1789 8 Reales

realeswatcher The "goofy windows" are a punch they are not seen on one die. The dies I have seen the "goofy windows" on are distinct and different dies. But the punch is what is identical.

Who made them is a different question. The 1776 Mo FF is a modern fake. But putting myself in China and wanting to sel junk - I have alternative sources. I am not limited to selling just modern fakes. I can always sell back the old ones.

I have yet to win enough of the "goofy window" kind but years back I did identify another fake family by a break in the castle. That group are all Potosi and run from 1775 to 1789 all have the same broken punch several are Sheffield plate. MOST come out of China. But they were not made there and were not made recently. This family still appears today but I suspect it was made about 1830 or earlier. (The broken Castle series is in the new book. It even includes a cast bowl bottom coin.)

Remember that China was on the receiving end of MILLIONS of phony 8Rs made in England, France, the Netherlands and the US. What I see as happening is that many of these are just now returning to the World market after spending the past 80 years or so hidden away in China.

It is of course possible that the forgers used originals with "goofy windows" as models but if so they must have made a punch from one.

One of the earlier forms of high grade forgery was to make a punch set by copying each feature of an original coin piece by piece. That way the die features looked real but the arrangement varied slightly. They also did not have to make one entire copy at one time. It reduced bubbles and surface issues.

I read many posts written about goofy windows of the castles about the Latin American 8R is a proof to identify a contemporary counterfeit. Could anybody confirm or reject this findings. I see another 1789 8R countermarked with the bust of George III by Bank of England but with goofy windows. The counterstamp looks good to me so could this coin be an exampe to overrule goofy-windows be a proof of contemporary counterfiet?

Please see the listing,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/15116349228....m1438.l2649

I am looking forward to seeing your comments.

I think the stamp looks good as well. That to me proves the "goofy windows" are a contemporary counterfeit issue - or someone has perfected the oval puncheon.

The fact the goofy windows dies were used on off metal strikes is hard to refute.

realeswatcher It would seem that the possibility of a "genuine" stamp on a Class 2 (silver restrike) counterfeit is a contradiction in terms and would lead to a re-assessment of the date and classification of the variety.

However, the genuine oval puncheons used as Dollar counter stamps prior to 1797-1804 Emergency were as I recall actually privy stamps used to mark sterling silver for tax collecting purposes and those punches were used until about 1820 for that purpose. Some of these punches survived the reign of George III entirely and were later used to mark a variety of world silver coins for the collector market until the middle part of the 1800s.

So the case is not as simple as it might seem. The production date for high silver content restrikes (85% silver and higher) appears to be fixed correctly at about 1830 but it is possible that a "genuine" stamp could have been applied after 1830.

The "goofy windows are clearly seen on several successive years of coins that use different reverse dies. As I recall 1786 to 1790 is the range. That is 4 years. The fact that numerous reverse dies were made with is anomalous window design tends to prove that the punch in use making the dies had the goofy windows. The chance that the punch was in a genuine die set in Mexico City is extremely unlikely because of the large number of dies produced per year. I have now examined in hand several examples of the goofy windows variety and none of these are genuine products of the 1786-1790 period in my own opinion. I am not certain if any of my XRF test results include one of these particular coins. I do not have that data handy it is stored with each tested coin. I am not even certain that I ever got to send any of the goofy windows to John for testing before he changed jobs.

So as I see it, one possibility is that a Silver restrike or many restrikes (Class 2) made in the UK (ca 1830-40) could have been stamped with a surviving oval privy punch before the coins went to China to lend an air of authenticity to a silver shipment. The test cut does tend to prove circulation and suspicion both.

I suspect that the flow of silver from the UK to China was reversed in part during and after the Opium Wars because the Chinese had to pay the UK for the supply of opium. But other trading partners that lacked trade goods such as opium were still in a deficit position and continued to manufacture Class 2 coins for China. France and the Netherlands are the likely makers or consumers for the silver restrikes in the 1830-1850 period and thereafter the US entered the market and dominated the production until the early 1900s.

It is an interesting topic and still under study.

Question two - where have I been?

Recently my time has been consumed by a few things. Editing the book continues and now (as of Friday) I am adding the Ringo collection to the body of the work.

The Stacks auction today contained some real surprises like the sale of one 8R counterfeit for $1 (my bid). The bulk lot of 13 that brought $188 was a huge surprise. That one was actually my bid too. I love the unknown and $20 each for Ringo counterfeits was worth a gamble. A few went rather high but as expected the really odd designs did best. The die pair that sold in an earlier session for $3500 was a good price too.

I did enjoy seeing the first use of the GNL numbering system.

Stacks was sent a copy of our preliminary work to use in cataloging Ringo's collection. I would have preferred to do it myself (I could have added all the GNL unlisted examples and they would have been GNL - Unique coins). But the Stack's photos are great and I am re-checking their work. I started yesterday and I have found three errors in the Stacks use of the GNL system. One was caused by a re-numbering that was done to eliminate a duplication and the other two were misinterpreted dates. I think that is the limit of the incorrect GNL numbers. Three out of 56 is not too bad. There are a few other minor typos in their list but everything is easily re-done. There was one coin that had the look of a "modern" Numismatic forgery of Class 3. I tried to win that one to be positive but I do not ever go over $30 for that type and it sold for $35. The other 55 I concur are legitimate Class 1 counterfeits.

The book itself is progressing. Editing is in the 13th month now. There have been three major revisions - not what the text says but more about style and grammatical consistency. I am an engineer and we are noted for being poor at English. One chapter was totally re-written based on some last minute research and two new chapters were added at the editor's suggestion. We were also forced to butt another appendix.

The ANS collection is now being done as the added Appendix because I still have not been given access to even decent pictures of the coins.

I also have been among the missing because of my ebay involvement for the past 11 months as a member of their Coin Committee. That has been a good learning experience. It seems that for a big company they are fairly receptive to change especially if you can help the bottom line. So some changes in policy may be in the wind.

All due respect coinworldtv, but I have seen your ebay auctions over the course of several years and some of the coins you have sold as genuine were in fact contemporary counterfeits. I am sorry to say but I would not seriously consider your opinion in this area.

...when we talk about forgeries, here is a real forgery:





...recently sold on ebay :(

Numismat I think your statement is unfair to Filip because there is every reason to believe that he is completely unaware that this type of Counterfeit even exists. Most dealers and collectors do not understand that these coins were even made. That is why we wrote the book.

The kind of counterfeit being discussed is one that looks almost exactly like an original and which was made to substitute for an original without detection by professional authenticators (schroffs).

Many of these coins already exist slabbed as genuine issues by TPGs. These are the micro O versions of the 8 Reales and many date to the period of the silver crisis decades between 1870 and 1900.

The Class 2 Silver Counterfeits were made to original Spanish specifications and circulated successfully for decades. Production of the replica coins ran from 1830 to 1930 and in that 100 year period tens of millions were delivered to mainland China.

These are not typical counterfeits which created value by using less valuable metal than they should.

These coins are unauthorized silver restrikes used because the inland Chinese paid a premium over face value for Charles III and Charles IV Mexican 8 Reales. The premium in 1830 was 16% over silver content and by 1900 it was 26%. The premium hit a high point of 80% over silver value and averaged 25% for the entire 100 year period.

I believe I am the first person to publish on this subject seriously for about 100 years. I heard about it as a young teen from a very old family friend who knew because he was involved in the manufacture right at the end 1920 to 1930. He gave me a coin he made. I tested the coin with XRF and it is missing trace elements always found in 8Rs dated 1805. It is a counterfeit. I have shown the coin to literally hundreds o experienced dealers who are 100% honest. NO ONE has ever believed it was a counterfeit. But it is.

How many other members of this forum had heard of a "Boston" forgery before I began writing about them?

So with all sincerity - I feel I need to apologize to Filip because the members of this forum are up to speed on a topic that is still virtually UNKNOWN to the rest of the world.

I am trying to avoid the "collective amnesia" that tends to develop in the numismatic community if topics are not periodically republished.

That is the case here. So Filip - I apologize. The only coins I have ever noted in your inventory which I refer to as counterfeits are also found in every other major dealer's inventory. They are counterfeits hiding in plain sight because they are so well made and have never attracted the attention the micro-O dollars did.

Dear Numismat,

we have similar situations in a few areas:

* The Netherlands Gold Ducat - Struck in secret by the Russians at the St. Petersburg mint and dated 1818-1841, which is twice as expensive than the regular issues. There is also a theory about dutch gold ducats struck in germany for a military payment, which is not well documented until today.

* The Junk Dollar - Nearly 130 million of these coins were minted in China in 1934. In 1949, U.S. mints restruck 30 million more "Junk Dollars" dated the 23rd year of the Republic of China (1934).

* The 1780 dated Maria Theresa Thalers - 80 Million (and still counting), but there is a good catalogue, which helps to identify the different variations, struck 233-0 years ago (some of which are also worth more than the original strikes).

Please remember, all the "major dealers" and professional authenticators (i do not know the meaning of the word "schroffs"?),
do not use the word "counterfeit", but a softer word like "variety".

I would like to read your book, but please do not accuse people to have counterfeits in their inventory (after all we are all
numismatists and try to do our best, we are not deceivers).

I would recommend to use a softer term like an British (if you think, the coin is struck there) struck or European strike of a Mexico dollar.

For the rest of us (dealers and authenticators) your theory might be considered, but not automatically adopted.

After all you will also not have your scientific work described as an "Urban Myth".

Sincerly
Filip / CWTV