1766 Mexican 8 Real Coin With Some Curious Features

Regarding any conspiracy theory about why no longer in the slab...


Actually, if they upon review deemed it fake, I would think they would have to end up "buying" the coin from you (at your cost) under their guarantee - unless for some reasson you really wanted your fake coin back.

However, in this case, I highly, HIGHLY doubt that someone paid to send back this rather widgety, not super-high value piece to maybe see if PCGS would, upon further review, sink it altogether and call it fake!!

Now, it COULD be that someone cracked it out/resubmitted in the hopes that it would straight grade, as the piece does have decent surfaces at first glance (esp. pillars side). I'm guessing in hand, though, that those lighter spots on the shield side are nastier patches of scrublines which are too damming.



That is the most likely answer.

Will the vendor at least give you the coin's weight?

Please make sure you can return the coin for a refund even after removing it from the coin flip.

I think measurement of the diameter, thickness and weight will help determine if this could possibly be genuine.

Some additional information about the coin.
Weight is 26.98 grams
The "back-to-front 1765 date" on the reverse of the coin does indeed have a raised profile.

This is really interesting

Squire

Useful timing, along comes this piece... looks to be the same effect on a later 1804 Mexico 8R. The pillar/castle foot certainly look to be raised (seller in fact called it over overstrike).

Definitely NOT an overstrike, though - the visible castle base means that it's a mirrored image of the reverse design, as a die clash would present.

Very interesting stuff. I wish I could opine on your theory but my knowledge of Mexican minting techniques in 1765 is a bit light :) I suppose it sounds plausible.

I would love to hear Swamperbob's take on this.

I am chiming in late because I have not been following the forum closely due to medical problems at home.

There is a problem here that no one has pointed out so far.

PCGS encapsulation of non-US coins can and does include numerous examples of counterfeit coins. Apparently there is no guarantee of authenticity for world coins encapsulated by PCGS. I have in my possession several Riddell listed contemporary counterfeits that have been encapsulated in PCGS holders and until recently I considered them to be very rare (seldom seen errors).

A couple years ago Heritage auctions listed 4 Contemporary Counterfeit 8 Reales for sale. All 4 coins were in PCGS holders. They were part of the Foxlair Collection that had belonged to Ralph Paucher. Ralph used to publish Mexican Coin Magic a monthly on line publication devoted to Mexican items of interest. Included in 8 Reales being sold was an example of the Riddell # 237 which happens to be the coin I use on the Forum as an avitar. The 1834 Zs OM counterfeit is my favorite of all the Riddell counterfeit coins because it is the first counterfeit I identified as a kid in 1959 or 1960.

Well to make a long story longer, about a week before the sale occurred Heritage pulled all four graded coins because someone told them the coins were not genuine. After the auctions the coins disappeared for a time. It took me some time to trace the 1834 Zs OM coin down but I located the "counterfeit collection" that Ralph had owned and I negotiated the purchase of the group of about 100 coins. The 1834 Zs OM had been removed from the PCGS holder as were the other three counterfeits. The dealer who is a PCGS member was nice enough to resumbit the 1834 and two 1836 Potosi 8 reals to PCGS again. I am in possession of the Riddell # 237 1834 Zs OM counterfeit and I am awaiting the other two re-holdered counterfeits.

Here is the coin in the new PCGS holder:



When I asked the dealer about why would PCGS re-holder a coin that was a well known (and very common) counterfeit, he explained to me that the PCGS guarantee of authenticity does not apply to Mexican and other world coins. I found that very interesting but extremely disturbing at the same time. If that statement is true and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the dealer - then anyone who owns a world coin in a PCGS holder has no guarantee of authenticity at all - only an opinion of grade.

Regarding the very odd coin that is the subject of this thread - I would add to the list of possibilities - a modern numismatic forgery.

The reasons I think the coin could be a forgery are varied but the reverse "raised clash" image is my primary concern. I am at a loss as to how this specific image could have been raised on a manual screw press. In addition the erosion around some of the other details on the reverse is something I have encountered before on counterfeits made from eroded centrifugal casting molds. The low weight is an added factor as well.

I would definitely suggest testing the density of the coin and performing a check of the alloy for gold using XRF. As you will recall Mexican silver has a significant gold contamination which could not physically have been removed from the silver in 1766.

Bob, best wishes on the health front for everyone.

Let's ignore the slabbing aspect - we've seen plenty to know that's no slam dunk, they aren't specialists, etc.

Have you seen other instances of "raised clash" on what you feel are otherwise genuine-looking pieces? And again, what of the 1804 I posted? That clash certainly LOOKS raised, and the seller in hand is mistaking for an overstruck coin (lending credence to the idea that the detail is RAISED rather than recessed).

Like jfransch also noted (that missing foot on the castle) - yes, there is some oddness to the shield-side... though again, I think that could be explained away by the weird clash et al that occurred here (IF genuine).

BTW, Squire reported the weight at just under 27 - so that's not an issue. I would imagine it's of good silver, as well. Obviously only XRF would show trace elements.

Overall... I think the overall "look" of the piece says genuine - really without question. Would anyone really call this piece out looking at just the pillars side? (again, noting that these mid-1760s years often show smaller planchets/short denticles). However, that "clash" IS strange and hard to explain... as I speculated, I think some brockage/stuck planchet would have to be involved.

In any event, though... if this IS a cast, still doesn't answer: HOW DID THE RAISED CLASH IMAGE COME ABOUT?


And BTW, compare that 1804 to this clearly recessed (normal) clash on an 1805:

I have never seen a "raised clash" on any coin other than a modern numismatic forgery. Perhaps I did not make that point clearly.

Regarding PCGS, I know what the PCGS boilerplate reads - but when dealing with Mexican 8 Reales the obvious lack of understanding of the series on the part of all TPGs means that counterfeits do get slabbed. Unfortunately scientific testing is not possible after a coin is slabbed. Encapsulated coins can not be XRF tested. This is precisely why I believe encapsulation of coins in the series is premature until such time as scientific testing is practiced by the TPGs BEFORE they encapsulate a coin.

I have seen one other Riddell #237 that was slabbed by PCGS. The one I own has been slabbed TWICE in a period of about 10 years. So on at least three occasions the most common Riddell counterfeit known to exist has been slabbed by PCGS as genuine. This particular type was a coin that I picked out as being counterfeit when I was a pre-teen - before I ever saw a copy of Riddell's book.

I actually prefer the answer given by the dealer that PCGS does not authenticate the series. Otherwise, it means that they failed to spot a very obvious counterfeit. So if they are that bad - at what point do collectors start to see that encapsulating Cap and Ray 8 reales is of no actual value?