|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.
Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 4,320 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Edited by realeswatcher
01/23/2018 01:17 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Are you going to tell the guy on CU that posted the top coin? I'm tempted to drop the link to this thread in that one  Edited by Numismat
01/23/2018 01:53 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Austria
566 Posts |
Agree, these are fake, very fake.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
I felt compelled to follow up on my comment regarding issues from non-hubbed dies, without, I hope, stealing realeswatcher's thunder. I wasn't specifically commenting on the OP's coin but still...  Edited by jgenn
01/23/2018 11:47 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1962 Posts |
I'd actually be curious to see if anyone raised a question (and from the seller's clear pics, that would be possible from a close critical look)... but obviously he received the coin a few days back now, so the ball should get rolling if he believes and wants to return it.
So, what you wrote is perfect to start, as it will prod the curious. Maybe give it through the evening to see what people come up with, then if nothing, you can inform directly.
Overall, it's a convincing piece... and it certainly helped to have seen the other pieces and be aware of a certain pattern. But as I said, there happen to be signs on the 1758 itself (one definite red flag) which should invite further study if you cared enough. Once you then start doing the proper comparisons, it becomes clear what you're dealing with here.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
No one raised any questions. May I share your other two examples there? Of course cited as courtesy of realeswatcher on CCF :) Edit: Nevermind, I see jgenn is on top of it  Edited by Numismat
01/23/2018 11:31 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
No credit needed nor wanted... RE: The related fake 1756, 1757, 1758 Mexico 4 Reales (getting that typed out for future search keywording purposes): You know, was searching a few things and, amusingly enough, came back across a thread/coin(s) I had forgotten about: http://goccf.com/t/100787dealing with 1757 siblings of these plus some other pieces. Also, digging some more, they fooled the gang in Winter Park... thrice (two in the same auction!... and the last two links are the same specimen, four years apart): http://www.icollector.com/Mexico-Ci...MM_i15947233http://www.icollector.com/Mexico-Ci...MM_i15947234http://www.icollector.com/Mexico-Ci...MM_i26972932I also find another 1757 from ebay in 2013 (I "think" from that ring with which several regulars here were quite familiar). Am not going to break down the exact hows and whys here. Long story short... the pieces are each questionable taken alone, and when examined together, it is clear that they are all siblings and all fake. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
Hello All, Would you guys please consider helping me understand what factors make this coin suspect? I'm very much still learning but I must say, examination under loop doesn't raise any concerns for me. It weights out within what I would consider the tolerance for 4 Reales, particularly given that many were under official weight which is confirmed by Gilboy and also Yonika. In fact, in Brad Yonika's recently released book he notes that "on average" for the coins he weighed 4R came it at 13.29. Gilboy doesn't purport to have conducted his own weights but does list the legal weight, along with a max. permissible weight and a min. permissible weight. The min. permissible listed is 13.3824g. My coin weighed out at 13.20g and naturally has some loss due to wear (assuming for just a moment it is a real Reale) That puts it between 1/10, down to 9 hundreds of a gram, to what these two writers have noted. It measures up, size wise, to the same dimensions as other four reales. I also passed it under a metal detector that I have and it rings up as silver, in the exact range I would expect it to. So it's not an alloy, or if it is it's comprised primarily of silver. Next Gilboy speaks in his book about mules and varieties as a result of practices that took place at the mexico mint, particularly during certain years, see pages 213 through 220. 1757-58 would be included in those years. Gilboy also lists a variety, exactly comparable to this coin but for the 1759 4 reales, yet searching past auction records I could find no such examples, of course they could be few and far between, but then I ask why couldn't this one be just the same? Brad Yonika notes that he observed 1 example, the same as mine in his study. Not conclusive, but interesting. If this coin is a fake, which anything is possible, I must say it would fool a lot of people. To which I must ask, why would someone go through so much trouble to fabricate a coin that, until Yonika, was an unlisted variety, particularly when very few people outside of specialists would even know that it is a variety (think how few people have access to Gilboy's book or other books on these coins for that matter - The books are hard to come by and are expensive when you do find them, not including Brad's new book.) Are forgers going to go through the trouble of making this coin with exacting detail, make it using silver, and then sell if for roughly the cost of a generic 4 reale if it were in that same state of preservation? And how long could they do it given it would become very noticeable when these never before seen varieties are everywhere, it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not challenging anybody's expertise, as I'm really new to the hobby, in fact I have really only been active in the last couple of years, but I am trying to look at it from a logic / feasibility / what's the point of creating a fake that would be so easily detectable point of view. Your thoughts are appreciated. John      |
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
Hello all again. I just wanted to share some of my thinking. In light of the evidence of the other coins I suppose it's true that this coin is a counterfeit, at the same time I would like to send it in to be looked at by someone. I don't know if you folks would agree to bother or not. It was likely too good to be true for me to have such a find, and it's only because the counterfeiter mistakenly used the "wrong" date did I end up purchasing it. I guess the silver lining is that these seemingly well made fakes, at least to a nive like myself, have now been discovered for others to know aware of. Believe me, in the photo's the coin, I feel, looks convincing, but it hand I think it's even more convincing. This is no typical Chinese knock off that you may see on ebay time to time. It's definitely more sophisticated, and created by someone with some skill. Even the way the edge is on the coin is different from the two examples posted. If you closely look at the up and down "waves" of the coins edge and the details of the dentils, they are different. Meaning if you focus in on a specific number of the date, or a specific letter in the legend, it won't match the "wave" of the other coin nor have the same dentil at the same place. I used the metal detector as a quick check for debasement and the detector indicates silver, which the detector doesn't know if I'm waving a silver half dollar, or this seeming fake reale, past the coil. The detector will simply read what metal it is finding. The detector I have, a Whites Spectra V3, returns data back to the user in three ways, including by analized plotted wave graph of 3 different frequencies of testing, a return of a color coded bar graph and a VDI #. When testing the coin the detector returned a 100% indication that the coin was silver. In the frequency test it created a perfect bell curve indicating silver. In the color bar graph the coin showed up only and solidly in the green, which is an indicator of silver. Finally, in the return of the VDI reading, which not only indicates likely composition of material, but based on the returned number, and in use with the two other test indicators, also can give the user an expectation of size, of course one has to know how to interpret the information. For example, as my machine is currently set up, a 1960 dime will return a good bell graph, a solid green bar graph and a VDI reading of 81 or 82. Where as, a 1960 quarter will do the same for the first two tests but on the VDI reading it will return a number of 83 or 84. A half dollar will return a number of 85 or 86. Basically, the higher VDI, in conjunction with the other two tests, thereby indicates a larger sized silver object. Please excuse my long winded explanation of my use of the metal detector, but I performed the scan to serve as a quick spot check on composition/debasement. As suggested to me, a specific gravity test would be far more accurate, and as such, in light of the information presented, I'll work to get one performed soon. I know what the weight should be, approximately, of a four reale. I have a diameter measurement, but I'm lacking information for the actual accurate thickness of a good reale. I do have a pair of digital calipers so I can get an accurate size of my coin but I'll have to try and find info on the thickness with tolerances of a 4R. This whole process is very interesting if nothing else. I'm still so very interested in what else you can tell me and also, on it's own, without the aid of have the other images, would you agree that it would fool most, I can't imagine it wouldn't. If it hadn't been for the '58 date with the old style wings atop the imperial crown, I think this coin would go unnoticed. Thanks John |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Just the fact that you spent so much time going on about how it's silver, like that means anything (did you expect that all fakes are magnetic base metal casts with sandwich seams, 5 mm off, weighing 10g and stamped "Made In China"?!!)... Do you have any clue what's out there? If you're buying specialist books like Gilboy and the new Yonaka book, that means you're semi-serious about this (or at least about variety-picking). You have to be more diligent about authentication with Pillars, or you'll continue to get burned. Quote:
If it hadn't been for the '58 date with the old style wings atop the imperial crown, I think this coin would go unnoticed." I didn't notice that at all. The overall look/presentation set off the radar upon seeing the piece when it was listed... I recalled something related I had seen around the same time and I started digging in to verify. Overall, you DO realize that relatively few people are going to notice such a detail, right? As you noted yourself (though really out of half of your mouth if you go back and read your logic), not many buyers for these go to those lengths to research (even those with moderate collections). In this case, feel lucky that oversight of this small detail (this was prob. a 1757 that was copied/altered) helps steer - or for me, secondarily confirm - the analysis here. However, rather than noting that this feature was an outlier, assuming the obvious and then working backwards... you let VAM/Overton cherrypick fever tasks hold and didn't see the forest through the artificially toned trees. You have enough examples in front of you... Study them, note all the features that should (or shouldn't) be there and it should become clearer. If you DON'T know what you should be looking for... search through the multitude of previous posts on here to glean it. Really, the best thing you can do is to absorb all the genuine examples you can locate... get a good feel for the "fabric" of authentic material. Everything is easier from that perspective. Edited by realeswatcher
01/24/2018 2:10 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
Thanks for your reply Realeswatcher. Truly.
Please realize, as I stated, I'm not a seasoned collector. I'm certainly not a variety collector either.
I own exactly two columnarios, both graded 8 reales. But I really do enjoy these type of coins.
Mostly I'm a looker not a buyer. It was coincidental (bad) luck that I happened upon this coin shortly after reading through Brad's book. So it wasn't that I was filled with variety fever, it just clicked I'm my mind that this one was different.
I mentioned at the start of my original post on CU that I don't typically buy raw coins. I think I've bought 4 total in my entire time collecting, and all are in a different segment of collecting. So please be patient with my grasp of (fake) coin diagnostics.
I naturally, like anyone don't want to get burned. If one is going to buy or collect coins, which I do on a very limited basis, in fact I own more coin books than I do actual coins, then clearly one needs to try and take precautions in their purchases. I fully understand that.
At the same time I recognize my very limited ability in detecting fakes, hence most of the coins I've purchased came grade certified and from reputable auction houses. I consider this a novices first step, after actually deciding to make a purchase, in protecting oneself in today's nefarious marketplace.
For a moment put yourself in my place as a novice collector. What might be expected of a novice coin buyer in terms of trying to detect a fake raw coin.
1) Buy and read published literature, read online coin sites, look at as many coins as possible. I try to do those things.
2) Get a good weight scale that can read hundreds of a gram and weight your coin purchases when bought raw, which I did. (and as I explained I thought my coin was within reasonable tolerance of the known weights for the wear.)
3) Check for debasement or low tech fakes. With respect to the question of silver or not, I guess what I was trying to convey just didn't come across properly.
The detector/silver issue was just me taking another step in my approach to rule out one particular aspect of a fake, debasement, and I wanted to explain why, in detail, I conducted that particular odd way of performing that check. (As stated, I acknowledge that a specific gravity test would be the normal and best method to check for debasement)
4) Check the dimensional size of the coin, which I did with digital calipers. It checked out perfect for diameter, and I also checked out other sizing such as the date range spacing dimensioning as supplied by Gilboy's book, he provides a range and the coin fell within that range.
As a novice, I feel I took at least the minimum steps one should reasonably be expected to take.
I didn't pick up on the artificial toning. I don't know what to look for. To my novice eyes it looked original. Wild colorful toning, ok, I've seen enough of those AT coins to take a safe hedge, but not this kind of grey brown color with what looks like dirt in the devices. I have no clue. But I'm reading into your statement about "seeing the forest through the artificially tones trees" that this is the case here.
I certainly do hope to learn more in the coming years about the fabric of these coins, as you describe, but clearly I'm just not there yet.
Sometimes in life, not just in coin collecting, a helping hand and guidance can go a long way in advancing a person's knowledge and understanding.
While I will try to help myself get better at understanding these coins, I feel like what's being said here is very obscure for me to understand rather than just saying it plainly, as far as the red flags are concerned.
I can fully accept that my coin and the other coins depicted are fake.
I appreciate that people here and at CU have helped me to realize this.
I would really value a layman's, plainly termed lessen, even a brief one, as to what the flags are and how to see and interpret them.
AKA, You can give a guy a fish or you can teach him to fish. I'd like to learn how to see the flags but I'll add that not everyone, even when taught, will have the wherewithal capacity to fish. I guess the jury is still out on me in that respect.
Right now let me say I'm sorry if I'm not a sharp study, and I'm still a bit confused, but I'm very happy for all your help.
Thanks,
John
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
"As a novice, I feel I took at least the minimum steps one should reasonably be expected to take."
That's to some extent true. And that's why novices shouldn't really be buying raw mid-to-high pillar 4R... and increasingly, even for the NOT novice, it's getting harder. It is what it is.
For example, please PLEASE stop talking about weight and measurements. You HAVE to assume, at this point, that alloy content (aside from trace elements, as is frequently discussed here by Bob, John, and others), weight, dimensions, etc. - all the basic ish - is correct. IF by chance those HAPPEN to be off... run through anyway and figure out how could've deduced it WITHOUT having an easy tell.
What you have to study - intensively, thoroughly - are surfaces, tone, design elements, etc. Again, read through the old threads here... AND REVIEW AUCTION ARCHIVES OF GENUINE MATERIAL! The more you see, the better. Also look at other denoms. from that mint/time frame.
And yes, I'm being obscure:
A) I think, to some extent, people need to do their own legwork. I gave you a premise to prove and the necessary leads to do that. Again, if you have no clue as to how to go about that... if you care enough, you will put some time in and learn. Along, the way, your thought process will be honed.
These forums get poster after poster that comes along asking about a piece, knowing nothing... They get told something they don't want to hear, and then comes some variant of "Please explain everything to me so I can decide whether to believe you or not."... when they really just care about how much Four Loko they can buy after selling that one coin. It gets tiresome.
In your case, if you had the notion to delve into specialists' turf (Gilboy/Yonaka... in fact how many average collectors are even AWARE of those references, let alone utilize them?!) - you should enjoy the process.
B) I personally get conflicted writing too much on these forums in regards to specific diagnostics - do you really want to tell the enemy too much? SwamperBob is of the mindset, put simply, that they already know everything what's wrong and it's just a matter of whether it's economically sensible to put such effort in logistically to make everything as perfect as possible. That's sort of the way to think about highly skilled "coin surgeons" who "work on" important pieces here domestically - you're probably not going to be able to point out something they don't know... or even anything they don't realize people MIGHT notice.
I don't really think that's the case with these overseas wholesale forgers.
|
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
I think I'm starting to put some pieces together, obviously it will take some time. Would I be correct in asserting that the coin below is also fake? I think I see similarities to the fakes we discussed but it would be nice to know if I'm off on the right track. https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...r=0&company=Daniel Frank Sedwick Auction 21 May 3rd 2017 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Again, READ through these threads... READ, not skim quickly on your phone. Sit down at the desktop, crack a beer... and dig in. Open the photos of the coins in question... see what people are alluding to being wrong. http://goccf.com/t/100787This is your piece's sibling - fully the same model coin, date was altered. Mat took very good photos of his piece and smartly recorded the other piece as well - COMPARE CLOSELY. And don't only look at your piece in hand... refer to those good quality photos the seller took. Sometimes things that you might not notice "in hand" become obvious in 2-D on the screen. Then this 1750 - you HAVE the answer... now figure out how to get there: http://goccf.com/t/300594An example of what to search: https://www.coincommunity.com/numis...es&sa=Search |
| |
Replies: 27 / Views: 4,320 |
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.46 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |
Posted 01/23/2018 07:24 am
