Heritage Auctions Selling Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit 8 Reales

Question for any magic sorcerer moderators:

-- Can we fold this post into the thread I linked?

-- Can we magically make that original thread on this specific counterfeit magically be more specific: "1816 Mexico 8 Reales - A Fake That Is Actually Modern"?

Realeswatcher - lol, I only said "notorious" because the coin seems to come up pretty often (I remember Aureo & Calicó sold one as a CCC last year, Auction 389, lot 810, 300€) and I remembered the discussion thread on it, thanks for the link.

Coinfrog - my statement is that it seems Heritage may be open to selling CCC 8 reales now. Of the major US auction houses I thought only Stack's would sell them. To me it is an interesting and welcome policy change.

This is interesting that Heritage is selling this Counterfeit 8 Reales. I can add this to this thread. When the GNL book came out I was curious if Heritage as the rumor went did not touch counterfeits with a ten foot pole as they were strictly a slab selling company. Sorry we don't John but we appreciate all the effort that went into the GNL book some VP replies. Perhaps this changed when Donald Partrick consigned his collection which by the way included Warren Baker's intact collection of Canadian Blacksmith Coppers - Canada's most important contemporary circulating counterfeits. In that group were two Latin American counterfeit 2 reales in off-metal and to my surprise after contacting them through Sarah Miller did include the two Kleeberg numbers into the listing from my inventory listings and keeper of this counterfeit family. These were in the collection since way back in 1987 Warren Baker believed these Kleebergs had some link by manufacturer to the Blacksmith's. They both went surprisingly well at near $1,000 each. Unusual so high for Kleebergs. We then see some mercuric gold over platinum escudos pieces from the so-called Long Island Collection. This still may be Partrick as he was a resident in eastern Long Island where he had his real estate/construction business? But with this singular 1816 CCC piece maybe they have seen the light? This piece is not in GNL, the A&C reference you supplied is curious and if you look in page 66 of GNL the A&C 1816 CCC8R has this silver edge ribbon seam of a Sheffield plate (i.e., a fine seam that runs through the dentils in a roughly circular fashion around the perimeter). Not seeing this Heritage piece as a Sheffield or the A&C piece as the Heritage piece with its low weight (24.81 grams) seems more of a debased silver appearance and I see no silver breaks over the base metal host after a magnification overview for either specimen.

U.S. Colonial Machins Mills pieces which are also contemporary circulating counterfeits have also been sold by Heritage and are the most well-known being in the U.S. Red Book - so perhaps they saw collector demand for these Academia pieces. There are GOOD counterfeits and BAD counterfeits. I remain pessimistic with Heritage and wonder since Stacks/Bowers is also pushing for pure slab sales what will happen to some very good collections of contemporary circulating counterfeit British/Irish counterfeits of 1/2d and 1/4ds and is their fate strictly ebay for these types that are not plated Machins Mills 1/2ds? Back in 2008 Stacks Americana Sale a Ringo CCC 1/2d went for $18,000!

One last thought there was a big debate here awhile back with Gord Nichols CCC8Rs and some of his other counterfeits which were dated post-1840 and not allowed in any Canadian auction due to their policy of not allowing counterfeits of their Canadian Mint coinage to be sold. After this I was told his counterfeit 8's went privately. I agree BTW with the CCF Canadian's moderator SPP-Ottawa he should of went "south of the border" to Stacks/Bowers. I still own around 30 of the more rare types like the GIII English countermark (circular/hexagonal) types and other crude one's including the most rare alloy being of tin/lead/antimony. From a collection of around 140 I sold one a week on ebay to many eager buyers. Mike Ringo's pieces went to Stacks and did well all being sold with GNL classifications.

Will HERITAGE break the barrier threefifty with the GOOD Latin American counterfeits? Who would not want to own a mercuric gold platinum host escudo contemporary circulating counterfeit? Thousands of people BLINDED by the massive Chinese Junk COUNTERFEIT base metal influx holding up their signs "MELT ALL THE COUNTERFEITS!"

Crazy times threefifty ...

John Lorenzo
Numismatist
United States

HMMM ... as you know Bob Gurney's word was final and in 99.999% of the time he was correct. We never discussed this hidden contaminant or 1816 piece and only his high skill set and XRF analysis yielded its hand engraved status and German silver composition. In short this specimen appears to be an oddity. Bob was a purist and was very demanding in something being Class 1 (i.e., of the period since not everyone has read GNL) during the creation of GNL and rightfully so as this was his book having spent his entire life in this series and Cap and Rays CCCs. German silver as he indicated was manufactured consistently around the U.K. ~ 1835-1840 but was first introduced into the U.K. a decade earlier or more. This German silver or paktong as it was called was manufactured in China way long before this 1835-1840 period. We concluded any piece with German silver was post Class 1 due to its entrance into the U.K. from 1835-1840. Rather than get into some argument can a German silver GNL Class 1 exist by our definitions in GNL - NO. Can this be a period piece made in German silver - POSSIBLY from my viewpoint. Why bend the rules? For me I have more of an open mind - this hidden contaminant could be a false positive, the contaminant may be geologically ore related element or something else. German silver was always a grey area since German silver existed in the Far East for centuries and you can argue perhaps this piece was from a melted GS artifact. Kleebergs CCC2Rs most common metal alloy is GS and in this case I always keep an open mind that perhaps the series was not created so late (c. 1835-beyond) but possibly EARLIER due to the paktong Far East connection? So IMO the Bob Gurney Class 1 boundary may be QUESTIONABLE on this one - this is the first I read about this 1816 GS culprit but it makes sense how it slipped by A&C and Heritage as a period piece. Its a piece I would not mind owning. I am not the consignor <BG> but to me its not a slam dunk. As I type this from memory the first amazing thing I observed since I pretty much did every XRF analysis for the GNL book was the EXTREME SCARCITY of any specimens being GS. This then lead to the conclusion after analyzing several hundred different variety examples these GNL CCCs unlike Kleebergs were EARLY - OF THE PERIOD TIME WISE - and not later issues say strictly for U.S. and Canadian circulation like the Kleebergs if one can even use this argument - but its a good one. Warren Baker the Canadian numismatist believed these were Canadian Blacksmith linked and the British Museum does not have one at all in their inventory and ANS (NY) has around 90-100. In conclusion Realeswatcher and Robert Gurney leave this interesting hand-made GS alloy piece with this hidden contaminant alone - what did it ever do to you? <BG>. JPL

P.S. It seems people just bid ~$1000-1200 on CCC 8 Escudos with mercuric gold over platinum - less for mercuric gold over copper based on weight (i.e., ~90% of regal and ~50% of regal - respectively. The price of Pt also is less than Au so people buy them as high Pt pieces ~$1000.