Is The 1870/1807th Mexican 8 Reals A Counterfeit?

This link would seem to indicate it was pretty obviously just a contemporary counterfeit with a normally goofy date:
http://blog.filipinonumismatist.com...of-1807.html

There ARE about (6) or (7) examples of "1872" (should be 1782) Mexico Charles III 8R that were found on the El Cazador wreck... This error is apparently unknown aside from this wreck.

Well, that's just one source, but it seems to be a logical explanation... I'm guessing Bob will be familiar with this issue.

Bob, just to clarify... Bill was wondering about whether the "1870" listed at one point in Krause was a legitimate issue "transposed digits" engraving error (as the "1280" Spain 2R is for 1820). So, you are not aware of any "1870" colonial-style portrait Mex 8R that was NOT a "typical" jibberish date contemporary counterfeit, but in fact an genuine coin w/engraving error, is that correct? That would seem to make the most sense considering that it disappeared from Krause over time... some contributor must have originally (sloppily) mistaken one the old fakes for a genuine mint error b4 it was eventually corrected.

realeswatcher Yes, I am saying that I personally have never seen an 1870 Mo FM dated coin that I believe is a real mint error.

All that I have seen to date were rather obvious counterfeits at least in my opinion. But they may actually exist - I will rarely say NEVER. However, if I were to see a full weight silver strike using the 1870 date, I would subject it to EVERY TEST I could think of to rule out an altered date or a well made silver forgery produced in the 1890s for the bullion trade. Many silver bullion counterfeits are so close to real that it requires tests like XRF to prove when they were produced.

Krause does an excellent job for a general publication but at the same time, they do rely, or used to depend on outside information that was not well verified. The Haitian silver washed coppers which all had Krause numbers before they were pulled were actually recognized as counterfeits well before. I had been collecting them as fakes for years before they were dropped.

One of the problems with numismatics is that information on counterfeits tends to be published ONE TIME and then forgotten. There are no Krause catalogs for known counterfeits. A "clearing-House" type operation that would retain information regarding all of the counterfeits ever discovered in at least image form would be an answer. Such a reference would be an invaluable tool for new comers to coin collecting and for authenticators. But it is a more or less thankless task. If it were profitable someone would already be doing it.

That said, I do know that some such data base is in fact maintained by the TPGs. But it is a private data source and will remain so as long as they see it in their own financial interests to do so. There is obviously no better source of profit for them than to retain a submission fee for a common counterfeit since it costs next to nothing for a "body bag".

In fact, I have always wondered if Krause omits references to counterfeits existing because it does not want to chill the retail market for its own products? Perhaps it does not want to double the size of it's own publications by including all known counterfeit varieties which in many cases outnumber the originals.

When profits are the sole incentive for an operation of any sort, protecting the profit source becomes more important than difficult facts, like preventing fraud by educating the new collectors.