it. Just like the overdate dies the "repairs" sometimes fall out exposing the under number. I believe that happened in this case.
I am still working on the other counterfeits related to the 1826 Do RL. So far, I have located a large number of 1827 Do RL versions of the 350/351. Plus, there is a note in Riddell itself that indicates he knew of an 1838 version which he does not illustrate.
I already have discovered that there are multiple dates of the 1832 Zs OM, the 1832 Do, the 1834 Do, the 1842 Zs and several others.
A book on the topic of Cap and Ray 8R counterfeits that does not link these other clearly related varieties is a waste of time to both write and to read. I mention this because I was asked to join in an effort to do that, but I rejected that idea as being unnecessary.
I am going to work on this until I die. If that happens too soon, I hope someone comes forward to complete the work. But I am not ready to drop dead today so if you might be interested let me know.
|
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 1776 8 Reales. Good Fake Or Real Deal?
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/24/2024 01:38 am
|
Numister
It is well known that most counterfeiters producing coins to circulate as face value, "age" their works before they enter circulation, that was done so that the coins would not be reviewed too closely when being passed. The goal was one quick pass, and the profit was made.
Makers of Numismatic Forgeries have the same goal as counterfeiters because they too do not want their work examined too closely. So, they do wear their coins. How they do this I am not certain about. But I do know that they do it. Between 2010 and 2013 I detected many identical but worn Charles IIII 8 Reales from the Mexico City mint that came from China. I ended up buying 6 examples. They are identical except for the level of wear present.
I believe I see the same type of a wear pattern here. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| Progress On Cap & Ray Counterfeit 8 Reales Book.
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/23/2024 10:07 pm
|
Thanks for the kind thoughts.
One stat that I forgot to mention was that I have discovered counterfeits which use Fantasy mint marks - 37 different fantasy mint marks. These were dated primarily in the first Republic era. A total of 31 different years are involved. I own a total of 358 of these fantasy mint issues.
Today I have spent the entire day working just on the 1826 Durango issues. It began with 17 different copies of the Riddell # 350 and 351. In Riddell's book he assigned two numbers to an identical pair of dies. These dies are notable because the upper rays are oblique as opposed to radial. So, I had listed these as simply 17 versions of the same type.
Then I compared the coins little closer and notice a die chip on the side of one of the rays shown in Riddell's book. Then I noted that the second example did not have the small chip. So, I had a die (cap side) with a sub-variety. I decided to see how many of each type. That is when I noted that the rays on the cap were not always in exactly the same place. This means different dies were made using ONE punch set to manufacture the dies.
This resulted in my realization that in 1826 at Durango the correct number of rays is 32 rays unlike 1825 that has numbers that vary both above and below 32. Unlike 1825 the 1826 Durango coins (event the counterfeits have 32 rays.) So, I developed a counting method for the rays which I use as a shorthand form of identification.
The ray closest to the top of the Cap is Number 1. That is usually a long ray. Long rays normally have a shorter ray between each pair. Counting clockwise the 5th ray is located just before the final superscript s of the assayer statement or Gs. The #10 ray fell exactly at the corner of the cap. But not always with the Riddell 350/351 type.
So, to ID a coin in shorthand form the key ray locations must be noted. In this way, I discovered that it is the 23rd ray which has the die chip. But on one coin there is a different chip on the 24th ray.
All 17 coins have 32 rays but there are several slightly different locations where they join the cap.
I remember back when I first started collecting counterfeits someone advised me that there was no need to buy more than one example of each type. I should just concentrate on the best-preserved example of each type. After 65 years of collecting, I am glad I never took that advise. I now am aware that many of the most common of the Riddell varieties were actually made from mass produced dies many of which have identifiable die varieties. Some dies use the same punch collection to make each working die - each die is different. Others use the same punch collection to make multiple hubs that are then used to make the working dies.
As in many other cases, the counterfeiters employed state of the art methods to make their copies. The 1832, 1834 and 1836 Durango counterfeits illustrate this principle.
The project of numbering the rays I now view as indispensable as it is time consuming. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
|
| 1812 8 Reale Counterfeit
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/23/2024 02:36 am
|
The counterfeit is listed on page 416 of my book "Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales" (2014). The Obverse die is A and the reverse is MoTH-001. There is a tiny chip on the top of the upper loop of the 2 which acts as an identifier for the coin. I know now of more than 50 copies of this type in debased silver, Sheffield plate, Copper, White metal (German Silver) and brass. It is a comparatively common counterfeit.
The history of this coin because it was dug in a known site is likely more valuable than the coin itself. Like shipwreck coins provenance can be very interesting to some collectors.
Do you know the history of site occupancy? How long was the site active? Date of abandonment? Was it in a trash dump? or well? How deep was it burried? |
| | Forum: World Variety and Error Coins |
| |
| 1801 8 Reales Mexico
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/23/2024 02:20 am
|
FTJR
You are right the coin bears the Mexico City mint mark.
The chop marks may be genuine but they are never absolute proof since they have been placed on forged coins for as long as forgeries have been made.
Earlier tonight I replied to another Mo 8R dated 1798. With the exception of my comments about surface texture of that coin, what I said applies to this one.
Even if it tests at 90% silver it may be a silver CCC made for China trade between 1820 and 1930.
You can also read my old posts on edging to learn how these coins were edged BEFORE the coin was struck. That can account for flattened circles between the rectangles on the colonial edge.
Make sure the coin has two overlaps in the edge design 180 degrees apart of the same length. One overlap is fake, three or more would be fake. Laps of different lengths also means fake. Fake could be CCC or NF.
Density should be 10.3 regardless of weight. There are posts on density as well. Take care this series when tested with XRF proves that there are about as many fakes as genuine coins on the market.
So you have a 50% chance of being correct at this point. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
| |
| 1798 , 8 Reales Mexico Real Or Fake ?
|
|
swamperbob
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
Posted 07/23/2024 02:06 am
|
westy00
Since the coin has the mint mark of Mexico City and bears the Portrait of Carolus IIII, you should be made aware that millions of counterfeits of this type were made for the China trade between 1820 and 1930 after the supply of original coins was largely consumed (before 1820).
This type of coin was valued by the Chinese merchants at a value of 20-25% over the actual silver content because the coin was preferred by inland silk and tea producers. These farmers trusted this one coin over all other Spanish Colonial coins because of the "Fat man" with the broad hair ribbons and the Mo mintmark. Makes little sense but it is true. These counterfeits which I classify as Contemporaneously Circulating Counterfeit (CCC) varieties were made in a variety of silver alloys from 800 fine to 925 fine in England and the US. England also produced base metal copies and Sheffield plate examples as well. All types are usually CCC types regardless of alloy.
Based on the edge appearance and the overall look of the coin I would ask to have it tested with a hand-held XRF or lab XRF looking for the proper Gold trace. All Mexico City 8 Reales of this era used silver contaminated with gold. To be genuine a reading for gold must be seen on a hand-held unit of 1/10th of one percent or higher to be real. I have seen readings as high as 3.8% gold. Lab apparatus will give a more accurate look at silver and copper content, but that level of accuracy is not really needed. The lack of gold using a hand-held XRF condemns the coin as one of the CCC types but cannot tell you where or when it was made. Most of these silver CCC types are unfortunately treated by collectors and dealers as if they were genuine. They may be genuine silver but they need the gold to have been manufactured anywhere before 1890.
Density tests to detect the variations in silver content away from 903 fine would require a boxed 4-5 decimal place analytical scale to measure. Most 1/100th gram scales will not be accurate enough to be able to distinguish between 850 and 903 or 925 silver.
The surface irregularities may indicate a cast coin edged after it was made. The edge does not appear to show the same field damage visible on the obverse. The edge shot captures one of the two edge overlaps in the design (the two circles that touch). Look at the edge exactly opposite that point (180 degree rotation) to see if there is an overlap of the same length. To be genuine at any time that overlap is essential based on the physics of the apparatus used to edge the coin.
Also in this case, you have the advantage of a readymade window into the interior of the coin. The large delamination on the reverse can be tested to see what the core metal is. You could find a point within the delamination where a small scratch could answer what the core metal color is. Copper was usually used as the core metal for off metal Sheffield plate examples. |
| | Forum: World Coins and Commemoratives |
|
|
