1766 Counterfeit Portrait 8 Reales MO Ih

Interesting coin. I guess the date gives it away immediately as to whether or not it's fake. Is it a contemporary counterfeit or modern?

Excellent pick for what you paid (came across this after the fact a few days before this thread; part of a 3-coin lot buried in the auction connected to the recent imaginary ANA show... sometimes bargains CAN be had in major auctions).

Definitely looks to be contemporary... has age, very well-executed overall BUT slightly "off" enough to belie its nature (aside from the obvious errors). Reminiscent of the also well-done "1870" Charles IIII type that pops up occasionally... which I believe may date from decently well into the 1800s.

Don't have my files or Bob's book/pic files handy. Swamper, comments?

Realeswatcher - thank you for the input on the auction, glad to hear you think the price was relatively low. I thought so too, but since I'm so new to this it still very hard for me to judge what I should be paying for counterfeits. Trying to watch and learn from this forum and ebay sold prices!

Swamperbob - thank you for the info regarding that Bank of England dollar and William Booth, that's fascinating. I'll keep in mind your excellent point that CCC types aren't necessarily crude. I think I've been biasing myself towards looking for the cruder types (probably since they're easier to pick out visually given limited info)...but it would be nice to be able to acquire a really sophisticated CCC such as the one on the cover of your book.

Thanks to all for the welcome - I appreciate it!

threefifty The coin on the cover of my book cost me a bit more than I wanted when I bought it because it came from a prestigious auction house and it was authenticated by several "experts".

I recognized it as a counterfeit right away and I though I would get no pushback using it as the cover coin. I felt it was actually a spectacular example of the forgers art. However, when I submitted my book to be published the ANS (which was suggested by both of my co-authors) rejected it. The ANS reviewer who rejected my book, used that cover coin as one "Proof" that my opinions were worthless. That particular expert who shall remain nameless lectured me at length on how that coin was definitely genuine and well within a normal range of variation for Mexican 8 Reales. He felt ANS would become a laughing stock should they choose to publish a book with such easy to spot errors.

Of course the reviewer was dead wrong. The coin has exposed copper which was tested in a laboratory using XRF that discriminates to 10 ppm. The specific gravity is very low near 9.0 and I continue to maintain it is beyond all doubt a contemporary counterfeit and one of only handful of examples I have seen so far using the silver ribbon edge devised by M. Boulton in about 1790. This is an early ribbon application since the ribbon itself was far too wide for the edge. Later applications narrowed the width of the silver ribbon.

I really prefer not to throw people under the bus. The guy had no expertise in Mexican coins (as I understand it he specializes in ancient coins). His rejection caused me to do the book on my own and expand on it so that I could add comments on the silver counterfeits I learned about from my uncle.

realeswatcher You are undoubtedly correct - since my heart problem I have noticed that many of my memories are off a bit. I get one thing confused with another far more often than ever before. I know I am very fortunate to still be alive so I am doing the best I can.