1733 Mexico 8 Reales Mo-Mf Information Wanted

Those are the least doubtful of the group!

Looking back at this thread in its entirety... The cobs in particular would be most typical of what the ROOSWIJK has produced. The Hollandia had some cobs, but moreso pillars and ducatons (esp. 1742). However, just reviewing the ROOSWIJK Ponterio sale catalog, no ducatons that were offered... and Sedwick has never sold any from his Auction #5 to now.

Ducatons (especially a mix of portrait Spanish Neth. type and "Dutch" rider type) would be much more easily attributable to the HOLLANDIA (or even other wrecks, Merestein, etc... but knowing this is British-sourced, sticking with the most sensible option here).

So, in fact, there may be more than one wreck involved here - which wouldn't be horribly shocking, as the salvor types tend to run in one big circle of frenemy. I figured the 1733 pillar as HOLLANDIA based on what I was reading as blackish tone (plus more corrosion)... Seeing several different images in total now, I could maybe sold on them being ROOSWIJK (that wreck's material has been "conserved" in different ways by different groups, it would seem).

And also, John, I don't know what to think about the various (!) diameters Spence has reported... but excellent data from your Fleet pieces, thanks. Was wondering why you didn't check in to this thread.

I think, that the "likely from ... shipwreck" is a good tactics when selling corroded coins, but it does not add much to their value, especially when they are possibly fake.

A good quality coin is always better than a maybe shipwrecked coin.

I hope, that we do not come to the day when people damage coins in order to pass them as shipwrecked ones.

This would be a loss for numismatics and a good gain for story tellers.

Haha, is smartguy, ha. Of course, you also think this piece is "regal", soooooo...:
http://goccf.com/t/303510

To be clear, I have very little doubt those low-end cobs are genuine. Surfaces are absolutely fine (that pic is a bit grainy, if you look carefully)... and perfectly typical strike types for lower-end ca. 1730 Mex. Those few years, you see many pieces with very nice strikes (especially towards 32, 33)... and many pieces with HUGE flat peripheral areas. Go look through Sedwick's archived group lots of Rooswijk cob 8R.


Long since been done already (at least in terms of treating recent forgeries to look like such)... you know that. And of course there is some truth to/"yeah, already happened/happens" in the rest of what you said... but wreck material is a part of the market. It is what it is. If you like smooth surfaces, or don't trust anyone, or have zero ability to discern environmental effects, corrosion, etc. from casting porosity... avoid it.

This material, though, it's not there as a selling sticker, and "possibly Rooswijk", "possibly Hollandia" isn't really bumping the value at all. Those lower-end cobs ARE either genuine wreck (and again, best bet for the cobs IS Rooswijk, though it's probable those ducatons are Holanndia or other)... OR meticulously forged and treated to look like such. That, of course, is possible in theory... but I personally like to factor in at least SOME common sense. WHY bother forging such low-end pieces?

I have very little hope, that they are authentic. I can only say it for sure by examining them in person.

The statement "they have been XRF tested" does not prove, that these coins are authentic, that they were tested at all and that the tests were correctly interpreted.

I do not like those four and the milled 8 reales beneath them (here cut out of the picture) too.

It is my opinion.

I hope, that you would allow that.

Frankly, if you had more familiarity with Potosi shield-style designs, you would see CLEARLY - just from the photos alone - that that piece of yours is a contemporary counterfeit. Interesting piece, collectible - just not regal. More in that other thread...

The only reason I brought that piece up was because you're not evaluating (at least) those (4) perfectly legit-looking cobs correctly either!

Also, I'm not sure what the point is in your last post. Yes, everyone is aware - they are either genuine wreck material or modern numismatic fakes of wreck pieces. Perhaps some are the former and some are the latter. However, no one said anything about contemporary counterfeits FOR THESE PIECES... that is not a consideration here.


----------------

And what, you don't like the tone on this piece, for example? I could see that perspective out of caution and experience with what the Easterners are doing... BUT I would say spend some time (or don't if you don't want to bother with wreck material) reviewing the auction catalogues for some of these wrecks and then reevaluate. Different cleaning methods on differing environmental effects can leave behind curious patterns...

AND, yes, sometimes retoning is involved... so sometimes, it's no coincidence that "toned" wreck material and Chinese fakes may share a certain similarity.

Coinworldtv, what are the features that make you so sure that the 4 cobs being discussed are fakes? Could you please explain so we can have an open discussion and share information, after all that is the purpose behind the forum.

Highly disagree with you on this. And why write someone off as a hater simply because they have an informed opinion that is contrary to yours? That attitude hurts the hobby as a whole.

To employ some deduction here...

Looking back at all the pieces that were eventually shown... Given this material, out of the UK - assuming genuine - the Hollandia and/or Rooswijk almost certainly MUST be the sources. Perhaps, MAYBE, an older Vliegenthart ducaton could've mixed in (but wouldn't have sourced THOSE cobs, the klippe and pillars). But most probably, this is HOLLANDIA and/or ROOSWIJK.

As said above, the Rooswijk did not produce ducatons in any amount, so those really CAN'T be Rooswijk... but those cobs, the more I review material and look back at aucs with large hunks from that wreck, are really VERY typical Rooswijk (moreso like what was in the original Ponterio auction - less brightly cleaned that the second wave). As such, I think this material - again assuming genuine - is most likely a mix of two wrecks. These cobs COULD possibly be Hollandia (there were some), so the whole batch COULD be from that wreck... and of course that's what we were told initially (plus he called the supposed seller "old", more likely for Hollandia than Rooswijk people). It CAN'T all be Rosswijk, b/c of those ducatons in the mix.

So HOLLANDIA and/or ROOSWIJK, two wrecks salvaged - 34 years apart, on opposite sides of England - by the same Brit, primarily (Rex Cowan, who also did the Vliegenthart in between). As that might hint at, there is a a lot of path-crossing that takes place, so it's not at all inconceivable or unheard of that people who have some "connection" to the salvage field might possess mixed material.

Of course, anyone who was a simply a collector/buyer but not that careful with his paperwork could have estate mixes of these plus other wrecks like Rill Cove, Association, etc.

A lot of this UK-based wreck material has been steadily coming to market as Father Time marches on (as has been happening for some time here in the U.S. with 1715 Fleet stuff as that generation moves on). Some straight from heir/aging owner, some that you can guess went straight from heir/aging owner to local buyers... Others you see in more quantity from more pro-type dealers who are buying it from UK-based numismatic and often NON-numismatic (as this pillar and klippe were sold through) auctioneers - often in group lots, some surely coming from people who had some link to the salvage field.

What I have definitely noticed from this UK flow of material - often to my great frustration - is that the Brits don't seem to be greatly interested in (or good at) perfectly maintaining correct attribution and pedigree for this "Spanish" material. It's clear that people often have groupings of some coins, and some mixed paperwork, and occasionally things get obviously mismatched, but the Brits don't always know enough to spot it. The sure proof of this are "easy" situations where early, heavily seaworn Rill Cove material gets mismatched. "Dear Seller, no, that 5 gram 4 Reales ca. 1610 cob did not come from the 1740s Hollandia wreck"... "Oh, thanks, that's how they came to me. I don't know and I don't care. Cheers." I also recall a couple months back I saw an original Association COA paired with... a 1740 pillar 8R. Ummmmm... not possible.

Point is, UK wreck material often flows and blends together... so someone possessing a mixed "wholesale" type stash of wreck pieces is not necessarily dammning. That may apply here, it may not... just some general observations.