A New NCS Graded 8 Reales.

jcmworld You ask:


Actually that is the issue I am trying to explore with the members on the forum.

Do you think NCS did a good job with this coin?

Bob
I think you may have a counterfeit slab on this one. The grader would have to be suffering flashbacks from a misguided youth to slab this coin as real. Is there a way to verify the slab itself?

jfransch Unlike NGC - the database for NCS does not include a photo of the coin in the holder. That would be much better of course. But the NCS look up did return the correct description as stated on the slab.

When it arrives I plan to check the slab very closely of course. But I believe this one was really encapsulated - they thought it was real.

Your surprise about equalled mine. It comes right after the 1830 Riddell variety - within a couple weeks of when I started reviewing slabbed auctions. I actually had been avoiding them because I figured they did better than this. I had really never expected to see a Contemporary Counterfeit in an NGC slab. It wasn't until the Rupia last year that I started wondering.

NOW I LOOK AT EVERY NGC SLABBED COIN. Just in case.

I am really looking for an example of my avatar in a slab. That would be priceless to me.

The coin arrived today. The slab is intact and it was clearly an NCS error. Even my wife who knows NOTHING about counterfeit coins recognized that the coin was bad. She has seen enough real coins to know the difference.

So I think there is no excuse whatsoever about the coin being slabbed. How and why is beyond me.

It is the best example of this counterfeit type I have ever seen. I own a few different metal types made from this die pair (3). This one appears to be a standard low grade silver which is the most common sub-variety. There is a clad version but I see no evidence of that being the case here.

realeswatcher You say:



The answer is Yes and No. Yes this is a common type and no not all 1844 Zs counterfeits are common.

This particular 1844 Zs is what I call a common type. I have seen perhaps 50 to 100 of them (all in the past 15 years). I was worried about it when I first saw it but I have resolved that issue. It was apparently not an issue that traveled north.

I do not track over 50. (Anything above 50 examples is common). There are two 1844 Zs varieties that I classify as common and 2 others that are scarce. A scarce counterfeit is one I have seen 10 to 50 times. These 4 varieties I would say are possible to locate if you wait long enough.

However, I have seen a total of 12 varieties of 1844 Zs CC 8Rs. So that means for 8 of 12 varieties I have seen fewer than 10 each and 4 of the 8 are unique varieties.

There is no true scale of rarity for contemporary counterfeits. They are not well publicised. I would love to change that and make the information readily available, but I doubt most collectors would join in. I think it would be great to register every CC coin there is. But how would that effort be paid for?

All contemporary counterfeits (or nearly all) are more scarce than originals and that is as it should be. The number of CC coins at any given point in history averaged 1 % of the circulating coins and peaked at about 10% in the Hard Times. That still means that there should be 10 originals for every counterfeit.

Today in pocket change - are there counterfeits? If so how many? What is the percentage today?

The fact that counterfeits are worth so little has NOTHING to do with actual rarity and everything to do with simple demand. I do not think there are 100 serious collectors of counterfeits (like myself) in the entire world.

realeswatcher Your semi-observant eye is fairly accurate. The most common dates (based on raw numbers) are 1832, 1834, and 1842.

Close contenders after that are 1829, 1830, 1836, 1838 and 1844.

Even dates outnumber odd by a wide margin. (No reason they just do).

There are a few Riddells that are scarce to common and appear at least one time a year on ebay. That list is:

221 1829 Zs AO
223 ZS OM dates 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834
237 Zs OM dates 1834, 1842 (Two varieties A,B)
246 1835 Zs OM
247 1836 Zs OM
274 Zs OM dates 1836, 1842
279 1843 Zs OM
302 Go MJ dates 1832, 1834
314 1834 Go PJ
324 Go PJ dates 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839
350,351 Do RL dates 1826, 1827, 1838
365 Do RM dates 1832, 1834
371 Do RM dates 1832, 1834
373 1836 Do RM
377 1839 Do RM
404 1838 Ms OM
406 1827 G AO
412 1840 G PJ and G J
417 1836 Ds RI

Of these there are 5 that are common

233 1832 and 1834 ZsOM
237 !834 and 1842 Zs OM (A variety only)
274 1834 Zs OM
371 1832 Do RM and mules
374 1834 Do RM and mules

Overall these 5 are also the most common including even the non-Riddells.

The 371/374 family is overall the MOST COMMON forgery type that exists. There are 2-3 per month on average. It is also a hubbed die family with several die varieties. It is a fun family because of interrelated matings that I am still actively working on.

The 237 is the second most common of all counterfeits coming up every two months or so but has the widest range of alloys of any of the contemporaries. It is also my favorite counterfeit because it was my first. I am approaching 100 copies of that Riddell # in my own collection because I collect it by alloy, striking variety, and die state. I even collect by cancellation method. But I do not buy every one I see. I pass over 2 out of 3 because there is no difference by my criteria.