| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 3,356 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Tonight I saw the following coin on a European auction site. I am positive I know what it is and about when it was made.. Do you have an opinion and why? There are four major clues visible in the picture below. Can you spot all 4?  |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12477 Posts |
I'll jump. I know next to nothing about these. The font in the date looks wrong, especially the upper curl of the 0. The o in the mintmark is off-center. There is weakness on the upper portions of the letters "CAROL" while the denticles are very strong. I really don't know because of variations between dies. It's a start!  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5362 Posts |
spruett001 The mint mark is incorrect. As you noted the superscript o is not centered over the M. The original matrix block included a single character M with the superscript in place, this therefore is either a case of a repunching of just the superscript or the character was made with two punches. The first is a possibility I have never actually seen but the second is a clear indication of forgery. 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
Wow, I may have caught on to one point. I do know what the Mexico City MM looks like and it caught my attention as an unusually sloppy punch.  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
653 Posts |
Ok, I will have a go. Looking at the bottom of the obverse of the 1805 Reale there appears to be a "raised rim". From the CCF post of http://goccf.com/t/312155 swamperbob mentions the following: "The raised rim is never seen on a genuine 8 reales because they were struck in a screw press. The design of the coin is close to perfect because it was copied from a genuine coin." There is a nice example of how this is created in the above post. I hope that I have interpreted this correctly ... Squire |
|
New Member
United States
47 Posts |
I have no business even trying but - are the castles too perfectly formed?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Squire Wilson Yes, the dentil row is incorrect and ends before the edge. The best example of at least three is under the date.  I made the images of the problems before I wrote this post. So two down two (or three) to go. You will need to go the "extra mile" to see the 5th issue. xlrcable Sorry but the castles while slightly different than is typically seen are not on my list. The reason is because the super-tiny differences are really unfair to the average viewer. I could say the same about the majority of features. The 5 total points are VERY INCORRECT. Spectacular errors even.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
653 Posts |
Thanks for the nice feedback swamperbob  Something else that struck me as odd when comparing this Spanish Dollar to my own . The location of the crown in relation to other parts of the design on the reverse of the coin. To explain this better I have attached a comparison between a coin pronounced genuine by swamperbob in the post http://goccf.com/t/142623&SearchTer...anish,dollar at the top. My Spanish dollar - a possible English restrike from 1830 to 1850 - in the centre. The coin under discussion in this post down the bottom. In the last case the crown is detached from the crest. In the genuine coin and also in my example the crown is joined to the crest. Squire  Edited by Squire Wilson
03/14/2018 04:32 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
The crown does appear to be too high and this is the first time I see the top left lily in the fleur-de-lis leaning backwards vs forwards in an 1805. There's also something about the amount or distribution of "wear" on the obverse that makes me uncomfortable.
Having said all that...
I would still not condemn this coin based on images alone.
Also, Bob, I remember seeing the off-center mintmark superscript before. Let me see if I can dig something up from my archives.
Edited by TwoKopeiki
03/14/2018 08:21 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
653 Posts |
...something else I have noticed when comparing my Spanish Dollar with the 1805 example in this forum topic. The position of the dot after " REX" on the reverse differs. Note it's location in relation to the base of the "pillar" I have attached my example for comparison The position of this dot in relation to the base of the pillar on my coin is the same as that on the coin pronounced genuine by swamperbob Squire  Edited by Squire Wilson
03/14/2018 07:06 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
Squire - there were quite a few dies used in 1805. Position of the legend elements is one of the primary diagnostics and doesn't necessarily point to a counterfeit.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
Here's an 1803-FT in PCGS plastic also exhibiting the mintmark anomaly:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Two types of letter "A" script seen.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Czech Republic
803 Posts |
Wonghinghi - are you referring to the wavy base vs flat base letters "A"? Calbeto documented these as two different types ("letras ondulada"), but I believe this effect is due to the metal flow during the strike vs actually a different punch used.
Would love to hear other's opinion, as well.
|
|
Valued Member
Romania
86 Posts |
No expertize in this, but I do not like the straight upper hair ribbon.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
653 Posts |
Thanks for the feedback TwoKoepeiki  Do you think that the displaced crown in the 1805 example shown in this topic is also due to die variation? Squire |
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 3,356 |
Posted 03/13/2018 03:18 am
