Currently working on my third paper with SEM/EDS Analysis on the Provisional 8 Reales but in this paper also building in XRF analysis withe help of Winston Zack (Bad Metal author). Why do they look so bad? These crude pieces were intentionally made with high Pb (~3-5% - sometimes as high as 15%) to increase their weight. Most were not even silvered!
TPG's and major auction houses have basically erred in their physical/numerical preservation descriptions with terms such as Tooled, Environmental Damage, etc. Overview: Lead behaves in a very predictable—and very destructive—way in these crude Honduran provisional 8 Reales because it is fundamentally incompatible with copper at the temperatures and conditions these workshops operated under. In a proper metallurgical environment, copper melts around 1085 °C, while lead melts at only 327 °C and remains immiscible in copper unless the melt is extremely hot and vigorously stirred. The provisional mints never achieved anything close to that. Their furnaces ran cool, the metal was recycled scrap, and the melt was barely homogenized. As a result, the lead never dissolved into the copper matrix; instead, it separated into droplets and pockets within the flan as it cooled. These droplets migrated toward grain boundaries, voids, and flow lines—essentially all the structural weak points created by rushed casting or striking.
Once the coin entered circulation, those trapped lead pockets became the seeds of surface disruption. Lead is softer, more reactive, and more prone to corrosion than copper. When exposed to moisture, soil acids, or even mild handling, the lead inclusions oxidized and expanded slightly, pushing outward on the surrounding copper. Over decades, this produced tiny pits, blisters, and "microcraters" exactly like what you've observed. The effect is subtle but diagnostic: the pits are usually round, shallow, and irregularly distributed, matching the original distribution of lead droplets in the alloy. Even at higher concentrations—10-15% Pb—the disturbance remains primarily microcratering rather than large-scale deformation because the lead is still trapped in discrete pockets rather than forming continuous veins.
Everything else that looks "wrong" on these coins really does trace back to poor manufacturing rather than the lead itself. The flans were unevenly cast or crudely rolled, the dies were worn or hand-cut, the strikes were weak, and the cooling process introduced internal stresses. These factors create lamination cracks, fissures, voids, and rough surfaces that collectors sometimes misattribute to corrosion or impurities. Lead only amplifies the smallest of these flaws by creating localized pits; it does not cause the major structural defects. In fact, the overall appearance of these coins—wavy surfaces, uneven rims, distorted lettering—comes from the chaotic production environment, not from the alloy composition.
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/l...tails-tooledTIME TO CORRECT. See my other two papers on Kleeberg CCC2R's and transfer dies (EPN Portal) and Monoclova (EPN & MNA) also on the Mexican Numismatic Association (MNA) website under the War of Independence category of research papers. My next paper this year in November again with SEM/EDS with XRF will explore "Why is the
Jefferson nickel in the 20thC the most laminated prone error coin?" Any guesses from the audience as the answer is already solved - just need to prove it in the lab.
Posted 02/05/2026 08:31 am
