Bolivia 8 Reales 1805

thq - I wish the scans were bigger. I think it would be advisable to get the larger resolution shots - but here is what I think I see from these:

1. The matching weakness on the edge which aligns on BOTH sides clearly points to a planchet that for whatever reason was thinner at the edges when it was struck. This is a rolling error that is quite common on both originals and counterfeits. It is associated with poor quality control in the rolling process. This type feature is often seen on the Boston types because they were "rush jobs" for the most part.

2. At this area of weakness - you describe fissures. I do not see these as compression fissures but rather like fissures caused by aggressive strain on the ingot during the rolling process. Once again, this feature is seen on both real and fake 8Rs.

3. If I am interpreting the positions of the edge correctly based on your description - it is VERY UNLIKELY that this coin was edged on the standard two die edging mill. It looks far more like a forgery.

4. Since the coin is HIGH GRADE silver, the date of the forgery simply can NOT BE BEFORE 1870. Prior to 1870, there was no financial incentive for forgers to make a High Grade Silver counterfeit. The incentive to make fakes began when the difference between the intrinsic value and the market value exceeded the cost of manufacturing and shipment of the coins.

5. The incentive to forge Bustman Dollars for the China trade was highest from the mid-1870s until the mid-1890s. The incentive (at a reduced rate) remained until the Bustman was demonetized in China about 1933. The window of manufacture if a full weight silver Circulating Counterfeit is therefore 1870 to 1933.

6. There is only one other period of time when high grade full weight silver forgeries were/are made. That is between 1950 and the present. The coins in this group are NUMISMATIC forgeries. They can be difficult to separate from the 1870 to 1933 group.

7. The "wavy" line is not totally clear on the pictures, but several different counterfeit types have a similar line next to the circle and rectangle design. The fact that you call it wavy is an indication of forgery as well. The real apparatus did not allow for a wobble. If it was eccentric at all it would be a "gradual" movement across the width of the edge.

8. The scans are too small to see any raised spots in the fields or signs of the die being a transfer copy.

No rush, but I would like to see the bigger scans as soon as you get them.

Here is what I believe you are referring to as the wavy line. It is typically a counterfeit feature as seen on one of my own Boston forgeries. Shown here;

Image Insert:



Now I can see the spots you are referring to. I wondered about the 2 white spots in front of the King's chin. If they are raised - that eqautes to small holes in the die surface and you need to ask yourself - How often do you see these spots on REAL coins?

Small die lumps DO EXIST on real coins. They happen when the die surfaces are damaged by rust or when the grinding of the die surface exposes bubbles (small voids) in the original die metal. Rust is perhaps most common cause when real dies are considered. The mint tends to use the BEST grade of steel because it results in longer lasting dies. Counterfeiters use what they have so counterfeit dies tend.

I am not saying all lumps are proof of forgery, but when I see them, I take extra time looking at the coin. Die lumps splits and cracks occur far more frequently on counterfeits than on real ones. It is like recut letters and spelling errors. Both happen on real coins BUT they happen far more often on counterfeits.

I somehow lost my first attempted answer. Here goes again.

The pictures are GREAT - the detail is fantastic.

The fissures are precisely the same as those often seen on Boston types. This does NOT prove the coin is a forgery by itself.

The edge pictures of the overlap areas are the best proof that the coin was not edged in a Standard edging mill. That fact is proof that the coin is a forgery.

The picture of the lumps indicates to me that they are due to voids in the die as opposed to rust. Die rust normally does not show abrupt and deep penetrations into the die. A void on the contrary does. The most normal void is due to bubbles in the die steel. These can be exposed by the die finishing (called grinding or lapping). This step produces the flat field and removes stray marks and lumps caused by the die making process. When a void is exposed in this way and then a coin is struck - some of the coin metal extrudes into the void - the sides are normally straight. The top of the extrusion is often dimpled.

That is exactly what I see in the large scan. Here is s sketch of what I am trying to say.



Image Insert:

You ask a very KEY question - how did they make the dies?

I have never been able to figure that out. I have heard many different stories but none of these has convinced me as to how they were executed. The best story so far was that the dies were made with a 1 to 1 panto-graphic lathe but I have no real proof of that contention at all. Some of the dies exhibit small surface texture irregularities which look like a possible mechanical cutting mechanism was involved - like a tiny rotary drill or cutting bit that could be closely controlled in three dimensions to cut away the die metal. The fields are ground flat removing most of the evidence for cutting but the high points of the design (recesses in the die) are often impossible to smooth out.

A similar cutting lathe was used by Francis Henning to make his nickel dies in the 1950s and the machining technology involved was invented prior to the 1890s. So it is at least possible that a mechanical lathe would work. If you look at any of Henning's nickels you can see exactly how fine his work was. There is no feature on a Portrait 8R that would be beyond that level of technology.

Do you recall the recent "discovery" that some very rare VAM varieties of Morgan dollars were actually contemporary counterfeits? The Coin World article I read attributed them to the 1890 to 1930 era. This was a big story within the past 12 months - however, the fact that the micro O dollars were forged was a story I first heard back about 1964. The story came from the same coin dealer that originally told me about the Boston forgeries. He knew they were fake years before Coin World went public with the story. This coin dealer never indicated that he knew how the dies were created just that the coins were counterfeited and done very well. He did make claims to know some of the actual forgers involved in making some of the Portrait 8Rs and I have wondered for years if it was the same forgery ring that produced both coins. But I don't know. I do know from reading about them that the micro O dollars are VERY WELL MADE and I know from observation that so were the "Boston" style 8Rs.

Regarding those small lumps - they do happen on real coins. All die steel may have small trapped air bubbles that lead to surface failures - however, the number seen on real dies is small. Mints use very high grade steel by comparison with forgers. So based on the numbers I see on your coin - the die steel used was POOR. It is unlikely (in my opinion) that the dies were real.

Regarding the dealer's comments (the one you spoke to) about "seawater damage" - what the heck was he talking about? Seawater damage on the dies or on the coin? These are raised features on the coin not recesses so exactly what was he referring to? I think "seawater" is getting blamed for something it didn't do.

Regarding "specific points of obverse/reverse detail where they clearly fail" - the one clue the old dealer told me to watch for was a "crooked or odd smile" on the King. He seemed to understand that and claimed he could identify the fake 8Rs just by the smile but I have never made a correlation with a specific detail. So I can not identify them in that way.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but this 1805 Mo on ebay looks counterfeit, too....lots of raised metal bits on both obverse (directly in front of Carolus' nose there is a large one) and reverse, as well as odd-looking edge detail. Am I seeing things?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1805-Carolus-ll...a5_W0QQitemZ320222082052QQihZ011QQcategoryZ541QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Bump -- to revive this topic. The edge of my coin [1804 Spanish dollar] has poorly-formed rectangles from the "S" in CAROLUS to the "A" in GRA. The bottom edge looks as if it was fioled off.

The font size of any one letter is probably not enough to diagnose a class of forgeries. I have definitely seen different size letters used on real coins, so it is quite possible that what you see MAY be real.

I am often more bothered by letter shapes than purely by size.