| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,360 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
73 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Hello Jim, why do you think the first coin is fake? Is it silver and is the weight within specification? It seems the first coin had been extensively circulated. It is more likely a genuine specimen than a fake (even a Class 2 contemporary counterfeit).
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
If not fake, I am thinking acid cleaned.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
73 Posts |
Hi wonghinghi, thanks for post. I must admit, I know next to nothing about these type of coins. What threw me off were the asian markings found on both sides of the coin. It didn't even cross my mind they could have been made during circulation.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
I am not an expert on portrait 8 reales, but the way the bottom right of the crown blends into the field and the ET IND letters on the 1778 specimen is suspect in my eyes.
The 1818 appears authentic.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
The first coin is the "Broken Castle" variety - there are several examples that are absolutely counterfeit with very little silver content. Others with the same punch seem to be silver close to 900 fine. This has been covered in other threads and in my book.
One problem is that the same broken punch is seen on numerous dates between 1775 and 1789. The same dates are often seen without the break as well. The likelihood that a punch survived 14 years in use is very slim.
In my opinion - they are counterfeits but not everyone agrees. I have personally tested 8 examples that I own and ALL are counterfeit.
The 1818 is more than likely a genuine if mistreated coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
The first coin posted is somewhat similar to Bob's book specimen GNL#1778-O: G/R: Pts PR-002 in page 252.
I don't see anything wrong with the Chinese chops on the coin so I guess the silver content of the coin is correct. Jim, would you tell the actual weight of this coin. If the weight of the coin is correct, I am more confident to say this coin is not a debased specimen as shown in Bob's book.
Another question to Bob, would you tell the weight of your coin shown in your book?
Henry
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
Here's my broken castle 1779 8 reales. I got it as a raw example from one of Dan Sedwick's auctions where it was noted as "26.8 grams. AVF with areas of weak strike, faint colorful toning. Pedigreed to the Mark Bir collection." It was nice of NGC to certify it for me.    |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
The Broken Castle coins - vary in weight and are known to be above and below correct weight. Density not weight is how most were diagnosed. Two were cut open exposing copper cores. So they come in different alloys.
Regarding NGC - they never do specific gravity and rarely weigh coins - so I wouldn't presume that the holder guarantees value any more than chop marks which we know do not mean silver content.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
Quote:
Regarding NGC - they never do specific gravity and rarely weigh coins - so I wouldn't presume that the holder guarantees value any more than chop marks which we know do not mean silver content. I have not challenged a questionable coin in an NGC holder so I don't have any direct experience regarding how they would uphold their guarantee to refund my cost but I believe I could get my modest investment back through their process. However, I prefer to keep it in it's holder especially since it's a possible Type 1 counterfeit. I certainly agree that the holder does NOT prove authenticity. |
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,360 |
|
Posted 02/26/2015 06:58 am
