Questionable 1832 Mexico 8 Reale

Thanks Roman ,,Bump to page one !

Metalman

Curious - the damage on the cap side appears to read "UN CENT", as in 1 Centavo. How interesting...

Metalman - Hi sorry for the delay but I was with my wife in court for three weeks - she was a juror and is in a wheelchair, so they had an unofficial 13th juror on this case. I did agree with the verdict by the way.

A couple of your concerns can be handled quickly. The mint marks in 1832 were different than in 1877. So NO CONCERN there. Earlier mint marks included several where the "superscript" was inside the larger letter. By 1877, the mint marks were more or less standardized - with only Mexico City getting to put the superscript in a special place - right above the large letter. The variations in the mint marks are actually a very interesting sub-set to collect. One of the oddest is the San Luis Potiosi coin with iP instead of Pi. But that is a different subject.

Second, the early 8Rs were usually struck with a medalic die alignment. The coin die axis was adopted over a span of a couple decades between 1830 and 1850 and the date of adoption was different for each mint. There were also some flip flops along the way and the odd die rotation or two. By 1877, all 8Rs are essentially Trade dollars with a standardized coin orientation (the medalic strikes are all mint errors by then).

I don't really understand the comment about the lettering being in a different orientation. But I can tell you that the 1832 is an exact copy of the standard hub adopted in 1830 so the lettering (including spacings) is correct for the year 1832. The hubs were used until early 1843.

The counterstamp is indeed interesting. But I am not sure what produced that. Looks like someone may have pounded another coin into the surface. It would be interesting to do a mirror image to see if it could be identified. I would classify it as "post manufacture" damage - albeit very interesting damage.

Size of an 8R was also not a great concern before this piece became a Trade dollar. For example, the Chihuahua coins from the early 1830s are often so small that the lettering WILL NOT ALL FIT. The Zs coins from 1835 are often OVAL. But the Guanajuato coins are usually the most standardized in diameter at this point in time (after 1830). The final standard size (seen in the 1877) was adopted after the death of Maximillian. The size here is a REAL problem. The Guanajuato mint in 1830 adopted the first of the full hub die presses. This mint was run NOT by the Mexican Government but by Anglo-Mexicana (Manning and Marshall). They also bought up to date planchet apparatus so the blanks were much better. At 3 mm too small I presume that you have a cast counterfeit made from a mold that shrunk a bit. That was followed by a casting that also may have shrunk. That points to an early origin. By the 1870s, most forgers had started correcting the diameters by enlarging the molds just a bit at the edge.

By now, I guess you know that I agree the coin is a counterfeit. The surface pores appear to be die pores and not corrosion pores in the coin itself. You have to ask how did that happen? The die surfaces were not ground before being hardened as they should have been. It looks like a sand or coarse plaster casting from the period before 1900. Sand and plaster castings are of course still being made but this one looks old.

Molds are simply not as hard as dies and chips occur easily producing lumps on the finished product.

If you ever want to get rid of that coin I would absolutely be interested.

Metalman and all interested Now that I have had the opportunity to study the coin in person, I have a definitive answer to the issue of what this 1832 Go is.

First, let me say that pictures can often be deceptive, but that is rarely the case in person.

The coin is in my opinion a REAL 1832 Guanajuato 8R which was subjected to an intense fire while stacked under a US Large Cent and on top of two dollar sized coins. The cap side was facing upward and the eagle facing downward during the fire. The coin heated to near the melting point of silver based on metal flow. There was definitely a US Large Cent on top of it when it burned. I did a photo reversal of the "impressed image" and it matches the letter font and leaf pattern used from 1809 to 1839. The large cent itself was in all probability not destroyed by the fire, but it did eat it's way into the surface of the silver coin. Silver has a lower melting point than copper and it appears that the penny caused the silver coin to melt (erode) away at the points of direct contact. This happened to a lesser degree on the lower surface of the 8R.

The image of the cent (which is of course backward) was NOT PRESSED into the surface - the holes in the 8R are actually more like erosion features - the edges are undercut. This makes the recessed areas slightly LARGER than the hole present at the coin's surface. But this is clearly not a case of catalytic or electrolytic erosion because of the overall appearance of the coin's surfaces and the "lumps" on the downward facing side caused by the silver reaching a plastic state. Based on the uniformity if the height of these "features" the coin was in a stack or pile of coins - but not a uniform (columnar) stack. I believe I can make out two circular contact marks on the eagle side which would indicate the 8R rested on TWO dollar sized coins. The largest lumps of silver are found in the spaces BETWEEN those two coins.

I believe the coin was in a fire because of the "grainy" appearance of the surface - like the appearance of a silver ingot when it air cools - there are a multitude of small circular protrusions (bumps) that uniformly cover each and every surface including the spaces within the voids. These resemble a near crystaline structure when viewed under a microscope. They are a tell-tale feature on nearly every burned coin I have examined. Within some of the deeper voids created by the Large cent there are small deposits of a darker metal - perhaps copper? or metal from a softer coin piled above the level of the 8R.

I have purchased many "burned" 8Rs which sellers believed to be cast copies. It happens, it is part of the game when you collect counterfeits. But this coin is really interesting because it provides PROOF POSITIVE that the Mexican coin was circulating in the US in 1832 or sometime thereafter. US copper coins were never used in Mexico (they were only legal here in the US in limited amounts), so the only place they would likely have come together is the US. There are no traces of materials that would be from coin holders and since the coins were piled up - I doubt we are dealing with a numismatic collection that burned. The date of the fire is of course conjectural, but the cent was not made after 1839. It was either a Turban or Coronet cent. Could this have been a casualty of war that was dug up later? There are stories about Mexican silver dollars being retained after the 1857 termination of their status as legal tender. All in all, a date anywhere between 1832 and 1865 is quite possible.

It is a very interesting study piece.