1788 Eight Reales, Authentic?

I think legit.

I assume there's some numbers missing, there. If not, then it's definitely fake.

Edge photo #1 is 180 from edge photo #5. One of the rectangles (just rt of center) in photo #1 looks like a possible yet certainly questionable overlap. Photo #5 I think shows a clear overlap, but it looks like a circle over a circle. I do not yet have enough experience to fully judge overlaps. I am not sure how distinct overlaps should be.

IMHO, the chop marks looks antique and not a new addition on the coin definitely so modern forgery must be ruled out.

It is either a 2nd CC or real piece.

I tend to believe the chop marks are real so, if it was a 2nd CC (probably made between 1830-1930), Chinese chop marks were not popular for that era as the money assayers were capable of determining the coin had sufficient silver or not.

The edge circle-rectangle pattern still looks good so I think this coin is more likely to be genuine.

Henry

I agree with Lucky Cuss.

The statement that the XRF apparatus measures to 1/100 percent is sufficient to indicate that the coin was not made in Mexico during the patio process / cuppellation era.

Because there has been a lot of well intentioned push back on my gold theory I have been assembling a factual defense. There are some key points that were not raised in the book. The most important of these is that gold is soluble in silver and silver is soluble in gold. The "alloy" of gold and silver is NOT a suspension or a mixture - it is in fact a solution. When heated to a liquid state gold does NOT completely sink to the bottom even if a centrifuge could be used!

The XRF tests of all of the mines that contributed to the Mexico City output (several hundred of which have been published to date) indicates that there was both gold and silver in the ore. The amount varies but is never so low that the "gold must be present theory" does not apply.

In Mexico City the primary source of silver used for coining 8Rs was the Vallenciana mine located in Guanajuato. Over 60% of all silver coined at Mexico City during the 1780-1810 era came from the Vallenciana.

Lets say typical silver refined at the Vallencia mine was used to make coins in Mexico City (2.8% gold being average for that output) - lets even say that a ratio of 50% silver from other sources was melted into the mixture before parting at the mint. Even presuming the added silver had NO gold at all - the final melt would still have 1.4% gold. The cuppelation process used in parting gold from silver could reduce this contamination to roughly .02% but no lower because the gold and silver were soluble in one another.

The processes needed to finally achieve 999 fine gold and silver were not developed until nearly 1880. So the only reason a Mexico City silver coin would not test for gold is that it was NOT made in Mexico City before 1880.

I believe that case is settled to the point of a reasonable doubt at this point. Anyone caring to dispute the claim really needs to come up with some scientific or historic facts to back up their position.

Other mints will need more research to be as sure but the XRF tests I have located so far all show contamination above 0.02 gold.

Numismatics needs to become a more science and history based undertaking. Opinions based on nothing have no validity.

Thank you all for your replies.

Swamperbob, thank you for the detailed information.

Henry - what you say may seem logical - however, based on actual written records from the time period it is simply NOT what actually happened. It may sound crazy to you but the preference for old Portrait coins is very well documented until 1900 and even after.

Why chops were applied is always a guess and it is really not critical to my argument. Perhaps the coins left the area where they were preferred and were traded as silver. I do not know - but that does not make the theory crazy.

Regarding the circulation of a coin 100 years after it was issued - that happened many places and at many different times. In England during the War with Spain 1796-1804 it was commonplace to see coins of Elizabeth I in circulation. That was not 100 years but 200 years or longer.

Portrait 8Rs of the Charles III and IIII type were preferred by SOME BUT NOT ALL merchants until 1930-35. That is a very well established fact. The preference was regional.

Without written factual proof to the contrary history must stand. You are providing only speculation that has no factual support at this time.

If, as you seem to believe, the Mexican Eagle Dollar was the standard in China in 1870 why were there weekly quotations in San Francisco, London, New York and Shanghai for BOTH Eagle and Portrait dollars? These printed records were thoroughly documented by Bailey and Zhao in 2009. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....t_id=1424070 What is the basis on which Bustman dollars traded for 15-20% more than Eagle dollars if they were not still actually being used? Who in their right mind would document prices weekly for commodities that did not circulate as money. If the Portrait dollar was simply an accounting tool not tied to the actual coin as some experts have maintained - why did the ratios change?

You can make theories but until you find proof you have nothing but stories that "SEEM" logical.

What I am advocating is a new way of looking at authentication that relies on science and history. A method that relies on facts not on unsubstantiated statements.

When we submitted the book to the ANS we got a rejection based on numerous incorrect assumptions. They even had the gall to tell me that my cover coin was GENUINE!