1718 Spanish 8 Reales - Twins Or Not

Definitely twins, same chips and dents are evident.

IMO the price was too high because I think it's a counterfeit. I especially note that the M initial for the assayer does not match the size or style of the Calbeto pictures.

jgenn Would you be surprised to discover that I do not believe this coin is a counterfeit?

tokenmast You ask




Before answering that question I have another related question that must be asked first - Have you checked to see if Seville used a screw press in 1718?

tokenmast and jgenn Why did you say twins and not the SAME coin?

I meant to say they were the same coin because I quickly spotted the defects that DVCollector has pointed to with dark arrows. In the side by side images I can now see the differences. Flipping between two different web pages is not the correct way to do a comparison. Thanks to DVCollector for illustrating the right way.

I'm away from my reference library now but I still believe the size and font of the assayer's initial does not match the Calbeto images. I also noted that the spacing of HISPANIRVM has the M ending up at about 7:00 where the Calbeto images have the M no lower than 8:00, but that may be within normal variance.

Looked again, shield side same .only PMD ha? (post mold damage)
so not half twin. full
no reason to lie about stated weight,(2 decimal places) not same coin.

Seville Mint used screw press 1718 to 1725 but reference only says assayers J M

off set in mold?

Pure Grace.

Thank you for asking

Wow--very interesting! Thanks for the explanation Swamperbob, all--very educational! Glad the photo helped the discussion!

Thankyou to all who took the time or just read this thread.

The purpose for posting these questions is to provide the tools that EVERY collector needs to assess coins. They are part of a typical authenticator's methodology. I learned this method in the early 1970s from a person I still hold in the highest regard as a near perfect blend of forensic science with avid collector.

Coins speak if you just get past the designs and look at the rest of the coin. Do not get caught up in how rare or valuable a coin may or may not be. First determine is what you are seeing correct for how the coin was supposed to be made.

All you need in this case is to know the coin is a manual screw press strike without a collar. Then you know it is a flat engraved and/or punched die pair. The stock for the coin is rolled and laminated manually. The coins were blanked and adjusted for weight before the strike.

The second step when you have two or more examples of a coin is a SIDE BY SIDE comparison. I create two files and place them on the laptop screen side by side (using the half screen function). I have a larger 30 inch screen to view the pictures on.

Once side by side look for odd features - both post strike damage and adjustment marks. These MUST BE different on genuine coins but are often the best proof of a forgery. Notice I say FORGERY not counterfeit. They are technically different things and the value (historical and monetary) is vastly different.

Next look for die anomalies. These are things present on the die that transfer to the coin - cracks, chips, double punching or slips of engraving tools are all die features. These are seen on all copies of a coin made from the same die.

Finally look at the coin and assess things like condition and value.

Authenticating is a process of gathering scientific facts - comparing them to known theories and seeing how they fit.

Weight
Diameter
Density
Font style
Punching priority
Edge design
Manufacture methods - edge and strike.

Think - study and see what a coin says to you - OBJECTIVELY.

Checking in for the first time in a while (just haven't had time to contribute, though I've skimmed through threads perioidically). The ebay coin screamed "cast forgery" on first glance. Hadn't seen the listing for the "other" piece on his website... did some digging last night and also found the original from Marti Hervera/Soler y Llach (I mostly spent the time searching b/c, as was noted above, I found that "M" assasyer mark to be atypically-shaped). A bigger pic for those like me who have not been inclined to make a login for the new format of MCsearch to see full-size pics:

http://www.icollector.com/8-Reales-...iel_i9621397

My thought on seeing the three different photos... First, the ebay piece is clearly a simple cast... not a very good one. However, I am inclined to agree with Mathieu that the piece shown on his website may very well BE the genuine coin from the Hervera auction... WITH the caveat that the coin has clearly been dipped or otherwise had its toning removed between then and now. Comparing the (2) pics, no focal points appear to have altered between the original auction pic and the website pic... in other words, any/all planchet flaws, edge splits, divots/extra metal lettering, etc. look EXACTLY the same. Nothing appears to have changed on the website pic... were it a cast, you'd expect to see SOME sort of addition/subtraction. Also, the surfaces on the website coin as compared to the ebay listing are vastly different - ebay piece is an obvious cast, while the surfaces on the website piece look decent enough to be a genuine piece. He notes a weight of "27.00" on the website, which would be far too heavy for this devalued 8R (which has a wide range between 22-24g), but that just seems like a default number that was entered.

With all of the copies of that 1765 pillar 8R he's peddling... I'm guessing it is he himself that is dabbling in casting the copies.