HI Bob - Another Cap'n'ray Counterfeit For You.

Roman That is a very interesting fantasy. There are several distinctive elements that may allow this coin to be linked with other counterfeits - perhaps one with a known date of origin.

The coin is probably a contemporary fabrication but one not likely made in Mexico. My reason for thinking it is a Non-Mexican product is the very odd legend. This would have attracted too much attention - even in the 1830s. If you look at most of the successful counterfeits (in the US and Mexico) of the 1830s - they are fairly well made and follow the Mexican design pattern fairly well. One of the most common and successful period 8R forgeries was the 1832 Durango struck from counterfeit dies made in France or England. These European counterfeits are noted in Riddell's book. They were extremely common in New Orlean in 1839 and they are still common today. But they are VERY close to the original design.

This coin falls into another category entirely.

I have quite a few with odd legends but only know of only one that I would classify as actually common and that is the 1840 G J. It uses a fantasy mint mark G and a single assayer initial. It is the plate coin used to illustrate a "typical" contemporary counterfeit in Buttrey and Hubbard's Catalog. That coin is very common perhaps ranking third behind the 1832 Do noted above.

Personally I prefer the Fantasy legends. So I will have to do a bit more research.

The odd elements I note with similarities to other forgeries are:

1. Cactus pads which are small triangles with one incuse button.
This feature is very peculiar and is used in onlt one or two
families of forgeries.
2. Very small roundish dentils (beads) that stop short of the edge.
Original dies had long lozenge shaped dentils that extend to the
edge of the coin because the originals were open collar strikes.
It really appears the forger here is mimicing a collared strike.
3. Distinctive engraved letters X and M in legend.
(Lettering matches are hard to develop and can be subjective but
they often identify specific individual forgers)
4. The very distinctive long lines instead of feathers on the
wings of the eagle. This is similar to several families of coins
tied to Riddell's work and often the patterns can be linked.
5. The heavy upper outline to the eagle's wing. Usually a late usage.

All of these incorrect or odd features can be used to try to group forgeries by the engraver or counterfeiting group. While the actual names may never be known - there are many different attempts underway to group forgeries into families having identical error traits. One problem is that often dies were used by a series of forgers with intermediate alterations. So the subject is really still in the need of much more research.

I could only wish more of the original surface was preserved. The higher grade the specimin the more likely a match can be derrived.

It appears that the original silvering may have been removed chemically (perhaps to recover some fraction of the value). This may be corrosion from burial as well, but it makes the process more difficult. The original composition is also more difficult to establish but it clearly appears to be a copper core. How the silvering was applied is critical to establishing a date range. Sheffield Plate was used 1770 to about 1840. So no Sheffield Plate will occur before 1770. Also because technology evolved in this field - the thickness of the plate can be used to place a forgery within a range. A thick plate can fall anywhere in the range but a very tin plate was only possible after 1810. Electroplating is a later technology entirely with a beginning date of about 1840. A tin plated copper coin or a struck copper core that was dipped using a paint like film can be earlier depending upon just what metals were used. So ultimately an XRF test of the traces of the "silvering" will be required. Even with that data a conclusive dating may never be possible.

In any event - it is one of the most interesting fantasies I have seen lately.