8 Reales Mexico 1756 Forgery Or Real

Absolutely correct - if both laps were on one coin it would have been a fake.

Well, those two coins I posted are genuine ;)

Here is the complete rim of the first one :




As for the second one, it's just worn out a bit, I never said this coin was a super graded one :D

Hi group, I have a Pillar 8R but it is in suspicious to be a counterfeit. First the coin is smaller than my three other Pillar 8R, 1739, 1753 and 1771. Second, it is hard to explain why the surface is so strange. Other than that the weight is correct and S.G. is also right. I post it for those experts such as swamperbob and MathieuMa and others to examine and hope you can give a feedback to me.

The weight and diameter of the coin 26.93 grams, 38.1-38.3mm. The S.G. is 10.318. Two edge overlap at exact opposite positions (Observe D.G. and REX), "G" and "E" position.






1st edge overlap:

2nd edge overlap:

I'm not a specialist, Swamperbob is :)
Most of what I've learned comes from him, the rest is just getting used to check coins and see what looks wrong / right.

I don't see anything suspicious on your coin, although I would check it with a nice lens (particularly letter details, and denticles)
The rim design looks perfect, as well as the overlap / overlap position.

One more there is a strange property about this Pillar 1753 - arrangement direction of the edge tulips changes oppositely at two junctions. Please see pictures.

As Jfansch has pointed out edge reversal was experimented with for a period of time - it was actually quite sensible when the blanking punches were worn and sloppy - a good match could not be achieved and a reversal solved that issue.

Regarding the 1771 issue - different apparatus had been installed in anticipation of the complete update of coinage with a much lower relief die. The new screws and the lower relief made higher production possible.

The first coin you show 2 pictures of I have comments. The first photo shows what I would call normal bag marking. That is the reason for the excessive numbers of tiny dings.

But the second picture - there is more of a concern here. I actually see dentils that STOP short of the edge at an arc indicating the edge of the die that was in use. This feature (which is impossible to be sure of from a 2 dimensional photo) would PROVE beyond a doubt that the coin is in fact a forgery.

Wear is entirely different and never causes the dentils to stop at an arc in the die. Here is the photo I am concerned about. The coin should be edged BEFORE it was struck and I am concerned about where the dentils actually terminate in this case. See below.





The problem I see is that a real die is BIGGER than the flan (planchet) but a forged die made from a coin is COIN sized not as big as a die. This can cause the dentils to extend only partially to the edge of the coin.

Position 1 is the edge of a Fake die 2 is a Real die. The coin is at the bottom die at top.

The priority of edge or strike is a slightly different point.

The discussion here is about a counterfeit die made from a coin. The die made from a coin is too small - it is coin sized NOT DIE SIZED. So the fake die has to be PERFECTLY aligned with the planchet or you see some of the end (edge) of the die. On a real coin the die being much bigger than the planchet will never show such a termination arc. In the case of your coin the alignment looks almost perfect - perhaps only a 1/2 mm off. What I am concerned that I am seeing is that the face die ended before the actual edge of the coin was reached. In the picture above the real die #2 extends outward BEYOND the edge of the coin so the dentils run to the edge of the metal.

Here is a sketch of what I am trying to say. The appearance of a real coin at left (A) where the dentils run all the way to the edge of the coin and the edge at the right (B) where the dentils stop at an arc BEFORE the edge is reached.




Now about priority. The element added first will be displaced (damaged) by the second application. The following picture is a COUNTERFEIT Portrait 8R that was struck first and edged later. The wear spots dramatically emphasise the distortion of the coin caused by the application of the edge after the coin was struck.


This is an extreme but conclusive example of what I mean. Had the coin been struck after the edge was applied the distortion would have been flattened out by the strike.

Often when a coin is edged first - the edge design gets compressed by the strike and the dentils can be variable in length. The dentils in that case should follow the metal available which was altered by the edging. The following a a piece of one of the pictures in this post that illustrates a coin the was edged BEFORE the strike.




The dentils extend as far as there is metal and if you looked at the edge at this point the design should be compressed.

BUT what I see on your coin is neither really. The line seem to indicate the edge and faces did not alter either. The edge does not look compressed by the edge application and the dentils stop just short of the edge of the coin. I would of course check the opposite side at this point to see if the edge was not centered.

But in most cases, what I am seeing here would push me toward believing the coin is just a fake.