1772 PTS Jr 8 Reales Charles III Bust

to CCF. Give it a bit and members will be along to help you.
John1

Thanks John1 and jgenn for welcoming me.

jgenn, I will work on getting some better photos asap including one of the edge. In the meantime I have cropped the date from a higher resolution version of the photo that I originally sent. I don't have a scale, but I will try and get it accurately weighed asap too.



Let me start by answering your question about the provenance. My father is Carlos A. Elizondo, Jr. who wrote Eight Reales and Pesos of the New World in the late 60s/early 70s. Leading up to that time he and my grandfather amassed a significant collection of Latin American coinage. Eventually may grandfather sold off the collection to pursue other interests. This coin is one that remained in his possession. When my grandfather passed away in the 70s my father brought it back with him following the funeral.

I'm by no means a numismatic historian or collector. The books I do have in my possession are mostly older reference catalogs, so I can't cite any hard evidence that Potosi minted the Charles III Bust in 1772. All I have are those reference books that list it, and usually mark it as rare. In addition to my father's book, which lists it as "Extremely Rare", here are a few others:

-Compendio de las Piezas de Ocho Reales (1970) by Gabriel Calbeto de Grau - This book contains one of the only photos that I have seen. The price is listed as "Open".
-Catalogo de los Reales de a Ocho Espanoles (1965) by Jose de Yriarte Oliva and Leopoldo Lopez-Chaves Sanchez - The price is listed as "X".
-Diccionario de la Moneda Hispanoamericana (1958) by Humberto Burzio - It mentions that Sr. Alfredo Benavides of Lima proves the rarity of this piece as the only exception since they were not able to confirm it in any other catalogs, books, or collections.
-Pillars & Portraits (1969) by Robert Harris - The price is listed as "Rare".

Thanks again for all the help.

swamperbob, many thanks for taking a look and providing your general insight as well as pointing out potential areas of concern.

I agree with your two scenarios of why my grandfather would want to hold onto this particular coin. It's hard to say when he obtained the coin since in the 2nd edition of my father's book all coins that were part of their collection were marked with an asterisk. The 1772 Potosi Portrait is not marked. It's quite possible that my father never knew about the coin until he acquired it following my grandfather's death. Unfortunately we will never know his reason for holding onto it.

First, and please forgive me if I read your explanation incorrectly, but I was hoping to confirm a couple things you stated. Regarding the 1782 PR alteration possibility, and later when you go into detail about the assayer mark, you say "IR" and "I". Did you mean to say "JR" and "J"? Also, when discussing the measuring between the stops you say "P". Did you mean "R"?

When I first looked at the coin I also had concerns with the 7s as well as the assayer's initials. While I'm very far from being an expert, I'm curious if there are any legitimate explanations for those two areas of concern, so please forgive me if any of my forthcoming questions are far fetched.

The termination of the top bar on the second 7 initially seemed odd to me, but when zooming in closer it appears there are two different features. I can make out the expected termination and then there appears to be an additional termination of excess metal, or just excess metal in general. I'm not that familiar with the striking process, but could this be an error where an additional feature like that was formed?

Regarding the differences in font between the tails of the 7s, the first one does appear to be quite blunt. Looking at other photos of coins with multiple 7s I do see some variation at times. As an example:

https://www.NGCcoin.com/price-guide...duid-1291627

https://www.NGCcoin.com/price-guide...duid-1271327

I'm not sure if that is from the original striking, or from wear and tear. Is it possible that with those examples, as well as the 1772 in question, there is variation due to different legitimate factors?

Regarding the assayer's initials, while it's a little bit worn I do see the indentation on the bottom of the J that is typical. Also, is it possible that the J's tail going to right, and the curled tail going to the left, could have been mostly worn off? As similar examples on the coin, the right termination on the top bar of the T in the mint mark, as well as the right upper circle of the 8, are also worn off.

I'm having my brother come over to take photos of the coin with a real camera (including of the edges), so I hope to have those posted sometime tomorrow. I will also have it weighed by the middle of the week.

One final question, is there anyone y'all would recommend in Texas that could properly authenticate this coin, and if it is authentic, also appraise it?

Thanks again for all the help and bearing with my ignorance on the matter.

jgenn, thanks for that info.

My intention is not to sell. I will be making a donation of various materials, which are related to my father's book, to a library . If an appraised value is high enough it would qualify as a tax deduction for him. However, going into this process I feared that the true value for a potential unique specimen might only be obtained through that auction process and a sale. Based on conversations with my father, who has been through that process before with Stack's in the 60s, I started to have those concerns.

to the Community!

Each letter and digit were punched in individually with just a faint guide line to help ensure the correct location. There's a lot of evidence of re-punched / adjusted die elements in the authentic pieces.

No problem. Authenticating a coin like that is based on many factors. Most of those individually would add to the probability of the coin being authentic or not. There are a number of factors that for sure will condemn a coin and much fewer that will without question confirm authenticity. I'm guessing the end result of this investigation will be a statement by the experts along the lines of "This coin is more likely to be authentic than counterfeit", or vice-versa, and not a statement with 100% confidence. Although it's all about those factors. Looking forward to seeing better resolution images, including the edge, and other specifics like weight, diameter, SG, XRF (if you're able to get it done), etc...

Thank you for bringing this coin out into the light. I'm quite excited to see where this investigation takes you.

Curious piece.

Anyone with their Calbeto handy - is this the example that's plated?