MathieuMa The YII stamp does look very good. If it not real it is a very faithful copy.
The YII was applied from 1834-1837. The depth of the punch is EXTREME in my opinion causing the split. I agree that properly annealed silvber should NOT split like that and the Philippines did in fact anneal the coins first.
I do NOT agree at all that extensive wear has occurred AFTER the YII was added. In fact the split extends into the percussion on the reverse and there is a fin that in my opinion SHOULD HAVBE WORN DOWN FIRST.
The Mozambique stamp on the other hand was applied in 1889. That punch while set much shallower STILL made a percussive depression on the reverse which shows no more nor less post strike wear.
The Chinese stamps are all widely spaced - TOO NEAT a layout. They are all far too uniform and they repeat on BOTH sides too often. I agree they look simply too new.
So even though the YII looks like a good imitation of a punch, I believe the coin is a Modern Fabrication.
The YII was applied from 1834-1837. The depth of the punch is EXTREME in my opinion causing the split. I agree that properly annealed silvber should NOT split like that and the Philippines did in fact anneal the coins first.
I do NOT agree at all that extensive wear has occurred AFTER the YII was added. In fact the split extends into the percussion on the reverse and there is a fin that in my opinion SHOULD HAVBE WORN DOWN FIRST.
The Mozambique stamp on the other hand was applied in 1889. That punch while set much shallower STILL made a percussive depression on the reverse which shows no more nor less post strike wear.
The Chinese stamps are all widely spaced - TOO NEAT a layout. They are all far too uniform and they repeat on BOTH sides too often. I agree they look simply too new.
So even though the YII looks like a good imitation of a punch, I believe the coin is a Modern Fabrication.



















