Mathieu Nice photographs of an obvious (at least to me Class 2 counterfeit/restrike). The coin has far too many oddities to be passed off as simply due to minting issues.
I noticed an interesting article in the "
Numismatic News" that my wife picked up today at the PO. It is in "Facts about Fakes" on page 16. (That is always the first feature I look for.) The author F. Michael Fazzari is and has been for years a professional authenticator who tries to do his job in the best manner possible. He uses a "scientific approach" which I was also taught in the early 1970s as being the future of numismatic authentication.
Near the outset of the article he speaks about pre-1970s authentication as dependent upon
Quote:
...measurements such as weight, diameter, tonal quality, and specific gravity testing for composition....
which were in use long before he (or I) became an authenticator.
He then mentions using a binocular microscope in authentication which was a key component of my own training starting in 1972 by one of the earliest supporters of using technology and science to our advantage. Michael then goes on to indicate how a scientific approach based on measurement confirmation of details based on things like die punch shapes became a journey of discovery for himself. I took the same trip and we are on the same station platform right now.
But what I really want to focus in on is the impact of the work that John Lorenzo, Gord Nichols and I have had on the professional authenticators even before the book is out. The basis of our book on Portrait counterfeits is that science plus history needs to be fully employed along with specialized expertise in SINGLE VARIETES to make authentication of older forgeries in particular "complete".
On page 18 of the article he says
Quote:
...it can be very difficult to know what a genuine coin should look like (unless you are a specialist) and I fear many contemporary counterfeit world coins have achieved a status of authenticity due to lax standards of authentication by some in the past. Recently I spoke with one of the authors of a soon-to-be published book on contemporary counterfeit 8 reales (dollar size) coins. He concurred with my opinion that many of these fakes have been certified as genuine.
I think the source is obvious at this point. But he reveals the fallacy that most collectors operate under. No Third Party Grader has or actually can have expertise on staff for confirmation of 100% authenticity. He does suggest that older and newer tactics must be merged to combat the new forgeries.
He then passes on his "secret" which I have also used since the 1970's which is to study fonts, die lines, scratches and breaks when authenticating 8 reales. This is the study that lets me state unequivocally that the coin before us is FAKE. I know - he may know but now before the field of study moves on, we need to pass the knowledge of dated methods along to EVERYONE.
He is releasing his secret now because the topic is virtually moot. Science recognizes that new replication techniques made possible by digital information storage and retrieval can make (or soon will make) cheap copies accurate enough to fool all of the older detection techniques.
What is not obvious in his treatment is that the older techniques still apply to counterfeits made before 1970 - the effective start of the modern era of CAF (computer assisted forgery). I, within the context of my book, am far more concerned with the older counterfeits that are hiding in plain site in
TPG slabs, dealer inventories and collections.
I can still see them as clearly as I did in 1980, 1990, 2000 or last week. They do NOT change over time only the modern forgeries are changing methods of manufacture. In our book one of the facts I chose to highlight was a simple and obvious statement most people miss:
Quote:
No Additional Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales will ever be made.
Obvious but we often miss that fact when hunting in the forest of forgery. We do not see the old counterfeits if we focus only on the newer methods of detection to the exclusion of the older. This also applies to Silver restrike (counterfeits) as well. Being made before 1930 the new detection methods are not needed to see those.
We just have to look.
So it is time to disclose the secret methods of the 1970s - they are becoming out of date for the best forgers. However, I do not advocate ONLY using the new tools but also the older ones because they still work especially well for our target group of collectable and collected forgeries.
Just as many authenticators actually dropped Specific Gravity testing from the tool box when the binocular microscope splashed on the scene, we need at times to make sure our tool kit is complete - and in use - not just up to date popular ones.
I know that speaking out on this is not popular with the powers that be - those that make a living inside the business and who stand to lose most on the exposure of the facts.
For some people the book will be enough but for others it will be dismissed as only hearsay. If you test my throries in these cases scientifically the data will make the confirmation of silver restrikes obvious eventually.
Some - perhaps most - but not all of these coins will be shown to be late date fakes. I expect to be long dead before my theories become accepted fully - I just hope the profit driven elements do not try to silence the "message" before other zealots like myself, only younger, will take up the challenge.
Posted 02/27/2014 10:59 am
