RockyRoad Sorry to jump in late but I usually check new posts about weekly depending on my workload (which lately has been significant). If you want me to respond to a post more quickly send me a note - a lot of members do that to get my attention. That is actually why I am here tonight - I was replying to another post.
My opinion of the coin is that it is most likely a Numismatic Forgery and if the data provided is accurate it is a silver coin. But being silver does not make it genuine.
You ask several questions which I will do my best to answer one at a time.
1. Are there counterfeits known in this pattern or in the portrait pattern that have the correct edges?Unfortunately the answer is yes for every variety. Several forgers have learned how to do it right and have cut decent dies. I have actually watched it being done in person and the edge will pass scrutiny by most collectors. It is fortunate that most forgers working today do a sloppy job. It is VERY fortunate for collectors like me that Contemporary Counterfeiters very rarely got it right.
I would advise that any fake (Numismatic Imitation) with a perfectly correct edge has to be a Numismatic Class forgery and not a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit. Technology to duplicate this coin this well was not invented until after the coin ceased to circulate.
2. In past threads Swamperbob has indicated that the doubling or smearing of the "N" as we see on this coin is an indication that the coin was cast. As you look at the other letters you will see anomalies and defects that could suggest the same conclusion. Does this coin look cast?Unfortunately, I do see very troubling features here involving the letters. However, I do not see what I think you are referring to as "smearing". Smearing as I used it (or intended to use it) means something different than the reinforcing metal seen at the left leg of the N. When a die punch cuts into the die face it creates a sharp transition at nearly right angles to the face. The junction between the field and features (like letters) needs to be sharp. This coin does show good sharpness at the demarcation.
You also need to keep in mind that the letters in a die face are recessed. They are made with a punch that has a flat leveled (ground) surface that is driven into the die face. The top of each letter (in MS or near MS grades) shows an image (reversed) of the face of the punch as it imprinted on the deepest part of the recess in the die (only seen when the coin is fully struck up.) Many letters on this coin lack the correct appearance for punched features and the upper surfaces are poor. The R and A in VTRAQUE are examples.
3. Do the devices in the shield appear regal? The castle in the upper left looks sloppier than usual and the overlay of the lower left lion's tail on the inner shield seems unusual.
They do not look too bad as far as overall design goes. Execution (if this is a punched die) however is not great. I suspect a cast die or mold in part because of areas just like this.
4. And lastly, there seem to be unusual lines in the fields on both sides of the coin. They are most visible on the obverse to the left and right of the columns. Are these leftover casting marks?They were the first serious problem I observed. Lines like I see here do not appear on genuine 8Rs of the era. The die face (or mold face) that produced this coin was not well finished. When Mexico City finished dies they first removed the metal humps around the features that rose up in response to the displacement of the die metal caused by the force of the punch. This was the first step when the die face was initially ground and cambered. The second step was grinding with a much finer "tool" to polish the die face and remove the striations made by coarse grinding. Only after being fully polished were dies mounted for coining.
Realeswatcher You say:
Quote:
Aside from #2 {as reference to casting from an original}, a fake would involve making a die/mold from individual punches, which is a lot of effort. Any other scenario where that "N" was inserted in all 4 spots, say through digital image editing, also seems far-fetched. Also, knowingly using a conspicuously flawed feature like that given overall apparent execution of this piece doesn't make sense.
I do not see the N as being flawed. The N punch shows a very typical reinforcement of the left leg of the N. That is seen on most genuine punched dies. The reason is that punches with thin elements like the legs of the N are often reinforced with a sloping "revetment" feature. When deeply set this sloped feature of the punch will transfer to the die and appear on the coins struck from such a die.
A cast copy of a genuine coin used to create either a die or mold could transfer this type feature to the final product. A computer engraved die would likely copy the same feature if adequate pixilation was involved. It is not far fetched to postulate 4 identical N's if the feature appears on the genuine coin. That is the problem with correctly transferred images - they copy everything, including post strike damage that was on the host coin. So you often need to look elsewhere for proof of forgery.
The rim scrape near the date could have been added to the coin to resemble a test cut. It lends an air of authenticity without serious damage. If the scrape was really a circulating test cut - it would point toward a possible contemporary counterfeit (a prize for a serious collector). However, no well trained serious collector would mistake this coin for a contemporary circulating counterfeit. It could not have been made when these coins were still circulating because the technology employed to copy the design had not been invented.
RockyRoad In your last post you say:
Quote:
I would think that the pressure of the strike would remove any lines on the planchet unless the dies were not lapped properly.
You are correct that a strike that is full depth will obliterate all but the deepest adjustment marks on the planchet. What you are seeing in the case of the fields - which are the highest points on the die and are always fully struck are features of the field itself and point to a very poorly lapped die. Not something normally seen at Mexico City. These lines were not due to post strike corrosion nor were they due to corrosion of the die/mold face. They just look wrong.
Final issue: Is the coin cast?
Based on a preponderance of evidence either the coin was cast or casting was involved in the production of the die used to strike the coin. With pictures only an no further information I can not be certain as to which method was employed. The difference can often be seen with a binocular microscope if you know what to look for. That is hard to explain and is much easier to explain using actual examples. That would require an in person demonstration. I have never gotten pictures that are good enough to show what the difference is.
Posted 12/07/2016 9:47 pm
My biggest concern are the poorly made letters and the raised lines in the fields. I would think that the pressure of the strike would remove any lines on the planchet unless the dies were not lapped properly.
