Fake 1760 & 1767 Mexico 8 Real Columnarios ?

HMMM ... the realeswatcher ebay example ... XXXXX738 is also a silver wash? ... I would still pay $50.00 for your 1760. Put it up on ebay ... alert me and I will snipe it ... call it non-regal (not forgery or counterfeit). Don't classify as real ... either way I would like to analyze this silver wash ... the other examples are cast ofthe 1760 piece by realeswatcher ... the other DATE is CRAP. I like these silver wash 1760 PIECES ... still ... open-mided ... silver wash with this kind of wear does not SMELL to me as 20thC ...

John Lorenzo
United States

Well so much for the silver wash XRF testing realeswatcher ... <VVBG>. Yes return the TWO ... no more pics necessary. However - Show us the THIRD example with pics - full coin pics is all that is generally necessary.

These are the pics for the 1770. Still in transit.
What do you guys think?
Is 1770 a year with bunch of replicas?

I also noted a lot of little dents on the face. Should I be concerned from this?

Edge can only be barely seen from these pics, so hard to tell from there yet

Denticles looking ok to you?

I don't like that 1770 indeed, the dents look artificial, as if someone wanted to damage a "too clean" coin.
I don't like its overall look, and the denticles ... bad feeling here.

The second one has the typical Roosjwick look, they were indeed cleaned and have that polished look.
If you got that one from the dealer with many Rooskwick items, you are more than safe :) (else, it looks OK in any case)

Or as he is from the US, buy them from Stack's & Bowers, ha.com, Sedwick's auctions, and so on :)
It's hard to get nice stuffs from ebay for this type, as it's often second-hand auction items (being resold at higher price), there is a good chance to have a fake ... and it's hard to get a nice price. Except in one case : roosjwick coins, as there is a seller with lots of those (I think they are the salvager). There are also serious sellers, but until you get used to the type ... you will have a good chance to catch fakes.

As said above, the first thing to learn is to recognize proper edges (they are a bit different depending on the mint) - and to check if you have two overlaps on those edges at 180° from each other (cuts in the design, at the exact opposite). This cut is due to the process used to make them.

Here is a picture from swamperbob to explain this :


Here is why it's sometime hard to see one (but you will see it) :

Even if the piece is genuine... why would you drop $180 on a piece with so much blatant damage?

Speaking frankly, you're buying like a kid in a candy shop. Why not do your research first? As you said, you didn't have any before now... and now all of the sudden, you absolutely have to have some now, so you run out and buy (3) highly questionable pieces (plus pay quite strongly for a 4th, the 1737) in the span of a week. Why the rush? Pillars were out there before, and they'll be out there in the future. Such irrational buying can turn out to be expensive...



Keep in mind, the edging from 1737 to 1770 is not going to be EXACTLY the same. The edge pattern tends to be more deeply engraved in those early years.

The 1737, btw, is typical Rooswijk salvage - it is as advertised. Some people eschew salvaged material, but many of the pieces from Rooswijk, Hollandia and Reijgersdaal wrecks have strong detail and are available at not totally insane prices if you're patient. They serve a purpose...



People have made this point in the past, and it does make some sense... Idea being that it would dissuade buyers from sending these pieces in to be certified. I do think that has become less of an issue as all the slabbers will now give "details grade" for problem pieces (and they have for a few years now).

However, looking at this piece, I kind of think there are TOO many hits to the pillars side for that to be the intent... It's gone beyond making the coin "non-gradeable" - to the point where its obvious and distracting. That alone would make me think it's an old piece that someone who was bored took their frustrations out on a long time ago... Not going to say definitively one way or the other... but my first guess is actually genuine. I don't know the pillar series ALL that well, though, and those pics aren't the clearest, so don't hold me to that.

That said, the seller this was purchased from is another one of those Spaniards who have some legit material but then some bogus also... Note this 1734 - unquestionably fake:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARO-COLUMN...271433135198

Realeswatcher, I do appreciate all the comments that help me better distinguish originals from fakes. Undoubtely the cummulative experience from you and many of the members is key and invaluable. Appreciate you taking the time and sharing. The more and better knowledge we have the better purchase decisions we make and the more informed the collecting community is.
No need to criticize my buying habits though. Agree not enough research was done before buying. Honestly, I didnt thnik ebay and the whole community would be so plagued with ubiquitous fakes. Seems these are present and sold equally by casual coin ebay sellers and established ebay coin dealers with physical stores. The latter being really a pitty. As I said, probably more than just asking for a return, in those cases, probably is better to report the counterfeiting case to ebay. Hopefully that will help somewhat to stop or slow down the spreading.
My past purchases, many years ago, had been only through a local numismatics store.
The 1737 was actually the first of my recent purchases. the rest followed, Based on the price of the first and looking at comparable ebay sales, it didn't seem the others were such bad deals. I have been disconnected from the hobby for many years, and I wasnt suspicious that fakes were so prevalent either.

You mention the pieces are so "clearly dubious". Unfortunately it is clear to the trained experienced eye, like yours, but that is not the case for many of the rest. That's where your comments and mentoring are of most help, so we can gain some of that knowledge and so they become more clearly dubious to the rest of us. The knowledge sharing does help. The criticizing does not. Obviously nobody is making bad decisions knowingly or on purpose. Again thanks for the inputs and if there are any more comments in regards to coin characteristics you want to add to help me better distinguish fakes from real ones, are very much appreciated. An example is the 1734 8R you mentioned above. You say "unquestionably fake". The dentils on the pillars side doesn't look right to me, and being an early type, the rim seems too uniform and round in my perspective. Am I correct? would those be the main factors? what other would make them unquestionably fake? To my not very much trained eye the edge looks close to the original. what would be your comments on the edge?
Thanks again

Speaking of fakes, in your experience, are they mostly non silver (like copper nickel or other just silver looking alloys)? Are them mostly silver plated (so appearance is better and they may pass finess tests)? or are even good fakes made of the correct silver (solid and right finess)?
If most of the times they are made from an alternate metal/alloy, even if silver plated, then there are non intrusive electronic methods today that allow to distinguish between different metals, based on some electromagnetic resonance properties. And if that is the case, that method could be applied to detect many of the non-silver fakes very inexpensively. Could be much better than magnets or other simple tests out there to discover some of the fakes.