Bolivia 8 Reales 1805

Small die lumps DO EXIST on real coins. They happen when the die surfaces are damaged by rust or when the grinding of the die surface exposes bubbles (small voids) in the original die metal. Rust is perhaps most common cause when real dies are considered. The mint tends to use the BEST grade of steel because it results in longer lasting dies. Counterfeiters use what they have so counterfeit dies tend.

I am not saying all lumps are proof of forgery, but when I see them, I take extra time looking at the coin. Die lumps splits and cracks occur far more frequently on counterfeits than on real ones. It is like recut letters and spelling errors. Both happen on real coins BUT they happen far more often on counterfeits.

I somehow lost my first attempted answer. Here goes again.

The pictures are GREAT - the detail is fantastic.

The fissures are precisely the same as those often seen on Boston types. This does NOT prove the coin is a forgery by itself.

The edge pictures of the overlap areas are the best proof that the coin was not edged in a Standard edging mill. That fact is proof that the coin is a forgery.

The picture of the lumps indicates to me that they are due to voids in the die as opposed to rust. Die rust normally does not show abrupt and deep penetrations into the die. A void on the contrary does. The most normal void is due to bubbles in the die steel. These can be exposed by the die finishing (called grinding or lapping). This step produces the flat field and removes stray marks and lumps caused by the die making process. When a void is exposed in this way and then a coin is struck - some of the coin metal extrudes into the void - the sides are normally straight. The top of the extrusion is often dimpled.

That is exactly what I see in the large scan. Here is s sketch of what I am trying to say.



Image Insert:

You ask a very KEY question - how did they make the dies?

I have never been able to figure that out. I have heard many different stories but none of these has convinced me as to how they were executed. The best story so far was that the dies were made with a 1 to 1 panto-graphic lathe but I have no real proof of that contention at all. Some of the dies exhibit small surface texture irregularities which look like a possible mechanical cutting mechanism was involved - like a tiny rotary drill or cutting bit that could be closely controlled in three dimensions to cut away the die metal. The fields are ground flat removing most of the evidence for cutting but the high points of the design (recesses in the die) are often impossible to smooth out.

A similar cutting lathe was used by Francis Henning to make his nickel dies in the 1950s and the machining technology involved was invented prior to the 1890s. So it is at least possible that a mechanical lathe would work. If you look at any of Henning's nickels you can see exactly how fine his work was. There is no feature on a Portrait 8R that would be beyond that level of technology.

Do you recall the recent "discovery" that some very rare VAM varieties of Morgan dollars were actually contemporary counterfeits? The Coin World article I read attributed them to the 1890 to 1930 era. This was a big story within the past 12 months - however, the fact that the micro O dollars were forged was a story I first heard back about 1964. The story came from the same coin dealer that originally told me about the Boston forgeries. He knew they were fake years before Coin World went public with the story. This coin dealer never indicated that he knew how the dies were created just that the coins were counterfeited and done very well. He did make claims to know some of the actual forgers involved in making some of the Portrait 8Rs and I have wondered for years if it was the same forgery ring that produced both coins. But I don't know. I do know from reading about them that the micro O dollars are VERY WELL MADE and I know from observation that so were the "Boston" style 8Rs.

Regarding those small lumps - they do happen on real coins. All die steel may have small trapped air bubbles that lead to surface failures - however, the number seen on real dies is small. Mints use very high grade steel by comparison with forgers. So based on the numbers I see on your coin - the die steel used was POOR. It is unlikely (in my opinion) that the dies were real.

Regarding the dealer's comments (the one you spoke to) about "seawater damage" - what the heck was he talking about? Seawater damage on the dies or on the coin? These are raised features on the coin not recesses so exactly what was he referring to? I think "seawater" is getting blamed for something it didn't do.

Regarding "specific points of obverse/reverse detail where they clearly fail" - the one clue the old dealer told me to watch for was a "crooked or odd smile" on the King. He seemed to understand that and claimed he could identify the fake 8Rs just by the smile but I have never made a correlation with a specific detail. So I can not identify them in that way.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but this 1805 Mo on ebay looks counterfeit, too....lots of raised metal bits on both obverse (directly in front of Carolus' nose there is a large one) and reverse, as well as odd-looking edge detail. Am I seeing things?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1805-Carolus-ll...a5_W0QQitemZ320222082052QQihZ011QQcategoryZ541QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Bump -- to revive this topic. The edge of my coin [1804 Spanish dollar] has poorly-formed rectangles from the "S" in CAROLUS to the "A" in GRA. The bottom edge looks as if it was fioled off.

The font size of any one letter is probably not enough to diagnose a class of forgeries. I have definitely seen different size letters used on real coins, so it is quite possible that what you see MAY be real.

I am often more bothered by letter shapes than purely by size.