Posted 04/20/2019 11:42 pm
jgenn I saw the reference and was very pleased to see that my work is being recognized as a starting place when dealing with Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales. I can confirm that he coin presented in the auction is not shown in my book.
At one point I did entertain a section showing various cancellation methods considered to be contemporary, but that idea was abandoned early on as being far too controversial. This coin would be a good example of such a controversial cancellation simply because both halves remain together. The question of when the coin was actually cut in half is difficult if not impossible to answer definitively. Therefore no premium value could be assigned since any counterfeit could be cut in half at any time.
In any event, the coin in the auction is in all probability a cast based on the surface texture. The broken section may hold clues that would answer that question by simply performing a microscopic examination.
In my book we chose to include cast copies that were created from engraved or carved molds but VERY FEW coins cast from images transferred from genuine coins (see discussion on page 56 and following). This was done to avoid a great number of transfer casts which are extremely difficult to date. We did include some early types (sand cast types typically dated before 1830) but this was done to provide examples of technologies that are handy when dating counterfeits.
Based on the way the coin fractured, I would believe that the description of the coin as counterfeit is probably correct. However, because it is a transferred image taken from a genuine coin, it is unlikely that such a coin would ever have been included in the book. The coin was most likely created after 1830 using an improved casting material or possibly using electro-typing to create the impression. Anything more will depend on accurate XRF test results.
At one point I did entertain a section showing various cancellation methods considered to be contemporary, but that idea was abandoned early on as being far too controversial. This coin would be a good example of such a controversial cancellation simply because both halves remain together. The question of when the coin was actually cut in half is difficult if not impossible to answer definitively. Therefore no premium value could be assigned since any counterfeit could be cut in half at any time.
In any event, the coin in the auction is in all probability a cast based on the surface texture. The broken section may hold clues that would answer that question by simply performing a microscopic examination.
In my book we chose to include cast copies that were created from engraved or carved molds but VERY FEW coins cast from images transferred from genuine coins (see discussion on page 56 and following). This was done to avoid a great number of transfer casts which are extremely difficult to date. We did include some early types (sand cast types typically dated before 1830) but this was done to provide examples of technologies that are handy when dating counterfeits.
Based on the way the coin fractured, I would believe that the description of the coin as counterfeit is probably correct. However, because it is a transferred image taken from a genuine coin, it is unlikely that such a coin would ever have been included in the book. The coin was most likely created after 1830 using an improved casting material or possibly using electro-typing to create the impression. Anything more will depend on accurate XRF test results.
