| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 2,510 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
i would like any help or thoughts on this newly acquired 8 reales. It has no Dragon's teeth as it should not from this mint and this year. And I've bought several 8 reales from this seller before and all were genuine. What concerns me is the underweight issue at 26.0 grams. It sure does look and feel real and has the right "ring". But I have not done a SG test. One of the " laughing snake and scowling eagle " varieties. I sure hope it's real because I don't have one of these types. Any help appreciated. Thanks.   |
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
93 Posts |
Also, this coin is a bit smaller in diameter, less than a millimeter though than most real ones...Anyone? It weighs 25.92 on my scale. I've seen different point of views over the years on these. But I always thought if these coins were NOT the right weight from the mint, they (the people in charge at that mint) were in serious trouble and could be executed for such a mistake. But I've also heard that before 1887, it was not uncommon for blanks to be either "thinner" or "smaller" than normal, and, as such, somewhat underweight. Again, Anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
And here is an example of the eagle side of a real 1884 Ga AH 8 reales in a PCGS slab graded MS65...the only thing I see different is there is an extra flower? on the left side of the PCGS one at the stem's bottom leaning over the water slightly. But that could just be a different die. the snake and eagle sure look the same. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1884-Ga-AH-...AOSw0TlYXaC0 |
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
And - I hate to keep posting to myself it seems - but I just noticed the PCGS one is a different assayer from the same Ga mint and same year like I said. Maybe the assayer that made the one I had was executed for underweight coins? The PCGS one is the second and last assayer that year!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
Swamperbob
If you could be so kind as to help me on this, I would appreciate it. I may have mistakenly referred to this coin as a "laughing snake" variety, but I think it's just a snake with it's tongue out. But it still brings me back to my original question of weight and diameter.
This coin does not have much wear as you can see and weighs 25.92 grams and is slightly smaller in diameter than other 8 reales I have. I've got over 40 others and - through the help of a lot of your responses to other threads - I found last night that three of them are obvious fakes, whether contemporary or not, I'm not sure as not that advanced in the study of them, at least yet.
But this one passes everything except the weight and diameter. In 1884 at Guadalajara (or any other mint in any similar year for that matter), was it possible that a coin would be released over a gram light and a noticeable difference in diameter? May only be a mm or so, I do not have a good set of calipers yet. But when placed side by side with known good ones, it is smaller, and I am guessing at about 1 mm less in diameter.
I've purchased a copy of Resplandores and I think it will help me greatly. Just have to wait until it gets to me in a week or so.
Any help in the meantime is always appreciated!
Thanks again on the help with the 1887 Potosi dragon's teeth rarity issue on another post.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
OK. I suppose I'll keep answering myself until hopefully someone jumps in with more info...I really do believe this 1884 Ga 8 reales pictured above is genuine at 25.92 grams and almost NO wear. But this comment I found on another forum from years ago makes me wonder what really happened back in the days these coins were minted and what WAS the minimum weight the mints could "get away" with? The following statement says they would not allow anything under 26.8646....the coin pictured is almost one full gram less than that.....
With the advent of the milled coinage in 1732 things changed. Milled coinage put an end to clipping, so the weight can be used to determine authenticity. With milled coinage the maximum permissible weight for an 8 reales was 27.2638 grams. The minimum was 26.8646 grams. That is a very strict tolerance level and yes they did indeed use 4 decimal places. And these tolerance levels applied to all mints
Anyone?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
XRF is the definitive diagnostic tool here, but the fact that it's underweight by 1g is not exceptionally concerning; at least it's a known assayer / mint combination for the date.
When is the last time you calibrated your scale? From what I can tell, the average range is more like 26 to 28, varying by assayer and mint.
I'd vote genuine but cleaned and stained, unless Dr. Swamperbob wants to say otherwise, or realeswatcher. The staining concerns me a bit, but most of the contemporaries (i.e. those which were AR plated over an AE core) were 5-7 grams light and easily detected if held in hand opposite a genuine coin.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
I'll get one thing out of the way first - the M.O. seems to be hawk over the new BINs for bargains... then after the fact ask "hey is this a good coin please tell me?". That pillar 8R in the other thread was purchased all of 15 mins. after it was posted... and then you return it?
Secondly, the CT forum - have lurked/perused threads relevant threads in the past to see what coins are popping up. Richard Petty there states everything declaratively... and has been at least partially wrong on SO many topics I've read over the years regarding reales/Spanish Colonial, it's not even funny. While the Spanish Colonial Real/Escudo (continuing into post-Colonial Mexico) was certainly a fairly stable and consistent coinage for a long period... there are absolutely exceptions (e.g., Lima portrait 8R weights are observed to fluctuate). Aside from that, to be fair, that is referring to pillar and portrait colonial and cannot automatically be applied to POST-colonial.
But I digress... the seller posted that ~26.0g weight as well, so that's what it is +/- a tenth. That does seem strangely low... HOWEVER (and maybe Bob and/or people who do more with the later date Cap & Rays can elaborate)... I know from experience that there are certain mints whose 1870s-80s era C&R are sometimes observed to run a bit HIGHER than the theoretical standard. Culiacan and (I think)? Hermosillo come to mind... Along those lines, if overweight is possible (and who knows if the silver purity was off in tandem with that), no reason that, in theory, you can't have UNDERweight pieces.
And, of course, the early date Cap & Ray 8R are all over the place for weight (same is true for 1820s-40s Peru 8R).
For this coin, yes, cleaned (maybe remnant of ink chop?)... but lots of meat so there's little loss to wear/handling unless there's some rim shaving we're not seeing. I see nothing odd about the piece aside from that weight... Circumstantially, the grouping it was in seems to have sat for some time (was cleaned, then sat for for time and hazed up somewhat sort of points to a certain earlier era)... Overall, I would think it's genuine.
I peeked at the Banxico Museum collection out of curiosity... Most of their 1884 Guadalajaras are right where they should be... none of the (5) or so they hold is vastly under tolerance. Interestingly, one piece with about that same XF-AU wear as this one is a tad high at 27.13g.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Quote:
but most of the contemporaries (i.e. those which were AR plated over an AE core) were 5-7 grams light and easily detected if held in hand opposite a genuine coin. That holds in a lot cases... but be careful - not always! Especially tru for some of the higher quality later date CC Cap & Ray 8R. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Looked at the Banxico 1883Ga and 1885Ga specimens... also all fairly close to expected prescribed weight.
So, yeah, curious piece this one is.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
Sorry it took so long to get back to this thread. I decided to keep the coin and take my chances. I agree paralyse that XRF would be an excellent test, but I don't have an expensive piece of equipment like that. And I am a "newbie" to these to an extent. I had about 30 cap and rays 8 reales from 1828 to 1897 that I bought about 14 years ago. Since getting back into them recently, I have found that two of them are fakes. The rest seem genuine. My scale is a cheap one, but it's served me well in the last few years with Morgan dollars from the bay. You would not believe how many of those I bought that I returned because they were fake. I'd say a rough guess would be 30 out of about 125 rarer dates mostly. That $15 scale has saved me thousands I'd bet. Some were so good, if it were not for the weight difference, I would not have known. Again, on Morgans only. And that is another troubling aspect of this hobby. I'm 65. Been collecting off and on since I was 13. Am starting to sell off my US stuff because of bad health (yes, no BS here, it's unfortunately true in my case) and that's what got me interested in these 8 reales again when I uncovered them recently. To really know if a coin is genuine these days, it seems it has to be certified by a TPG company at an ever increasing expense. I don't see the point in paying a minimum of $22 (cheapest I know of and that's through a local dealer I certainly don't trust and with good reason) per coin when the coins themselves don't sell for much more. Now on an expensive rare one, yes, by all means if that's your thing. But most of my USA stuff is raw or in GSA or TPG holders that I bought that way to make sure it was real. And I've cracked a few cases open in my day just so I could put them in albums too. Not too many, but some I've cracked. And every one of the probably 8 or so of the other 8 reales I've bought from one seller this one came from have been true in every way I have found to test them, so I think this one is good. I will have to look at the stains a bit better, but the eagle side is one beautiful side IMO and yes, been cleaned, and I don't especially like that, but it is what it is and in today's overpriced world was a bargain at a little above $30 to my door. I did not post a pic of the edge, but it looks good to me and has not been shaved either. Again, I'll take my chances, but always enjoy a good discussion on the matter. And, yes realeswatcher , I posted that early 1869 pillar in another thread because the seller was sketchy and I could not find a real one that has characteristics like that one did. So I do think it was fake. Will never be certain, but at least I was able to return it for the small amount I paid versus what a 'real" one would have cost. from now on, I'll stick to knowing better before I leap. And one last side note: I have 6 pillar dollars from 1733 to 1771 and I thought one or two were counterfeit, but after weighing and checking them out the best ways available to me without further costs, the only one I would have bet was genuine I bought from a reputable coin shop almost 40 years ago was fake. The others all seem to be real. Three came with shipwreck certificates I still have and two of those three are still in sealed plastic like they would have been accompanied by the certificates. And I now have a good copy of Resplandores so I can use that as a reference. Helps a lot! Thanks everyone, good info. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
I just latched onto this thread (been busy this month, serving as a juror at the moment).
I'd remark that even PCGS & NGC have been known to screw up in authenticating "Cap & Rays" 8 reales.
I agree with the earlier remark that 1 gram underweight isn't in itself indicative of a fake, but the counterfeiters of that time seemed pretty adept at getting the weight close even when the composition was deficient in Ag. Then there's the issue of corruption. Despite the severe penalties that could be imposed on the assayer, almost certainly some coins were made during both the 1st & 2nd republics that were just a little short regarding the required content of silver in the alloy, the presumption being that mint employees were lining their pockets with the small differential, which became considerable when magnified by many thousands of coins. So you might have a genuine (in that it was struck by the mint) albeit debased coin.
I've also had numerous specimens of this genre that were seriously overweight. The scam there supposedly would be for somebody at the mint to route all or most of those to a collaborator on the outside, who'd then melt them down (being that they were intrinsically worth more than their face value) and then resell the bullion back to the mint at a profit (which of course the inside man would share in).
Colligo ergo sum
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
Lucky Cuss
That all now makes sense to me. I never thought of the things you mentioned as possibilities. And it also explains why I have a couple of 8 reales from about this same time period that are overweight. Like around 27.2 or slightly more, and I think one is a whopping 27.6 grams, but sure seems real. It's an 1886 Cn AM.
Thanks for the information. Very helpful!
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 2,510 |
|
Posted 09/02/2017 2:05 pm
