Mexico 1844 8 Reales Contemporary Counterfeit?

Swamperbob is the perfect guy to ask...I hope he drops by

Hello
I'm not a counterfeit specialist, but the toes of the eagle are very suspicious. It is the first time I see that them.
Regards Joan

Numismat The coin is a counterfeit. That is the easy part. The design is entirely incorrect and of course it is too heavy for an 8R. I call the eagle "Round Toes" because the feet are so crudely executed. In my experience, it is a common counterfeit.

That said, there are a couple die varieties and many other differences in production that make it an interesting forgery. The dies used were apparently in production over a long enough period of time to warrant re-cutting of the details. This seems to have been done progressively and over time the appearance degrades. The eagle's feathering becomes more coarse.

The forgers also changed their planchet composition using different metals at different times. This may have simply been a case of using anything available. The most common metal is the basic "white metal" alloy. I suspect German Silver based on SG but I have never tested one to be 100% certain that zinc is present. That would appear to be what you have here.

There are two "features" on this particular planchet at about 11 and 1 o'clock that appear to be defects in the plate that was punched to make the blank. These were most likely in the ingot (sheet) and were likely caused by the crude casting methods used to produce the metal strips. I wondered if you could tell me if these two "defects" were integral to the original pour or if the metal sheet was perchance repaired. I own a couple counterfeits made on repaired planchets - so that feature would make this one very interesting.

The least common metals are the Sheffield plate varieties. I have only seen them in photos - so I have never documented their existence to my own satisfaction. I have never encountered a debased silver copy nor have I ever seen a copper core that was meant to be electroplated. So these were not intended for coating or silvering after manufacture.

Finally, the edge treatment also varies on this particular coin. The edge using simple pairs of impressed triangles is common. The edge I see here is a less common edge which uses a fairly correct shape, but it is rather poorly cut. The edges on any but the earliest and crudest original 8Rs show far more regularity than you see here. The individual segments of the edge design should be the same shape and equally spaced. By 1844 at Zacatecas they had gotten the edges right. This edge should have given a merchant or banker pause if they were paying attention. Of course, the design itself should have sent up red flags right away.

Regarding age. That is the more difficult question. The lack of proof of a Sheffield Plate exemplar and the lack of a debased silver copy points to a rather late date. Sheffield plate or simple debased silver were the most successful materials used until the development of German Silver in the late 1830s. These two metallic types largely cease to be used about 1850. Production of this coin prior to 1850 is therefore highly unlikely, and since there was no large scale forgery going on in the 1850s - it must date even later.

This coin is of course not listed in Riddell's book. Riddell's Monograph was published in 1845 and has very few 1844 dated coins listed. The lack of a copper core or a definitive exemplar of an electroplated copy points to a production date before the 1870s or a forger that lacked skill at electroplating.

I am also not convinced that it fits with counterfeits made before and during the silver glut of the 1890s because it is so crude. The forgeries of the later era of circulation tend to have far better design matches. Typically this was because they were made with various image transfer technologies, but even the hand copied dies from this era tend to be closer to the correct design because everyone was suspicious of forgery.

If you put all of the preceding together - you get a coin out of time. The combination of crude die work does not mesh with the metal used. I had classified this an a 20th century copy (tourist class forgery) when I first encountered it. Since then I have discovered low grade (worn) and cancelled copies which confirm that this coin did circulate at some points in time. I now believe that since it was made for circulation someplace that it may have been made in or for China before 1933.

That fits best. I am of course open to other suggestions on age.

ADDED NOTE:

I checked my inventory - I own 6 copies of the "Round Toe" my heavist is 28.1 grams but I have one that weighs only 26.4 grams.

Great info SwamperBob. I'm not exactly sure how to tell if the planchet flaws are a repair or not, but it would be interesting to find out.
As a later counterfeit, does this one have value? Hopefully more than the $28 I paid. =)
Thanks!

I do notice some difference in the edge near the 1 o'clock spot. The solid parts seem to become hollow in the centers for a few of the segments.
Other than that, I don't see specific tool marks, but I don't really know what I'm looking for. Maybe these pics are useful?

The value is alright with me, it's a good curiosity and I'm happy it wasn't priced higher, because I probably would have paid double what I did.

I'm not so good with telling what kind of metal it is, and I lack a chemical testing method. It looks a little lighter in color, but that can also be due to the metal piece having been added as a repair later than the original planchet was created.
But, based on what you said I can totally see the difference in the edge being a repair... that portion is much more crude than the rest of it. And, since the larger blob does carry over to the edge, it fits with what you say.
I'm very new to the whole counterfeit collecting thing... but it's kind of cool to come across a repaired version as one of my first examples =)
Thanks again Bob!

Bob - I started collecting in very much that "collector" fashion you mentioned. I used to look at coins as a $ sign, but as my collecting advanced, I had gained a real appreciation for nice and unusual pieces, regardless of book or market value. I totally agree with you that this is the essence of collecting. =)