| Author |
Replies: 14 / Views: 2,957 |
|
|
New Member
United States
15 Posts |
I have an opinion on this piece, but will not bias you except to say that, although NGC certified and slabbed it as a 1839 Go PJ, it is most definitely NOT. What say you all? Thanks.  
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
 Augustus49! There is at least one member on this forum that can offer an expert opinion. Until swamperbob comments, here's a link to another forum post that might be of interest.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Augustus49 You have a very nice Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit 8 Reales. The coin is part of a rather distinctive family of counterfeits that is known for the well engraved - artistic depictions of the Mexican Eagle. The dies carry several dates and there is no correction between the mint and the style of the eagle.
As a specialist in the type I will advise you of the fact that it is in an NGC slab makes it of more interest than the fact that the coin is not genuine. Raw the counterfeit might bring $100 but in the holder it should bring more. Last I knew there was a bounty on encapsulated counterfeits of $100 just so that they can be removed from the holders.
I have a dozen in my collection already and I for one am always looking to expand my collection.
The general type itself is a relatively common counterfeit there are at least 4 Cap dies and 5 Eagle dies in the family. This is one of two similar varieties of a "Zacatecas style" bird. There is also a Guanajuato style bird and a Mexico City style as well as a very distinctive bird I call a Grosbeak. The most common variety are the 1833 D RM coins.
I have seen several examples in equally high grades which caused me for a time to suspect a more recent origin. The first couple I encountered came out of a 1970's collection formed in Canada. The collector passed away in the 1990's and I bought his collection. Since then other high grade examples of this same eagle have appeared at widespread locations from coast to coast in the US. Most have a provenance that dates back 40-50 years. Most examples are Cu-Ni alloys with minimal to zero silver content. None are magnetic. It took me a couple years to locate several well worn examples with standard period markings of testing and cancellation. The apparent age places the coin squarely in the Hard Times era.
I now classify the group as a Non-Riddell variety dating to the period before the US Civil War (based on the metal used). The technology employed makes the most likely point of origin the UK with the point of entry via Canada.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
85 Posts |
I am glad to see that my previous post has been referenced here. I do miss that coin but it is now in the right hands. I find your slabbed example very interesting. It's a good measure of how ill informed the TPG's are or were of this subject. Very cool find.
|
|
New Member
 United States
15 Posts |
Swamperbob Thanks. I agree with your assessment of CCC. What is even neater about the coin is that I bought this piece in 1995 from Richard A. Long (Auction 79/#305), and Richard recognized its strangeness stating that it may be a pattern or a well-made circulating counterfeit. His provenance for the coin was Lot 3221 in a 1978 NASCA auction. The coin appears to have deceived the cataloger and its former owner, the famous collector Wayte Raymond. ( I found the catalog using Washington University's Numismatic Portal which is a great resource, by the way.)
It certainly is a Zacatecas-like eagle. Did you notice the three dots between the assayer's initials as well as after the date? This makes me speculate that Soho was somehow involved in this CCC and "double-downed" on their 3 Dots.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
It might be helpful to know when it got certified by NGC?
|
|
New Member
 United States
15 Posts |
jgenn I cannot recall the date of submission with any precision. But, I did it at least a decade ago. So, if there is "dodginess" at TPG sites these days, then there has been for a while. I have several 8 Reales from NGC where my coins were totally mislabeled within my submission and "Quality Control" missed it. I do not submit anymore to either service after I sent in an 8 Reales for which they were unable to recognize a double struck coin with die rotation between the strikes. (I guess the error experts don't mingle with Latin American graders!?) The strike gave the coin a double-headed eagle! I had to complain in the strongest terms before they sent it back to me with the correct attribution.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Augustus49 Glad to meet another person who understands the Cap and Ray series. It has been my favorite counterfeit type since I got my first counterfeit from a dealer in the 1960.
Not too surprised at the mistake by Wayte Raymond but Richard Long referring to the coin as a pattern is a surprise. He was one of the dealers I always respected as being great at spotting counterfeits. Referring to nice looking counterfeits as a pattern was a tendency in the 1940s and 1950s which was adopted by many older dealers. Perhaps the most blatant error in that spirit is the 1840 A.Do.O.M.C. which Pradeau (I believe) was first to refer to as a Pattern. Everyone knows the coin is silver over a bronze alloy and most recognize that it circulated. I own an example and based on the poor die finish and mistakes in the punching of the die, I do not see an appreciable distinction between this coin and dozens of other period counterfeits. But that is a different topic I have covered elsewhere.
I find it difficult to attribute the 1839 Go coin to Soho because of the use of the Go mint mark punch twice - you did notice the last G in the assayer statement? That is a trait I have seen before on other coins that are more clearly counterfeit.
I would be interested in seeing any of your CCC 8Rs you wish to post. I am involved in a project that will hopefully fully cover the CCC Cap and Ray 8Rs of the first Republic and I am looking for all sources of data available.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7076 Posts |
WOW...very informative and informational read...thanks everyone...... 
|
|
New Member
 United States
15 Posts |
Swamperbob
Thanks again. No, I had not noticed the G in the statement of assay. Just goes to show you what you take for granted, sometimes!
Actually, to me, the poor quality of both of the G's would not befit Soho especially for use as a mintmark, but the crispness of the Eagle breast, although of style obviously not "genuine", bespeaks of a very crafted hand at work.
If I were allowed to write historical fiction, I would pen that only the eagle-side hub came from crooks at Soho for use in mating with inferior cap-side working hub or dies which had no believable mate at the time.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
191 Posts |
Quite an educational string. Thanks.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Here is a very similar example from the same forger. It is dated 1833 D RM and uses the same eagle design as that seen on the 1839 Go:  Here is the same 1833 D RM cap die mated with the more common Go style eagle reverse die:  Here is another 1839 Go PJ using the same die pair as above.  As second higher grade: 
|
|
New Member
United Kingdom
17 Posts |
How it should look.  
Edited by offimatrix 01/13/2020 2:11 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189571 Posts |
 to the Community!
|
|
New Member
 United States
15 Posts |
Thanks for the photographs. The last one reminded me that I should have earlier posted a pic of the "real" thing. A genuine 1839 GO PJ in mint state from my collection. So, here it is..... 
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 2,957 |
|