What Is Wrong With NGC? 1829 Zs Ao 8 Reales

It could simply be that they want to make their money on it, since the coin will pass the TPG's. Or it could be that there were genuine examples with the same characteristics that were subsequently copied with the same design details. Either way there seems to be a gray area with these things.

Money talks!! What I mean is if coins are purported to be rare valuable or significanly collectible, and have known people standing behind them it is just too hard to go against the flow. So people will bend. In a,collecting, generation or so these coins will be seen as fakes.

as for the grade on the coin...I have to say any grade above very fine is a joke, and, IMHO, it is not appropriate to accept any graffiti on a coin and then call it anything like uncirculated. Think about it! Circulated is generally supposed to refer to a coin that has been put away before it has been circulated, the graffiti tells us immediately it isn't uncirculated. that coin is VF at best!

Bob, I'm being a bit lazy in not searching past archives on here, so I apologize if you've discussed this (these) specific CC in detail in an older thread... what's your thought on the Riddell 221, 223, and any related pieces? Riddell says "snake too long, ground too low"... is that correct - that there are no genuine examples with perhaps different dies than what Riddell was comparing to? In other words, is it certain that there isn't a genuine ("regal") version struck with the same exact dies? These clearly look die-struck with detail at least VERY close to genuine examples (though that's just casual observation, not careful study). It must reflect either access to actual mint punches (to make a fairly close die), OR access to the entire die itself, right?

I am going to try out my line of thought here before contacting the principles in this case.

To bring everyone up to date I asked Bruce Raplee if he would allow me to examine the coin as well.

As some one pointed out earlier - some old school experts take strong exception to fellows like myself who do not rely just on subjective opinion gained through years of experience but add to that scientific tests as objective proof.

The Riddell 221, 223, 365 and 371 are far and away the MOST COMMON contemporary circulating counterfeits anyone is aware of. They appear on ebay at least once a month and can be found at almost every coin show in the US. They were exceptionally well made and were extremely successful as forgeries. They were the Henning nickels of their day. They still number in the thousands of copies even today - far too many for one die pair to have been responsible for all of this production.

I actually have 4 subject coins. I will not use any of my own copies but I have 15 in different metals and 27 counting duplicates. The following pictures are limited by transfer size so bear with the process.

1. The Riddell # 221 taken from Riddell's 1845 book - this is a photo copy of the 1969 reprint which I use routinely. The Google books version is a copy of an original print but only slightly better in terms of clarity. For those unfamiliar with Riddell's work it should be noted that he made type metal impressions of the coins in his book which were used in the actual printing of the book. They contain some extra crud here and there but they do capture the earliest accurate pictures ever made of circulating counterfeits in the history of Numismatics.



2. The NGC version belonging to Bruce Raplee which was reviewed by Mike Dunigan and he believes it is real. This coin appears to be a precise match to the Riddell coin when examined detail by detail, as I hope to demonstrate.



3. The Ponterio coin which I believe is a coin made from a hubbed identical die pair. This exhibits wear characteristics pointing to more than one die being used.



4. The Dunigan example of the 1829 Zs AO from his book. This is not the best picture in the book but since he illustrates examples of each of the years around the date - the range and variation of several different dies is easy to compare coin by coin.



When you look at the 4 coins and compare them - the Dunigan coin is the only one that appears out of place. Note first the dentils that form the circular border on the coin. All of the Dunigan issues when enlarged show that Zacatecas has a matrix punch for the dentils that was in the form of an arc of 5 dentils. This punch was applied repeatedly along a scribed line (a circle) which can sometimes be seen on high grade coins from poorly finished dies. Note on Dunigans coin that you can see the places where the 5 segment arcs meet. Then look on all the other pictures and it is clear that the forgers used a punch that was straight and had 10 dentils in length per section to form the border.

That is the largest most visible clue to this forgery second only to the broken toe. It is hard to miss. It was a hub feature.

Numismat You say ...




If you really believe that, then you are incorrect. A debased coin can not be easily detected if it is a Sheffield Plate variety. The entire exposed surface of a Sheffield plate coin will be 900 fine silver. It will test with acid as 900 fine silver. It will even pass XRF tests. It is a perfect system unless you perform a Specific Gravity test or unless you cut into the surface DEEPLY. There is an English historical record from the 1830s that indicates a Sheffield plate coin was chopped over 70 times by the Chinese without being revealed as a forgery. But a Sheffield plate coin will eventually wear through and expose the core. It may take 20 years or more. That is why I always start with a worn Sheffield coin first - one that can not be disputed as a forgery and then I work my way back using the clues based on the specific die pair to the MS or near MS copies that the "experts" believe are real because they look correct. This is where science will trump "expertise" every time.

The only defense the experts mount at that point is an un provable contention that a "debased planchet" must have been smuggled into the mint. But that is just wishful thinking. They hope a fraudulent planchet was switched out. But then that also makes the coin a fraud at the very best.

But I ask in all honesty if I backtrack the precise die pair (or hub pair) from 27 known counterfeit coins - how can so many experts who have never done one SG test or one XRF test possibly prove their subjective position that I am incorrect in my contention that the DIE PAIR or DIE HUBS used were in fact forgeries.

Show me one coin that passes SG and XRF and uses the identical die design - then I will accept their opinion. But until, they submit verifiable scientific proof I believe my position is the strongest.

The second part of your comment is proven by Riddell's actual entry. Riddell said it was a "counterfeit". If he had suspected it was a mint strike or made with mint dies or even made with some stolen mint stamps he would have said so. He refers to these as "Debased Dollars". He did just that in numerous cases.

In this case the straight segments that combine to form the dentil "circle" are completely sufficient to prove this die pair was NOT a mint product.

OK, so from what you've seen:

-- it appears NO coin from the Riddell 221 die pairing is genuine... which would eliminate the possibility of a full stolen die (unless somehow stolen BEFORE it was ever put into use at that mint?)

-- that means a freshly fabricated counterfeit die had to be created, which means punches were used... and your thought is that these punches were fabricated by copying details from genuine coins (rather than regal punches being stolen or used secretly by crooked employees - which could confirm Riddell's observation about the snake and ground being slightly off)

-- pieces produced from that pairing hint at more than one die being used to produce these, which implies a hubbed die must have been made

One technical question - you postulate that there seems to have been more than one die, so there must have been a hub (positive image), but the die elements on genuine coins were copied as individual (positive) punches... SO, the punches must first have made a "master die", which in turn was used to make that hub, yes?
======

Random note on the detail - there are obvious differences in the branches bewteen the Resplandores 1829 plate coin you're showing and the 221 pieces... more non-221 examples would need to be compared, though.

realeswatcher Your initial conclusion is the one I reached after 30 years of studying examples of these forgeries. The dies used to create the series of broken toe eagles R#s 221 and 223 (which comes in every date from 1929 to 1836) are ALL counterfeit. It is just that simple. I have not seen ONE example of the broken toe that was genuine in over 50 years.

These coins were struck from dies that were created using punches because identical details are spaced differently on some of the various die pairs. But the master eagle punch (the King Punch to use Riddell's term) has the broken toe identifier.

Are there others? That is the big question. There may be other equally well made forgeries still hiding in plain sight. Sheffield plate counterfeits are like that. Just ask Colonel John.

The critical issue regarding these dies is that these dies were not made with a circular ring of dentils. They are NOT "real mint dies." To theorize that the die is genuine requires that genuine coins with straight segments (14 in all) have to exist. My question is where are all these 14 sided originals if this was a normal mint methodology? I have not seen one in 50 years.

At least two of the numerous varieties - the 1829 AO and the 1832 OM have clear indications of originally being pressed from full hubs. These hubs may have been created later but they use the same punches and King punches as the other die varieties. One problem I face in creating a complete die family is that I need numerous near MS coins from each die to study die chip, break and wear patterns to determine how many dies were used and in what possible order they were used. Mules are particularly valuable in this regard. So far most readily available examples of these counterfeits show significant wear through the outer plate with a loss of fine detail. These low grade examples show little promise of contributing to a complete die sequence.

There are just a couple more sequences of pictures I want to show. All three sequences show that just three coins - Riddell, Ponterio and NGC examples are identical. The only coin with die punch deviations is the genuine coin from Resplandores. These deviations are not just positional they are proof of different punches.

First is the letter M in MEXICO which is clear on all four coins. If you notice the point of the M that faces downward is ECCENTRIC on the three versions I refer to as counterfeit but is centered on the genuine Resplandores coin. Can anyone point to that M on a genuine coin Zacatecas coin? If you notice, there is a difference between the M on the Ponterio example and the M on the NGC coin. The upper left corner of the M shows significant die wear enough so that the left leg is disconnected on some. This is a die marker that could possibly be used for die sequencing if only about three or four dozen more examples in this grade could be found.



The snake and Eagle's head is one of two die discrepancies used by Riddell to identify this forgery. Riddell says "snake's neck too long". Notice that the neck right behind the snake's head loops higher above the eagle's crest on three of the four coins. It is clearly longer as Riddell indicates on those coins. The snake was, if I am not mistaken, part of the King Punch used at the mint and this loop should be identical unless the die was recut. I have never seen a genuine coin including the Dunigan examples with this same enlarged loop.



The Hill or ground under the eagle. This refers to the second feature used by Riddell to identify the 221. Riddell says "ground too low". To understand this you need to understand the eagle and snake of Aztec legend. The cactus that the eagle is standing on is located on a small hill that extends out of the waters of lake Anahuac which is the site of present day Mexico city. So what is depicted is a hill that appears out of the lake surface. If the ground is TOO LOW that means the water line is too high. That is exactly what appears on the detail below. The Genuine coin has a LOWER water line than the counterfeit. Once again the correlation is three to one.



Because this sequence is a bit too large to be clearly appreciated I made a second to compare the genuine Dunigan coin with the Ponterio counterfeit. These pictures are VERY clear and both of the others are the same as the Ponterio example. Here is that comparison showing the lower water line. The rounded hill at the right side extends clearly higher above the waterline on the genuine coin.



The "Broken-Toe". This is my primary identifier of for type. The missing segment of the top toe is a great marker because the dies that made the typical 221 and 223 coins DO NOT create a high wear point at this place. We all know that genuine Zs coins are weak at precisely this point. So I ask you why do these dies produce such great feet that last until the rims and half the perimeter lettering is gone. Why because the dies were not cambered nor were the designs cut as deeply into the die face as these. That is absolutely a function of the set of this King Punch (or die hub). To me the difference is so obvious that it makes me wonder why it is not seen as easily by others. This is simply not a Zacatecas die pair.

Finally regarding this sequence please notice that even the button's on the cactus pads match on the three examples that I call counterfeit but on the genuine coin even the claw and toe positions are different. This is also a King Punch feature. No deviation should occur.



The final feature is the segmented dentil circle. I think it is very clear but to prove it I have created two sequences of pictures showing how the dentil circle was applied to the die. The two ways once again align three to one. Here is what I mean. The genuine coins illustrated in Resplandores and the coins from Zacatecas that I have examined which are genuine all exhibit a dentil circle composed of a series of arc segments that are 5 dentils in length. These at times pass segment to segment with no noticeable deviation. Other dies like the one that made Dunigan's 1829 coin was not well aligned end to end so that the joins are more or less obvious. The other three coins have dentils that align in straight rows of 10. They can be identified when enlarged by the overlap in the dentils which is slightly different in size than all the other dentils.

Thank you very much for that information that you took the time to present swamperbob! Even though the counterfeits might look like genuine 8R's in the beginning, after close examination of the details you provided it is clear that they are not legit.