Guatemala 1863 Peso Contemporary Counterfeit Or Modern Forgery

This post is a bit longer than most but I am trying to cover the situation completely and at the same time explain my methodology of determining classification.

PatAR Interesting fake and a better question about when it was manufactured. There are two distinct types of fakes that exist. The first are the Contemporary Circulating Counterfeits (CCC) - these were made to circulate alongside the original coins in commerce. The second are the Numismatic Forgeries (NF) - these were made to deceive coin collectors at any point in time AFTER the coin became collectable. In some cases, there is a third class of fakes made to fraudulently take advantage of monetary metal fluctuations on the world market. These are more common than most collectors and dealers realize and to my knowledge no one has yet given the type a name. Because they depend on fraud in terms of metallic value, I see them as very closely related to the NF type. I will refer to them as Monetary Frauds (MF). More about the third classification MF later.

The difference in classification is critical since CCC types are generally collectable as part of the numismatic history of the country it came from while NF's are only of nuisance value for identification and avoidance. The MF type are slightly superior to the NF type but they are clearly not as desirable as CCC types.

The 1863 Peso from Guatemala is known to exist as both a CCC and a NF. I own one of the latter. My example is copper-nickel and the edge was applied as a second distinct operation. Mine is also close to yours in weight because it was struck on a thicker than normal planchet. I have not encountered a centrifugal cast copy but I suspect they do exist. You would need a collector of Guatemalan forgeries to confirm that last fact.

The size of your coin seems to indicate a volume that is too great to match an original coin. Using your dimensions I arrived at a volume of 2.75 cubic cm which would weigh 28.3 grams if it was coin silver. The Peso of 1863 had an actual standard weight of 27 grams. Your coin weighs 24.4 grams.

In the period from 1863 to the early 1900s the use of Counterfeit Detection balances was very popular and a thick coin or underweight coin would be easily detected. This is a factor that would tend to make the coin easily detected in circulation.

I agree with John when I say that I am unaware of the Chinese producing a layered forgery of this coin but anything is possible. So can you rule out a simple layered coin by checking the edge for a color change? If there is no color change and no bonding seam from the application of a false silver edge, we need to go elsewhere on our quest.

But first there are a couple facts that apply to the world of coin fraud which we need to keep in mind.




These statements as obvious as they seem are often overlooked by collectors when they attempt to determine the age of fakes.

The first fact is clearly true for a CCC because the coin here is debased significantly to create a profit margin if it was accepted into circulation. It is also clearly true if the coin is a NF since the coin as a collectable has a value far above the worth of the silver.

Moving on to question two - we need to know how was the coin manufactured? All layered coins with the exception of an electroplate are struck. Your description of the plate thickness eliminates that single exception. So the coin was struck using dies.

When you indicate a "relatively thick plating" over a base metal core, exactly what are you comparing it to? Sheffield Plate comes in thicknesses which from my observation not normally exceed 0.007 inches. The technology as first developed (ca 1780) was based on the use of a near pure copper core over which silver was bonded by heat and pressure. The bond created is seamless. Later in time, after 1835-49, Sheffield plate was modified to use copper nickel varieties very similar to German Silver. Once again the bond is seamless. Fouree technology developed in antiquity (B.C.) uses a silver foil surface of variable thickness which is mechanically bonded to a base metal core. Unlike Sheffield plate the Fouree technology leaves a very visible seam that often separates over time due to corrosion along the bonding line.

So to help decide the question of methodology is there a seam?

Presuming that the answer above is resolved, the next step is to determine how the image of the coin was placed on the die. To do so you need to know how dies are made. In 1863 Guatemala used French made coining dies. Hubs were likely employed. France was a leader in coining technologies and they were credited with possessed the technology needed to duplicate some dies very early ca 1845. However, that ability was based on their possessing the die punches needed for the creation of coining hubs. Very few other mints were as advanced. Counterfeiters of the period 1845 to 1865 simply did not possess the technology needed to create a steel die from a silver coin.

Some authors postulate the existence of a technology using the principles of electrical erosion or deposition to create such dies. In my experience and based on my research I believe that it is simply not true. While electroplating could produce a very decent copy of a coin in copper in 1835 creating a steel die was not possible.

Spark erosion the first methodology employed by counterfeiters did not produce clean die surfaces. I base this on my own examination of hundreds of examples of coins made with this technology which circulated before 1900.

Having examined the pictures of the counterfeit coin and genuine examples, I am of the opinion that the counterfeit dies were essentially perfect lacking the same identification traits seen on CCC dies of the period. It is hard for me to believe that these dies could have been produced anywhere other than an advanced die shop equipped with genuine die punches for the 1863 Guatemalan Peso before 1900.

I also read a bit on the history of Guatemala to determine when the 1863 Peso would have circulated. In 1869 the Peso standard in Guatemala was changed from 27 grams of 900 fine silver to 25 grams of 900 fine silver. That devaluation ended the circulation of the older Pesos. After 1869 this coin did NOT circulate.

So based on the historic data and the method of manufacture as far as that has been determined - the coin must be a form of Numismatic Forgery made to defraud dealers in bullion coins or people who viewed the coin as containing excessive silver.

This classification is third class of fraudulent Guatemalan coins neither a true CCC type nor a typical NF. In the period from roughly 1870 up to the depression in 1929, many countries faced similar issues with the world metal markets. Coins in circulation either contained too much silver for the face value or the value of silver fell below the face value creating an inverse opportunity. There are many similar situations - the Spanish 5 Pesetas of the 1880 and 1890s is the first that comes to mind, but the Morgan dollar in the US fell into the same category after 1893 when world silver prices plummeted. The Peruvian silver sols of the 1920's and 1930's created another type of MF.

So I conclude by saying that this coin is extremely unlikely to be a counterfeit made for actual circulation. It was produced later as a Monetary Fraud - a classification akin to Numismatic Forgery.

jgenn I do like Bullion Fraud as a name for this composite category. Clearly it is somewhat better than Monetary fraud.

As I see it, there are three aspects to bullion fraud and initially I was tempted to present more than one name depending on metallic content, however, I though that it is likely better to limit the categories for now to the minimum number for the sake of people who do not yet understand the motivational elements involved in fraud.

There are the coins made to slip into bullion lots that have little or no silver content which create a profit based on the level of debasement. The Guatemala Peso, the Peruvian Sols and some late Spanish colonial 8Rs fall into this group. These coins are salted into batches of silver being sold at bullion price and because the value is low no one checks carefully. These are closest to the Numismatic Forgeries but target bullion dealers and not collectors - the margin is not numismatic but purely bullion value.

Then there are the coins made to match the correct silver content of the original issue (or to be undetectable as not matching the specs) which create a profit primarily based on a higher Fiat value of the coin. The micro-O Morgan dollars, the Spanish 5 Pesetas of the 1880-1890's are this type of BF. The profit derives from the difference between melt value (standard value) and the value set by law (fiat) where they are current. These are clearly opportunistic issues as the period of time when this occurs is often a short interval. Think of 1893 when silver prices fell to 30 cents and ounce and a dollar US coin had a Token value above bullion. These are made while the coin is still in circulation and might be referred to as a CCC as well. However, CCC as defined in my book was based on a lower than standard bullion value (the normal condition of counterfeiters operating from antiquity). I see the distinction as clearly valid and as a representation of different motive for production. The distinction between this BF type and Numismatic Forgeries made in full weight metal is the date of production. The NF type is made after circulation has ceased and normally after a premium value over bullion has been established in the numismatic market. The motive for NF is to defraud collectors as opposed to BF where bullion dealers are the target.

The third category are creations made using full weight metal (silver and gold) specifically to fill a marketing niche where the design of the coin is critical to the buyer/user. The MTT (in Arab countries and Africa) and the Carolus (Bustman) Dollar (used in China and the orient in general) are in this category. However, there are many others. The unofficial Fat Man dollars of China made and circulated by groups other than the official Chinese government, various trade coins like the Rider and Dog Dollars, the gold ducats and gold sovereigns. I would even include some unofficial bullion ingots made to resemble ingot types that carry a bullion premium. The difference to be drawn here is that CCC types are debased and circulated along side commonly seen current coins without regard for design while the BF types are made anytime the coin is valued in commerce above either the fiat or bullion value.

Some people, in particular those who see all fake coins as falling into one category will say all of this as overkill, but to a true specialist in Fraudulent coins motive is inherently an element and one of great interest. I would compare the distinction as being similar to the difference between being a type collector and a specialist looking for every date, mint mark and assayer combination available. Neither is inherently better just different.

Thanks to all for your responses. A wealth of information as always. Thank you

I've taken a liking to jgenn's term "post-contemporary counterfeit" (PCC) and humbly submit that as a candidate for the official terminology.

Bob, my observations of the coin do not reveal a seem along the edge nor at the rim. Based on this and your statements the method of manufacture existed circa 1840s. However, the manufacture of dies that you mentioned could be a limiting factor unless, as occurred in Spain and the USA in the same era, there was some moonlighting at the nation's mint.

I very much appreciate your insights. Is it feasible to further narrow the time and place where a coin such as this might have been made and used?

Specifically, when and where would it have been advantageous to manufacture a Guatemalan peso? That is, why would a counterfeiter of any period, whether for commerce or bullion trade, choose a coin like this rather than a more widely circulated Mexican or Spanish colonial issue?

Bob, I am similarly particular about terminology and appreciate your explanation. However, I fear that we may have moved away from the intent of my previous question.

Do you have a theory regarding the particular time or place this coin may have been used for its nefarious purpose?

Thanks again for your help!

Bob does make a good point. These dies are well made for a CCC? Since you are in the U.S. you could send it to me for a FREE XRF. We will shoot the XRF gun in that opening. My E-Mail is on the Internet and starts with johnmenc ...

John Lorenzo

Took an XRF gun to the coin and it yielded these results:

Ag: 91.72%; Ir:0.469% & Cu: 7.66%.

So IMO a cheap XRF gun is inconclusive in the sense we see a regal level silver plate showing appropriate copper levels yet the weight is 24.41 grams to a desired regal weight of 27.0 grams. Normally XRF guns can only shoot the central area of the coin however more sophisticated XRF desktop devices with more accuracy would pick up more trace metals and could center on the break area with more accurate and desirable results. My contact basically does only central shots with a Viton XRF gun. So its inconclusive until a more sophisticated XRF device is used in multiple shots of th surface, As an example in another post I am investigating with SEM/EDS the surfaces of these so-called 1821 Zacatecas 8R discolored surface cleaned? coins by TPG's - which I believe are not cleaned. We can conclude its a sophisitcated silver plate probably over a copper core in which this copper core currently escapes detection of your basic XRF gun device. Rarely are these Sheffield type cores are of brass but predominantly copper as shown in Forgotten Coins and GNL. In terms of its production period I am not an expert enough to classify it as late 19thC or 20thC but trace fingerprint analysis in ppm levels of more sophisticated methods or XRF devices would provide information to this point along with its gold levels which are <1% in general whether 19thC or 20thC. Yes ALWAYS lower Au levels for the later. JPL

P.S. Coin is being sent out tomorrow.

PatAR Actually John's test result makes a good prima fascia case for the coin being made sometime after 1890. Let me explain.

The value of the hand held XRF test is that with that low power test gold will be still be detected if any is present in the alloy. Gold being denser than either silver or copper is seen by XRF at levels deeper into the coin. The XRF test result indicates no gold trace at all in the silver. That is a key finding in my opinion.

In 1863 there was no process available to remove residual trace gold from silver when dealing with mixed hydrothermally deposited ores like those typically found in Guatemala. The deposits are hydrothermal in nature just like the fissure deposits prevalent in the Mexican mines. They were produced by super heated water rising from the mantel into cracks in the crust.

The only factor I needed to confirm was whether the Caribbean tectonic plate mineral deposits were similar to those found in the North American plate. You see Guatemala is divided by the plate boundary between North America and the Caribbean. Most of the country is in the NA plate. I was able to find a mine report from the new CerroBlanco mine (2012) which is located south of the tectonic boundary. That means all of Guatemala typically possesses the same mix of silver and gold as does Mexico.

Therefore the lack of any gold trace means the coin COULD NOT have been made using Guatemalan silver in 1863 or anytime around that date.

The fact that the surface silver layer contains both silver and copper means the surface layer itself was NOT ELECTROPLATE. In Electroplates the entire deposition layer is 100% silver. Given that the surface layer was noted to be particularly thick, we must conclude that the coin is a more recently produced example of a Sheffield technology made with post 1890 silver and created for purposes of fraud - either Numismatic Fraud or Bullion Fraud. There is no room left to conclude that the coin is a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit.