This Coin From Ebay, 8 Reales Mexico 1769, Is Fake Or Not?

I don't like the way the crack looks on the pillar side, and the way the edge denticles looks as well ...
A die break shouldn't lead to extra metal flowing like that.
Swamperbob, am I correct ?

I was hoping to see the edge as well before commenting but here goes.

The crack in this case could be an early state die split in which the entire die breaks at once right across the face. On the coin this of course shows as raised metal. The metal flows into the crack - usually widening it progressively with each strike. Like a root splitting a rock. When it happens the die become useless VERY quickly so hundreds of copies that are identical is an impossibility.

I am slightly bothered by the fact that the die split is not visible on the left globe and seems to be smoothed out somewhat over the right globe. That would be a great feature to look at using a high power binocular microscope.

I tried to enlarge the pictures to see the details of the split as they show on the coin. The pictures are a bit too fuzzy to be sure of anything. There are two areas of the that cause me to question the nature of the die material.

The first area is the split over the mint mark on the left side of the date. There appears to be a double row on raised dashes as if there was a partial infilling of two parallel cracks. Such a bifurcated crack can happen in a steel failure but I am looking for something that should also have happened in that case. I would normally examine at 300X or higher power.

The second area is at the other end of the split in the first change of direction about 2 1/2 mm to the right of the right pillar. I would also examine the crack where it passes the lower serif of the M in VNUM and the rosette. In both cases the metal extruding points to small die chips breaking away. The shapes of these chips and they way they broke away can be very informative. The location near the M is the most suspicious of the sites.

So my opinion right now is that the coin is suspicious. It has quite clearly been cleaned and original surfaces are unlikely to be present.

I also noticed what may be a trace of a hangar being removed at top center. On the obverse it is possible that the E at the top was partially covered. On the reverse at the same position there is some mechanical damage to the rim. If the coin was at one time used as a pendant that would account for the loss of the original surfaces and might point to the coin being an original. On the flip side of that theory would be the requirement that a defective coin (split die strike) was mounted. When these were used as jewelry - it would seem that they would use a nicer example to begin with.

If edge photos and blow-ups (clear) of the areas in question can be provided by the owner I would be very happy to review and/or revise my opinion.

Thank you, your opinions are very important to me. I can see thinks that I don't saw before. I don't bid.
thank you very much