Contemporary Counterfeit Mexico 1824 Hookneck 8R...?

realeswatcher This is unfortunately a GREAT example of what happens when a little information causes a lot of misunderstanding. It is also why collecting counterfeits can be hazardous to your wallet.

The coin is a cast counterfeit as you suspected - there are NO CONTEMPORARY counterfeit Hookneck coins that use a transferred image.

As a modern counterfeit these have been selling for $10 -$15.

Somewhere I have in my notes the name of the two brothers responsible for this particular coin. They were from Mexico City. They began making them in the late 1950's or early 1960's and they were originally sold for $1 each as tourist souvenirs. They were in production until the 1990's I believe. They were sold for $5 in the later stages of production. They are still tremendously common.

This exact version is actually pictured in Hooknecks as an example of a Modern Counterfeit. The "earlier" versions used a reeded edge intentionally so that they could not be accused of counterfeiting.

But more recent versions use a bad imitation of a Republican edge. There is also a very common cast copy of the 1823 Mo version. These more recent copies can actually be called Numismatic Forgeries.

That fact that this happens demonstrates the old addage that you should


There are under a dozen known contemporary counterfeit varieties of the Hookneck 8R and perhaps fewer than 50 exemplars still in existence. All known varieties are fantasy engraved die strikes. There are NO known varieties from any mint other than Mexico City and ONLY 1824 is known to exist. Also there are NO minor denomination Hookneck contemporary counterfeits either.

When any rarity pops up - PLEASE make sure you know exactly what you are doing. The price of $140 is TERRIBLY low for a high grade non-cut Hookneck 8R Contemporary Counterfeit.

The mistake made calling this Numismatic Forgery a Counterfeit is what the collecting community as a group fails to appreciate. The seller here was guilty of FRAUD in writing his description.

Larson in his FANTASTIC book "Numismatic Forgery" was the first to draw a hard and fast distinction between the two classes of fake coins. A Forgery is not the same thing as a Counterfeit - period. We need to start drawing this distinction clearly.

The coins made originally to circulate are COUNTERFEITS. The ones made to DEFRAUD collectors are FORGERIES.

To a collector of fraudulent coins that is an ENORMOUS difference. Numismatic Forgeries are virtually worthless - every single last one. Counterfeits are historical and at times rare and valuable.

It is surprising that so few collectors have come to realize this.

Most US dollar collectors now know beyond any doubt that the micro -O Morgan dollars are with one exception all COUNTERFEITS. They were made to pass for a dollar. But they still sell for thousands. They have VAM numbers.

Most collectors in general know that the 1804 Dollar and the 1913 V nickel are COUNTERFEITS too. But they sell for 7 figures.

The key is they are rare counterfeits made at or near the time the originals were made and for some time they FOOLED the experts and everyone wants one.

realeswatcher You say;


Not wanting to start an argument but at the same time wanting to try to illustrate my position clearly I will have to comment.

That form of term interchangeably is exactly what I see as the problem. Numismatics no longer uses precise terminology for its own purposes. Using one term for both activities which are in their own rights different on many levels makes it more confusing than it needs to be.

Counterfeits and counterfeiters have been around since money was first used in commerce. Counterfeiting is an activity that is far older than collecting of coins. Or of making copies to deceive collectors. It involves replication of a commodity type item and not a collectible. Profit derives from substitution of a less costly item.

Forgery usually is applied to paper money, documents, painting and sculpture. Except for paper money the list of forged items is mostly collectibles. All of the items derive value not from intrinsic content (what the item is made of) but for what value is attached to the item by a collector or government by virtue of who made it and when.

Forgery is the newer phenomenon of the two and often is associated with duplication of items to defraud the collector market as opposed to any circulation or utilitarian use. It some cases the material value of a forgery can exceed the material value of the original but the fraud is based on the inputED value of the item.

That is why it is appropriate to refer to knock-off watches, clothes, shoes as Counterfeits and not as forgeries. The watches are a useful commodity not a collectible. A Picasso is forged not counterfeited. A Susan Anthony dollar is counterfeited not forged.

Then you say


The problem with the use of the adjectives you suggest is that come of them are actually confusing. They do not clarify at all. Modern and Contemporary are two such terms that are at times inaccurate or can be easily confused as to what do they really mean.

Take Contemporary for instance. I have actually heard one ebay seller use the term in the sense of meaning a very recent forgery of a coin. When challenged about using contemporary to mean recent his replay was along the lines that there is Contemporary furniture - Contemporary Art - those are recent in origin. So a Contemporary Counterfeit coin must be recently made as well. That was the fellow's logic.

Then there was another fellow who's text described a coin as


Believe it or not but the auction involved the identical reeded edge 1824 Hookneck coin that was made in the 1960's. I wrote disputing his language and I told him he was selling a counterfeit and that his description was wrong for the particular coin.

We went back and forth a few times but - his reply was interesting. Here was his logic.

1. The coin was not a counterfeit because no reeded edge 1824 Eight reales were ever made. How can you counterfeit something that never existed?

2. It was not a modern fabrication because no one refers to the 1960's as Modern anymore.

3. The coin was an OLD ANTIQUE because it was older than his car which was registered as an antique.

4. The authentic ORIGINAL variety referred back to the reeding which made it a different variety of hookneck 8R and as such it was an original coin of the reeded edge variety that had an authentic look to it.

Language that is vague in its definitions leads to this type of semantic deception.

Please define IS?

Contemporary is a term that is relativistic you need a second factor a context to make it truly meaningful. So contemporary means different things in relation to different objects. We are contemporary members of this forum.

Therefore if a coin circulates for an extended period of time Contemporary can span a period of centuries as in the case of the MTT. How many years after the original coin is made does Contemporary no longer apply? Ten, Twenty or Four hundred. It really varies by the coin involved an does not add much new useful data.

Modern is even worse. Lets say you have a copy of an First century Roman coin made in 1880. Is that "modern"? How many people would get confused calling 1880 modern.

Or how about a 2002 Pound counterfeit or a 2002 Australian $2 counterfeit - they ARE Contemporary Counterfeits. There is no numismatic market for a average circulated version of either coin. So there for now are NO KNOWN FORGERIES of either coin.

Even circulating can be confusing. Some coins have very brief circulating lifetimes while others persist in circulation for centuries. Circulation is not really precise either.

For me Counterfeit used for an economic commodity and Forgery used for a collectible item with a value that is set by the collectibles market (inputed value) is easier. It is also a bit more precise.

I won the 1833 D counterfeit (it is a fantasy mint mark D not actually a Durango.) I also asked about my competition on the other 1833. I think you are right a new ID hiding whom? That was a buy bid on my part just not set high enough. I had been using $500 but I didn't want people running me up so now I use random buy bids. Depending on how rare the coin is. I know of 6 of the 1833 counterfeits so I stayed low. Anyone pushing me lately may own a $100 plus counterfeit for their trouble. The coin itself is a contemporary counterfeit definitely NOT modern and Not Numismatic. It is in fact part of a Riddell related family that existed in 1845.

You are absolutely right about the seller in this case. But he did make an error even if innocent. But so did the buyer. Neither actually knew what they were doing.

I think the last two posts pretty much settled the notion that there just IS no simple terminology here... it has to be described in context.

FWIW... the Spanish of course use the term "falsa de epoca" (fake of the time), which is (supposed to be) pretty much commensurate with "contemporary circulating counterfeits" and is fairly short/to the point. The problem I find is that it gets misused frequently... Basically anything that looks the SLIGHTEST bit not brand new gets incorrectly and/or purposefully labeled "falsa de epoca".

Anyway, back to the old fake Spanish dollars. So that 1833 GoJM IS actually a contemporary piece... OK, now looking at Riddell, only one 1833 GoJM is shown (#308), and neither the obv or rev matches this piece... From the reverse lettering, it DOES look like this reverse might be the same as that shown on #304? This one and that 304 rev are both pretty close to a genuine Go 1833 eagle...

Swamperbob - complete amateur here. I bought a 1804 Mexican 8 Reales which (with some help) I have figured out is a fake or a counterfeit. Would like your help in telling me which. I have read through a lot of your posts so I can give you this info: weight 24.98g, specific gravity 9.3, assayer is marked as FT (not TH). The 8 of 8R has a small pedestal and the castles seem to have rectangular type windows above the top windows. Otherwise the rim edging looks to be correct - as per your posts. Initially thought it was genuine (and some dealers have told me it is genuine) but once I bought a scales to weigh it I realised not. If you can give me any more info on fake vs counterfeit I would really appreicate it. I understand you are writing a book on this so it might be of interest to you. Not v tech savvy so cannot post pictures (they are too big) but if you want I can e-mail them to you. Best regards Conor

ConorW We do record an 1804 Mo FT Class 1 counterfeit. It was already listed in Calbeto's book as # 1894. It seems to match your description even the SG. I consider it to be a decent looking copy definitely from an experienced die maker.

It is in the middle group of slightly more common types with 5 examples known in 3 collections. It is possibly one of the Birmingham styles. We expect to see a few more of these after publication.

Here is the book entry. Size limits what you can see here.





It is just a bit of a surprise that any professional coin dealer would not spot the coin as counterfeit. The portrait is incorrect. But if anyone has trouble with this one they will really have fits with the ones that are closer to real looking.

Yes that's the one alright. When you say Birmingham does that mean it was made in UK? If so that would make sense as I am in Ireland. The one I have is a bit worn, is it worth anything do you think?