Potosi Broken Castle Appears On NGC MS-63 1777 PR 8 Reales

Interesting that the 1776, 1777 and 1780 are NGC #4767954-001, NGC #4767954-002 and NGC #4767954-003, meaning they were submitted together. The 1782 is NGC #4739340-002. Those NGC numbers are pretty high and slab label style is the current generation, likely indicating fairly recent submissions.

Here's a 1778, VERY typical of a Potosi piece used domestically in Bolivia - well-worn and holed:

The broken castle punch was used to make many dies over a very long period of time. I own several in my collection. I covered the subject in pages 150 and 151 of my book "Counterfeit Portrait Eight Reales".

This broken punch came to my attention at least 20 years ago and the first few examples I located were clearly counterfeit coins. One in particular had been drilled to expose the copper core. So initially I used the broken castle as a clue to locating counterfeit examples.

When I began hunting for higher grade examples of the crack, I found that many were already encapsulated (no density measurement possible). I did buy one raw example and the density was correct 10.31.

The earliest dated example I am ware of is 1774 and the latest is 1789. That is a 15 year time span. It is a long time for one punch to survive in a mint where production was as high as Potosi. The mint also had the original matrix block and could have easily replaced the broken punch. A counterfeiter making fewer dies over a long time period is far less likely to replace his die punches.

When a punch or a die breaks - there is a tendency for the crack to expand and for small chips to break off from the edges. This particular die break can be further identified by a chip resembling a diamond in the crack that occurs about half way along the length of the crack. This small chip is not visible in 1774 or 1776 but is visible by 1778. It is present until 1789. The castle doorway also develops a truncation very early where the door meets the base.

I took some time to assemble a group of similar die breaks to look for the normal tell-tale progression from small to large. However in this case the date sequence did not align well with the date sequence.

I am at this point uncertain that the break automatically identifies a bad coin. I have seen so many in holders that I doubt that anyone will be convinced these coins are not genuine.

I consider all examples suspect. I also suggest that density testing is a must in this case to isolate bad coins before they are place in holders.

realeswatcher I agree there are a lot of these coins in the market place. However, at least some of them are not silver. As I said my first broken castle coin was silver over copper. It was drilled. I started by looking for other cancelled (drilled) coins with the same broken castle and got 3 that were very cheap at the time. All had very low densities. Then I started to run into genuine silver types.

When I first noticed the broken castle on a copper core counterfeit, I thought that it might be a diagnostic for fraudulent coins. However, I ran into the same thing that you have. There are apparently genuine examples as well. At least they are full density silver and the correct weight.

I am still of the opinion that this variety should be given more than a quick 30 second look before encapsulation. A density check will pick out the fraudulent coins. These should only be encapsulated with a note indicating they were made on non-standard planchets.

realeswatcher Have you checked the specific gravity of all of these before assuming they are genuine?

realeswatcher Your third option is exactly what I believe I have uncovered here. Coins made from dies that were most likely made at the mint on false planchets that were low in silver content.

I am still bothered by the long term use of a single punch for the castles. A broken punch should not have lasted as long as this one apparently did. That element is difficult to work into any theory.

I started using the Heritage Data base to identify just how prevalent the die crack types were but never completed the project. In some years like 1774 the crack is very scarce 1 out of 42 examples. However in other years the cracked examples predominate by a wide margin. I did not find a year where all known examples were cracked. Have you?

I also wondered about the large number of MS examples which have the cracked castle. Were these all from a small number of hoards?

Right now I have neither the time nor the money to pursue this project. Each of the debased examples needs to be tested with XRF at a lab.

Dear Realeswatcher,

Please go easy on me as I am posting with experts. Nevertheless, I can read and have become interested in these coins. I like the way you have detected counterfeits by matching defects. Jim Young has done the same with US coins from images on the internet. So, based on what has occurred in other series...

So far, it is my humble opinion that many 8 Reales coins already slabbed by major TPGS's will turn out not to be "official" issues. In the 1986-87 period, it is my humble opinion that the dealers who authenticated the foreign coins at the "new" TPGS's were not as qualified as you are to pick out a counterfeit in this series. I worry the same about today. Furthermore, with very few exceptions,I would not trust the opinion of any coin authenticator examining these coins with only their naked eye or a hand lens! These coins need to be checked with expensive analytical tests to weed out possible problems associated with half-baked opinions in the past. I have read that the same counterfeiters who made the small "O" Morgan dollars that passed as genuine (including by the TPGS) for ninety years also made counterfeit 8 Reales. I'm betting that some of these are the coins in the slabs.

PS I believe the fact that some counterfeits are pretty obvious (magnetic Chinese fakes) causes collectors to pass anything as genuine that is deceptive. A simple look on the internet shows that many U.S. Coin types have been counterfeited and slabbed as genuine until they were finally detected. Sadly, I'll bet that The group of coins we are discussing here is ripe for some "new" revelations.