Mexico 1886 Something...

You are right it has to be a 6 - hard for me to see, but now that you point it out the eagle die is NOT the standard die AND the assayer initials are JS not FZ - I have no idea why I fixated on the 88 date. Dragon's teeth were not used in 1886.

gxseries You have what may be a rare overdate. The overdate is rather hard to spot especially on a worn copy like yours. There are three small spots where the OD usually shows. At the top there is a thin horizontal line (part of the top of the 5) that shows very weakly as it protrudes out of the very top of the 6. this line is perhaps 1/10th mm in length and may have been worn off. In the upper loop of the 6 at the left side the letter is just a shade thicker caused by the upright line on the left side of the 5. This is even smaller than the horizontal line and on a worn copy is almost never visible. The third part of the under digit is the thing I would expect to see on a worn coin but the photo is washed out at this point. The small ball at the terminus of the lower loop of the 5 extends into the inside of the lower loop of the 6. It is prominent and even on a worn copy it should still be visible.

1886,no overdate

weinidaxiong Thank you for posting a picture of an encapsulated copy (which service did the grading?

odentheviking Because the coin in question is rather worn only the deepest part of the eye clearly shows - the dot. If you compare it with the encapsulated coin, you can see that the eye is actually a two level detail deeper near the beak and weaker as you proceed to the left. Wear has removed all but the deepest part.

Wear can make a coin change appearance in subtle ways. I still do not see anything that worries me based on a photo.

I did notice a VERY INTERESTING feature however, that the s superscripts on the assay legend and even the mint mark are tilted. This observation supports the idea that in 1886 Zacatecas was still using a partial hub to create their working dies. The superscripts, being low relief and tiny, may have been reserved as finishing touches to be added after primary hubbing. This would in turn mean that Zs dies as late as 1886 are in fact subject to variation and could be classified individually. I had not actually suspected that was the case after the 1870s. Interesting potential.

Of course, this could also be a case of die repair. Die repair at this time was not as common as in the 1830s or 1840s but still did occur. The coin would be worth studying closely to determine why the s superscripts are not positioned radially as is conventional.

Apologies for the late reply and hopefully these are better photos. These are the original photos that I took and I haven't reshot them since then as I have to leave again in 8 hours time and be back next weekend...

http://www.gxseries.com/dump/IMGP0173.jpg

http://www.gxseries.com/dump/IMGP0174.jpg

Hopefully they will be of some use. I still don't think it's an overdate but found it fun as it created this interesting conversation. Couldn't believe that swamperbob missed his diagnostics initally

Thanks Swamperbob and Realpeso, I have to say that from all I have read here ref. this style coin, I have decided to not collect them due to the high number of fakes and the high quality! of fakes. I will stick to what I "think" I know, that is Pillars.

Real peso, can you shoot me an e-mail when you get a chance? Thanks.

gxseries I am only human - I get the same feeling every time I accidentally buy a real coin. My current average is about 98 out of 100 correct.

jfransch I agree - the larger photos make it rather clear that the coin is not the overdate.

odentheviking Every collector has his or her own unique interests and unique abilities. That is why we do not all collect one type exclusively.