Pillar Dollar 1755, Is It Real ?

Ouch, you should check for some documentation before starting this serie : there are many copies.
And what you found here is an almost fantasy copy : actually, everything is there, but the coins edge is totally off (no need to check the rim)
Check some real ones on auction sites for example (ha.com) - and avoid buying from china (unless you know what you are doing)
You can also search this forum - there has been a lot of discussions.

Feel free to join this facebook group about spanish coin forgeries - we try to report fakes we spot on ebay among other things :
https://www.facebook.com/groups/monedafalsa/

Sander I agree with Mathieu, you need to study some more before attempting to buy a coin in this series. It will save you some money.

I say this because you have selected a coin that is WRONG in nearly every particular. It is a modern collar struck coin made from mechanically created dies. It was possibly photo engraved but definitely it was not hand made. It simply looks modern and if you have to ask if it is real - you should not be buying yet.

A few of the things most wrong are:

1. The coin has a raised rim around the circumference - this is indicative of a collared strike. This creates a perfectly round and well centered coin but originals were struck in an open sided press and they NEVER have a raised rim and are rarely well centered or round.

2. The beads inside the raised rim are a modern device adopted when collars came into use. The original coins had larger lozenge shaped dentils that ran to the edge of the coin.

3. The fields are too heavily polished. This looks like a modern proof die with mirror fields. The originals were polished with crude equipment often just by hand and a mirror field was never achieved. It was NOT a goal.

4. The lettering is not punched into the die. It is too uniform in depth it looks too good. It reflects the light too uniformly and the letters appear rounded and very smooth - not angular and slightly irregular. On originals each letter was punched into the die separately - depth of set varies. Many letters are re-punched leaving doubled outlines in various directions. Most coins show some of the base of the letter punch where reinforcing metal was added to stiffen the punch. All of these early clues are missing. The die does have some irregular alignment of letters and irregular spacing but the letters themselves are too uniform.

5. The primary designs are actually a bit too small. They have been crowded into the center by extremely wide margins. This makes the coin look like a lower denomination not an 8R.

6. Finally the details of the designs are not consistant with originals. If you compare this coin to the photo of a real 1755 8R from Lima you can see immediately it is wrong.

Notice in this analysis, I proceeded from strike method to design which is in my opinion the best way to look at any coin. Look for inconsistencies in manufacture before you look at the details of the design.

If you look at the design and it is perfect match for the coin you want (because it is a good transfer copy) you may overlook methodology errors because by that point you like the appearance of the coin and would love to own it.

Don't step in the trap of thinking it looks good because the design is correct. The design is the easy part. Making it the right way is much harder.

Would you please post a picture of the edge of the 1895 coin?