Guatemala 1863 Peso Contemporary Counterfeit Or Modern Forgery

jgenn I do like Bullion Fraud as a name for this composite category. Clearly it is somewhat better than Monetary fraud.

As I see it, there are three aspects to bullion fraud and initially I was tempted to present more than one name depending on metallic content, however, I though that it is likely better to limit the categories for now to the minimum number for the sake of people who do not yet understand the motivational elements involved in fraud.

There are the coins made to slip into bullion lots that have little or no silver content which create a profit based on the level of debasement. The Guatemala Peso, the Peruvian Sols and some late Spanish colonial 8Rs fall into this group. These coins are salted into batches of silver being sold at bullion price and because the value is low no one checks carefully. These are closest to the Numismatic Forgeries but target bullion dealers and not collectors - the margin is not numismatic but purely bullion value.

Then there are the coins made to match the correct silver content of the original issue (or to be undetectable as not matching the specs) which create a profit primarily based on a higher Fiat value of the coin. The micro-O Morgan dollars, the Spanish 5 Pesetas of the 1880-1890's are this type of BF. The profit derives from the difference between melt value (standard value) and the value set by law (fiat) where they are current. These are clearly opportunistic issues as the period of time when this occurs is often a short interval. Think of 1893 when silver prices fell to 30 cents and ounce and a dollar US coin had a Token value above bullion. These are made while the coin is still in circulation and might be referred to as a CCC as well. However, CCC as defined in my book was based on a lower than standard bullion value (the normal condition of counterfeiters operating from antiquity). I see the distinction as clearly valid and as a representation of different motive for production. The distinction between this BF type and Numismatic Forgeries made in full weight metal is the date of production. The NF type is made after circulation has ceased and normally after a premium value over bullion has been established in the numismatic market. The motive for NF is to defraud collectors as opposed to BF where bullion dealers are the target.

The third category are creations made using full weight metal (silver and gold) specifically to fill a marketing niche where the design of the coin is critical to the buyer/user. The MTT (in Arab countries and Africa) and the Carolus (Bustman) Dollar (used in China and the orient in general) are in this category. However, there are many others. The unofficial Fat Man dollars of China made and circulated by groups other than the official Chinese government, various trade coins like the Rider and Dog Dollars, the gold ducats and gold sovereigns. I would even include some unofficial bullion ingots made to resemble ingot types that carry a bullion premium. The difference to be drawn here is that CCC types are debased and circulated along side commonly seen current coins without regard for design while the BF types are made anytime the coin is valued in commerce above either the fiat or bullion value.

Some people, in particular those who see all fake coins as falling into one category will say all of this as overkill, but to a true specialist in Fraudulent coins motive is inherently an element and one of great interest. I would compare the distinction as being similar to the difference between being a type collector and a specialist looking for every date, mint mark and assayer combination available. Neither is inherently better just different.

Thanks to all for your responses. A wealth of information as always. Thank you

I've taken a liking to jgenn's term "post-contemporary counterfeit" (PCC) and humbly submit that as a candidate for the official terminology.

Bob, my observations of the coin do not reveal a seem along the edge nor at the rim. Based on this and your statements the method of manufacture existed circa 1840s. However, the manufacture of dies that you mentioned could be a limiting factor unless, as occurred in Spain and the USA in the same era, there was some moonlighting at the nation's mint.

I very much appreciate your insights. Is it feasible to further narrow the time and place where a coin such as this might have been made and used?

Specifically, when and where would it have been advantageous to manufacture a Guatemalan peso? That is, why would a counterfeiter of any period, whether for commerce or bullion trade, choose a coin like this rather than a more widely circulated Mexican or Spanish colonial issue?

Bob, I am similarly particular about terminology and appreciate your explanation. However, I fear that we may have moved away from the intent of my previous question.

Do you have a theory regarding the particular time or place this coin may have been used for its nefarious purpose?

Thanks again for your help!

Bob does make a good point. These dies are well made for a CCC? Since you are in the U.S. you could send it to me for a FREE XRF. We will shoot the XRF gun in that opening. My E-Mail is on the Internet and starts with johnmenc ...

John Lorenzo

Took an XRF gun to the coin and it yielded these results:

Ag: 91.72%; Ir:0.469% & Cu: 7.66%.

So IMO a cheap XRF gun is inconclusive in the sense we see a regal level silver plate showing appropriate copper levels yet the weight is 24.41 grams to a desired regal weight of 27.0 grams. Normally XRF guns can only shoot the central area of the coin however more sophisticated XRF desktop devices with more accuracy would pick up more trace metals and could center on the break area with more accurate and desirable results. My contact basically does only central shots with a Viton XRF gun. So its inconclusive until a more sophisticated XRF device is used in multiple shots of th surface, As an example in another post I am investigating with SEM/EDS the surfaces of these so-called 1821 Zacatecas 8R discolored surface cleaned? coins by TPG's - which I believe are not cleaned. We can conclude its a sophisitcated silver plate probably over a copper core in which this copper core currently escapes detection of your basic XRF gun device. Rarely are these Sheffield type cores are of brass but predominantly copper as shown in Forgotten Coins and GNL. In terms of its production period I am not an expert enough to classify it as late 19thC or 20thC but trace fingerprint analysis in ppm levels of more sophisticated methods or XRF devices would provide information to this point along with its gold levels which are <1% in general whether 19thC or 20thC. Yes ALWAYS lower Au levels for the later. JPL

P.S. Coin is being sent out tomorrow.

PatAR Actually John's test result makes a good prima fascia case for the coin being made sometime after 1890. Let me explain.

The value of the hand held XRF test is that with that low power test gold will be still be detected if any is present in the alloy. Gold being denser than either silver or copper is seen by XRF at levels deeper into the coin. The XRF test result indicates no gold trace at all in the silver. That is a key finding in my opinion.

In 1863 there was no process available to remove residual trace gold from silver when dealing with mixed hydrothermally deposited ores like those typically found in Guatemala. The deposits are hydrothermal in nature just like the fissure deposits prevalent in the Mexican mines. They were produced by super heated water rising from the mantel into cracks in the crust.

The only factor I needed to confirm was whether the Caribbean tectonic plate mineral deposits were similar to those found in the North American plate. You see Guatemala is divided by the plate boundary between North America and the Caribbean. Most of the country is in the NA plate. I was able to find a mine report from the new CerroBlanco mine (2012) which is located south of the tectonic boundary. That means all of Guatemala typically possesses the same mix of silver and gold as does Mexico.

Therefore the lack of any gold trace means the coin COULD NOT have been made using Guatemalan silver in 1863 or anytime around that date.

The fact that the surface silver layer contains both silver and copper means the surface layer itself was NOT ELECTROPLATE. In Electroplates the entire deposition layer is 100% silver. Given that the surface layer was noted to be particularly thick, we must conclude that the coin is a more recently produced example of a Sheffield technology made with post 1890 silver and created for purposes of fraud - either Numismatic Fraud or Bullion Fraud. There is no room left to conclude that the coin is a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit.

PatAR You indicate:




First you need to know the power of the unit and the range of elements it can detect. Many hand held devices are only accurate for scrap metal applications while others are used in the field to disclose hazardous materials. The low power scrap metal XRF units may be of very little use for coins.

So my remarks need to be evaluated with regards to handheld units capable of detecting gold at a level of 0.01% - that is 100 ppm. These typically cost in the $3-5000 up range.

The reservations I have regarding the use of these types of handheld XRF testers is not with their ability to disclose trace gold but rather with their ability to penetrate deep enough into a coin's surface to avoid distortions in the ratio between silver and gold caused by silver enrichment at the surface. In addition the detection of very low density elements with most handheld units is impossible. The value of these units ends with gold and platinum. They will not give accurate readings for copper and silver and therefore authentication using those results Silver and copper will not be accurate.

Use of higher power XRF devices is far better than handheld units when it comes to identification of very small trace contaminants and to get the silver to copper ratio accurate enough to be used for authentication. However, the cost is often prohibitive ($50-500). So as a concession to cost, it makes sense to use the better grade handheld XRF as a screening tool to detect gold as a trace contaminant. Most decent handheld XRF devices will detect gold if it is present at 100 ppm or greater. This is a level well below the MINIMUM amount of gold that must be present in all Mexican coins struck before 1880. So a ZERO reading for gold on a handheld XRF can determine a coin is not a genuine strike from 1805. The same test will not produce a reliable ratio of silver to copper. Silver will always be OVERSTATED by an XRF gun and copper will be understated. These are just the facts of how an XRF gun works.

If you want to use a low power XRF the only value would be to determine very high levels of gold in excess of 1000 ppm. This does occur but so infrequently that the tests is almost a waste of money even at $5 a test (junk yard rates).

The lower the power used by the XRF device the shallower the signal return. However, the denser the element involved the stronger the signal return. These two factors are inverse properties. They are very critical when looking at results. Gold being the heaviest of the three object elements will return a signal from a point near 100 microns which is deep enough for authentication. Copper the least dense element will return a signal from only a fraction of that depth. This is too shallow to penetrate the silver enrichment layer which is found in all older issues that were acid washed at the mint. Silver is of moderate density but penetration past the enrichment layer is rather unlikely.

As an example using theoretical data the two XRF tests might return an alloy signature as follows for three Portrait 8Rs:

Coin 1:
Handheld XRF 94.11% Ag 5.21% Cu 0.01% Au
Laboratory XRF 90.143 Ag 9.337% Cu 0.015% Au

Results indicate POSSIBLY BUT UNLIKELY REAL - further tests advisable. What you see is a 94% silver 5% copper coin with only a 100 PPM gold level. The silver to copper ratio should not represent a problem to authenticity since acid washing or sea water exposure will remove surface copper while retaining the silver. There is some gold detected but not enough to be 100% certain the coin uses the correct alloy. A density test in this case would disclose a Sheffield plate counterfeit far more reliably. Looking at other smaller trace contaminants reported in a laboratory level XRF test might disclose a modern heavy metal that should not be present which would condemn a coin as a Numismatic Forgery.

Coin 2:
Handheld XRF 95.12% Ag 4.81% Cu 0.00% Au
Laboratory XRF 90.043 Ag 9.437% Cu 0.001% Au

Results indicate DEFINATELY NOT GENUINE The handheld test in this case shows a similar incorrect silver to copper ratio as seen with Coin 1 but no gold at all is detected at the 100 ppm level. The laboratory test is conclusive but redundant. The deeper penetration of the XRF beam almost corrects the silver copper ratio but it only confirms the limited amount of gold in the alloy a purity level that could not be achieved until the late 1800's. The inescapable conclusion is that the coin can not be a genuine strike from Mexico made before 1880. This determination can be based on the handheld test alone thereby saving the cost of a lab test.

Coin 3:
Handheld XRF 96.11% Ag 3.71% Cu 0.03% Au
Laboratory XRF 90.343 Ag 8.937% Cu 0.028% Au

Results indicate Alloy is CORRECT for period. COIN MAY BE GENUINE In this case the silver enrichment distortion is very evident in the handheld XRF result the worst silver to copper ratio of the three coins. The key point is the Gold result of 300 ppm. This is within the minimum level set for a genuine alloy seen in coins from Mexico before 1880. Once again the lab test in this case is confirming but unnecessary. The conclusion is ONLY that the alloy is correct - NOT that the coin is in fact genuine. Other analysis is needed to complete the authentication. Evidence like die style, method of manufacture etc.

Note the overall information to take away.

1. XRF tests must be accurate to 0.01 % to be genuinely useful. That level represents a 100 PPM base line. Absolute minimum level based on hundreds of lab tests is 200 ppm. Because extremely few coins test at this level some caution is advised in authentication of any coin that tests below 400 ppm. The average of all results to date is roughly 500 ppm. The highest to date (only seen in the Republican and War of Independence issues) is 3,800 ppm seen on an 1838 Guanajuato 8R.

2. The silver enrichment layer, typical on all coins that have been dipped or pickled in acid will render most silver to copper ratios inaccurate. The lower the power the greater the error. Lab tests can now be done to 10 ppm levels of accuracy but the test is extremely costly (ca $500 per test) so it would be reserved only for extremely valuable coins. Authentication based on the silver to copper ratio is best done using Specific Gravity.

3. The use of handheld XRF testers as an inexpensive screening tool is valid. The only components likely to be accurate are dense elements like gold and platinum. That is all that is needed to exclude most modern forgeries and many Class 2 Silver counterfeits made for the China Trade.

I hope that clears up any issues you may have.