Thoughts On A Central American Republic 8 Reales

Thanks for the reply. A lot of interesting information

I did a specific gravity test last night (the first one I've ever done). I came up with 8.8 But I forgot to do a baseline test so I will do that today to see if that measure is accurate

8.8 is not a good number for a genuine coin but might be right for a contemporary counterfeit. If the photos are accurate, I do like the way base metal may be seen poking out from some sort of surface color or wash. So that agrees with some of my own contemporary counterfeits. I don't use volume when I measure density seeing as the coin surfaces and non-roundness can be significant. My way is easier by simply weighing the piece in and out of water. I can imagine what the owner may mean by "baseline" is to use his method on a known piece to see if it agrees with what it should be. Such as measure a .999 copper coin or .999 silver coin or maybe an older U.S, silver dollar.

I'm curious of any websites or sellers deal in contemporary counterfeits only? In cases like this, if this coin would be offered for sale, it could make a nice piece for my own collection.

Specific Gravity: Given the weight and the look, would not have expected anything BUT something down in that range.

First, after looking at your pics again, I don't think that's any kind of overstrike/double strike in the fields to either side of the tree (as the pics hint at) - I believe that's just planchet flaking. There is of course the obvious peripheral doubling, though.

The other posted below is a (2) are posted below, along with a genuine 1840 (or "1840/37 MA/BA", as almost all 1840 dates seem to be).

Let's just look at the tree. Note that the tree used around this date never varies - sampled 1837, 1839, 1840, 1841 dates and all use this EXACT tree as seen on the genuine example, no variation.

Now compare that to the tree on all (3) suspects. Work from the trunk up/under the left side periphery. I'm not going to enumerate the differences, it should be obvious - this is NOT the same tree. If you then step back and look big picture, you can see it has a "different" look - simply not as intricate.

Then, a careful examination further shows that the tree used on all (3) suspects is indeed the same. Harder to see on the less defined/more worn piece, but look carefully enough and you can tell it is a match.

BUT - the coins are NOT exact die matches for both sides. I haven't stared enough to confirm... but I MAY be willing to say that all (3) are essentially matches on the tree side. However, the sunburst sides show a lot of obvious differences in the legend lettering (all three with very different looking dates!!). Beyond that, looking mainly at the (2) clearer pieces... I think the whole sun/rays/mountains setup is fully different engraving. Look, e.g., at the angling of the rays immediately above the sun in relation to the inner legend circle. Then, also, look at the very tip of the 2nd mountain - ends right in the ray on the first CC shown, but clearly BETWEEN rays on OLCoins' piece.

So, long story short... all (3) - incl. OLCoins' piece - are certainly "non-regal", the overall look and "feel" screams contemporary rather than any modern concoction, and given that the trees on those (3) match up, I'm confident they emanated from the same source.

No. There's no collar - it simply went far enough off-center to go beyond the end of the denticles (clearly from that pronounced legend doubling, the strike was goofy). Not at all uncommon on regal Spanish Colonial portrait coinage (Lima especially).



Such a die-specific flaw essentially confirms those two came from THE same reverse die... I also don't see anything on the reverse of the worn third coin that does NOT match up. The one distinct feature I'm keying on that really matches perfectly to the other two is the pair of superscript "S" in the legend - with the further right S being filled in the same exact manner.

Again, the obverses show some variation... but the reverse commonalities leave no doubt that these are all from the same hands.

"Do you mind if I use the pictures..."

Yeah, go ahead - fair game once they're online :->

Old thread I just came back across while Googling something else. Have seen a few more of this type in the last few years (and again, there's variation in the dies). Most interestingly, though, it occurred to me that a specimen is shown in Riddell's 1845 "Monograph..."