Well, What Do You Know? G3 C/M On 1772 8R In NGC Plastic

Just to combine the threads for succinctness, jgenn wrote in:
https://goccf.com/t/176971
Well, this piece's reappearance is highly amusing...
http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...&lotNo=30684

It was one of several obvious/apparent Sheffield plate Bank of England George III-stamped 8R in the Newman auction, Heritage Jan. 2014 - see the other lots immediately surrounding this one. Note that one of these was indeed pulled before the auction went off, while other more obvious contemporary counterfeits remained - now, you'd think if one was suspect (in a series where this is somewhat common), someone would put a more critical eye to ALL of them, right? Guess not. Anyway, the one that was pulled remains on SixBid, as linked to in this thread where these pieces were discussed at the time.
https://goccf.com/t/167541#1539298
http://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?a...&lot=1040150

Now, the REALLY humorous thing here... Clearly, the coin was cracked out of the original holder... apparently, it would seem, to do a review of the piece. Well, it seems to have passed! Went back in a new NGC holder - SAME CERT NUMBER - yet WITHOUT the OldRichGuy Newman pedigree label.

Even without any knowledge of the Newman auction and the other pieces it was grouped with... as was mentioned, the fact that 1772 normal FM is practically mythical in its rarity should REALLY draw attention... plus the 2 is completely goofy and the shield/pillars have those noted problems.

These pieces were an embarrassment to begin with.. this further development somehow managed to worsen it.

jglenn...where have you ever seen evidence that there are any examples of the 1772 MoFM without the inverted assayer and mint mark? I have been collecting portraits for a long time and never seen a legitimate specimen. No reference to one in any established research book that I can find.

Edit by author, I just saw the other posting and commented on the two listings that were sited on that post. Possible misunderstanding of the way the coins are listed in the guides.

I had checked my Calbeto first, which lists the dates sequentially, without a break between pillars and portraits. You are certainly correct that Elizondo lists the 1772 with the pillars.

Bumping this thread, I'm also curious what others think of the 1783 posted above.

Here's a genuine 1783-MO FF for comparison.


I notice a few differences, although most could be explained away if different dies were used.

- the bottom of many serifs are fancier on the stamped coin, although not all of them are which is odd.
- the lions heads look thinner on the stamped coin
- to my eyes, the CAROLUS letters don't look quite right. Close, but something's off.
- the above mentioned weakness in the E in DEI

On the other hand, what's the likelihood of finding a die crack on the reverse of a plated coin. I guess one could fake that to make the coin seem more authentic.

Thanks for the bump cochese, and your comments and those of realeswatcher.

Yes the obverse has a bit of blue-green toning through the obverse legend especially at the III.

Regarding the E in DEI, what sort of die wear would result in the missing arm (if I have the typographic term correct) at the top of the E? That part of the die would have to be filled in, right?

Unfortunately, I can only find one other 1783 BOE 8R and it does not have matching dies.

cochese your comment about the fancier serif is quite obvious at the bottom of the I in DEI but not the other "I"s -- suspicious since they would share the same punch.

The first coin with the odd 2 was certainly not made that way in Mexico City. The situation points to the inability of any group to know EVERY type of coin. The TRGs need an expert in JUST Portrait 8Rs.

I consider myself generally good with counterfeits but I claim to be "expert" with regard to only two very specific types. The Portrait 8Rs and the Cap and Ray 8Rs. I know my limitations which is why I can not speak authoritatively on MANY other coin types. This highly focused and specialized area of expertise is typical of avid collectors.

Regarding the reasons for various Portrait counterfeit emissions there were at least 3 major incentives for forgery which were distinctly DIFFERENT and tended to occur at different times.

Counterfeits made of variable amounts of base metal gives a forger a profit based on the difference between metal value and the face value of a coin. That is a typical reason for counterfeiting. It also happens most during periods of economic uncertainty or emergency. This is why counterfeits appear in bunches clustered around historic event.

The George III emergency issues of the Bank of England are a sub-set of this first group but they can derive profit differently. The stamped dollar was worth MORE than the face or the intrinsic value. It was a token worth more. The forgers could use silver coins of full weight - apply a fake stamp and make a profit. A token has a Fiat value - a value set by law which is unrelated to either face value or intrinsic value.

The third case is the reason there were full weight silver restrikes made for the China trade. This case is tied to the Commodity value of money. At times, to secure a specific type of money traders pay a premium. The premium is based on what the market will bear. In the case of the Bustman dollars the interior Chinese preferred payment with ONLY that one kind of coin. The premium average 16% over silver value but for decades sat at 26% and reached a high of 80%. This commodity value of money drove a third distinctly different wave of forgery that happened AFTER most of the actual coins made in Mexico City were removed from circulation. No available supply PLUS a high premium equals incentive for counterfeiting.