Another Problem Auction - Test #2

The dentils on the pillar side at one o clock look wrong, almost like the die didnt fill properly.

The 'die crack' through the bottom of EI of DEI on the portrait side looks like a casting flaw, almost where two fronts of metal met and didn't marry properly. It's far so round and softened to be a real die crack.

The line through the dot between DEI and GRATIA doesn't look right either.

I'm sure these aren't correct, but to my eye they stand out.

Looks like Carlos lost his dentures :)

TwoKopeiki - Right on - the error in recutting the mouth is one of the major errors on this particular die. There are a couple correct mouths which can appear on King Charles III - but this one was cut into the finished transfer die because the process used failed to get the mouth to show up at all. Here is a comparison of the Chinese copy with a "correct" mouth.

Image Insert:



Ken_3567 the minor o superscript over the M is too thin. It was also a recut feature because the transfer process went bad. I suspect but can not prove that the transfer o had a solid center. When the die was filled and recut they made the o sidewalls too thin. But regarding the spacing of the lettering with regard to the Pillars - the fact that they touch is a legitimate variation. The dies were hand cut and spacings did vary. They followed a pattern but small errors often added up. This is particularly so during the period of the War of Independence when die cutting became crude.

markn - the "weakness" in the dentils to the right of the crown is a feature seen on several different dates all of which use this Mo FF transfer die. It is mated with Charles III and Charles IV portrait dies - I own coins using this FF die paired with 1778, 1780, 1782, 1783 and 1792 and 1794. These last two are fantasy coins since there were no Mo FF coins in those two years. The weakness is actually attributed to a tapered planchet in the host coin being copied. To be REAL - this weakness in the dentils MUST match a similar weakness on the OTHER SIDE. The cause was that the planchet was cut out of wavy flat stock and a thin spot in the planchet caused a loss of detail.
markn You are also right about the "odd looking" die cracks. They look a bit soft because they were on the host coin and had worn. They were transferred to the forged die and again lost a bit in translation. Die crack are often treated as signs of a coin being real - but the forgers know that too and they pick cracked dies and clashed dies on a routine basis - to take advantage of the collectors who can't believe these small features will transfer. The same goes for Chop marks. They are also no guarantee of originality. They do provide some great evidence in person to diagnose a forgery but in a picture - its is .......... about impossible.

Bob is THE man :)

Jim - the reason the edges seem to "stand up" is that these Chinese copies are usually edged AFTER the coin is made (either by striking or by casting). Since both methods are currently being used - I can't say which is employed here precisely. Some seem struck while others made from essentially identical dies/molds are cast copies.

But application of the edge design after the coin is made causes the perimeter of the coin to be upset in a manner similar to a planchet.

Regarding the bony nose - what usually happens is that after a transfer die is made - a technician (an engraver) checks the details and adds or strengthens the missing details. They also smooth the fields and at times recut some of the lettering. These telltale signs can be seen in person when examining the surfaces under 30X or higher magnification. When doing so remember two simple facts - a scratch in the die surface makes a raised line on the coin and post strike damage makes a depressed line (cut) on the coin.