1809 Mexico City 8 Reale - Need Help Authenticating

Here is the obverse of the 1809 Mo TH - what are your opinions?

And now some shots of the 'filing' marks on the edge and a shot of one of the two overlaps. Anyones opinion on the authenticity is greatly appreciated. Thanks to everyone for your contributions and help.

Archraz...that 1808 is an interesting coin. I have taken it to several people I trust and they agree it meets all the usual criteria for weight, size, edge etc. I am always on the lookout for another example of that die. My understanding is when Carlos IIII dies, no one at the New World mints knew what Ferd VII looked like so they improvised. Guatemala, following in the grand tradition just used the image of Carlos IIII and changed the legend to read Ferdind VII for coinage during 1808-1810, coming out with the accepted "Toga Bust" design in 1811. (Most interesting about NG coins is an example dated 1808 with the Toga Bust sold at a Superior Auction in 1990, wonder what it's true history is?) Lima just made up images (I always refer to them as the space alien varieties) for 1808-1811, Mexico had it's varieties. Colombia, under the "P" mint mark just used the image of Carlos IIII and never changed to any new image for Ferdinand. The Santiago Mint in Chili created the "military imaginary bust" that is really strange looking for its 1808-1811 coinage. Another interesting bit of history is Ferd VII took the throne and was almost immediately imprisoned by Napoleon and didn't return to the throne until 1814, yet the New World mints all continued to honor him as the rightful king.

I have been studying the pictures that Rayhaldo posted - he sent me several by email. There are some facts that were not clear on the smaller photos that need to be evaluated.

First, I start with the edge, because I always look at that first. The first thing I notice is the size of the edge design is significantly smaller than the thickness of the coin. That leads to two possibilities 1) the blank may have been edged using dies intended for a 4R coin. The mill was adjustable so both blanks should have been possible on one mill BUT THE RETAINER lips on the 4R die should have prevented successful edging. 2) the second possibility is that the design of the edge is the correct size and the blank was too thick. But possibility #2 points to a LOW SG and a forgery.

This picture should show what I am referring to with regard to the edge design being too thin.





I know the weight has been confirmed but has the SG been confirmed at 10.30 or could this simply be a thick counterfeit.

My second comment about the edge is that I quite frankly do not like it. The heavy filing looks like weight adjustment BUT it was NEVER DONE on the edge - the faces of the blank were adjusted not the edges. The deep nature of the filing and metal loss would point to enough metal being removed so that the coin should be underweight if this were POST STRIKE damage. I am also very concerned about the SHAPES of the square and circle pattern. The circle within the square is a well known counterfeit variety - but I am not aware of it being used on real coins. I could be wrong here - I do not study edges of the Colonial 8s as often as the later cap and rays so it is possible that a circle in a square was actually used at Mexico City but I seriously doubt it.




I received three pictures of the overlap section. I am not certain how they match up but if the orientation of all three is identical - I am suspicious that the edge may not have been applied on a two die flat bar edger. There is an overlap priority since the bars start cutting the detail on opposite sides of the coin. The top bar design is overlaped at one end by the bottom bar and the OPPOSITE happens 180 degrees away. I am not sure here since the pictures are not taken perpendicular to the center of the overlap (and the faces are not identified).



So with those serious issues in mind I looked at the coin itself.

First - the coin has been harshly cleaned - numerous scratches that have partially removed the original surfaces. Could this be mixed with die polishing to remove extraneous raised lumps?





Second, I see a distinct numeral under the 8 in the date. Possibly a doubled 8 (upper loop right). But I am unaware of a repunched 8 in any of my notes or books. Perhaps that is too minor a variety to note BUT it is so clear it is hard to miss. So did the experts miss this one or is it a counterfeiter feature meant to attract attention. No picture of this but I will add one if not clear from his new posts.

Third, there are enough flow lines visible so that I believe the coin is struck.

Fourth, the dies are a faithful representation of a proper design with regards to the portrait type and the fonts used.

Fifth, that said, the die metal appears to have fully fatigued. There is a serious displaced die break visible on the shield side die on the Right side. The fact that the die face has displaced makes it terminal state. Note how one die surface is higher than the other.





Sixth, there are numerous small apparent die breaks in and around the crown.

Seventh, there are numerous raised lumps in places where they should not be.

Eighth, there is a ghosting image that follows along the lower margin of the crown - a feature seen most commonly on transfer dies.





Based on this analysis, I am revising my opinion to uncertain but leaning toward counterfeit.

What I would want to know is the Specific Gravity of this coin and even then I would be a bit suspicious.

swamperbob- Awesome analysis! I can definitively see why you would be suspicious. Regarding "displaced die fractures," are these fairly commonly seen on 8s? I am just wondering since I have an 1809 M that seems to have one as well. It is on the obverse right through the "N" in "Ferdin." I am 99.9% positive that my coin is real since it is of the proper weight and the edges are perfect (though it has had a really harsh cleaning sometime in the past).

I can't say anything more...I'm speechless.
Jransch collection of 8 reales, I think is Gigantic in magnitude.
Archraz - nice Ferdin too.
I'm just curious of Rayhaldo's 8 reales, if it has a thick planchet as seen with the proportion of its design edges and has an exact diameter of 40mm as mentioned, it should weigh way above 27grams. In other words, if the coin is thicker than normal, its diameter should be lessen resulting to a re-edging. And this is to compensate the target measurement of its 27grams weight.
What is scary is, if reyhaldos' coin is a forgery, it is a beautiful counterfeit. However I wonder how many fake coins do I really have?

Yes, the jury is still out.

But to comment further on the edge.

1. The wobble is seen on many colonial edges in cases where there was no retaining lip on the edge mill dies. Peru and Bolivia did use edge dies that wobbled extensively. But I have been led to believe by people who have examined the original dies and equipment in the mint at Mexico City that they did use a retainer. At least on the examples of edge dies that remain. It only makes sense that to edge without pop outs that a retainer lip had to be used. That I realize is hearsay but it is what I have been going on for many years and it simply makes sense. Did they ever use dies with no retainer lip - possibly but it would have slowed production rates.

2. Regarding the thickness of the coin. If you look at the edge pictures taken of the coin - at the point of overlap BOTH edge designs are visible side by side on the edge. They do not wrap around from the edge to the faces and they are not distorted to half height. If they did run onto the faces (an edge applied at an angle of say 30 or 40 degrees) they would be visible (in part) when looking at the faces of the coin - they would also be distorted by the strike - far more than I see.

However, new pictures taken at exact right angles to the edge and at the center of the lap could help to answer this question.

A displaced die fracture is often the way a real die fails. So the fact that there is a displaced die fracture here is not BY ITSELF a condemnation of the coin. But to see a displaced die fracture BEFORE there is significant die wear (flow lines caused by wear) is not as common. That would only happen in the rare case of a weak die that went to pieces very shortly after entering production. It does happen but not that often. When a die wears out and fatigues it tends to wear out all over. The features get spongy and details tend to wear off. Often the edge features like letters distort and start to blend into the edge dentils. The edge dentils erode and almost disappear. I don't see that here. The die looks far newer than that. If the rust specs still show from the die being stored and especially if the non radial brush lines from cleaning off the rust with a wire brush still show - this is a NEW die - so then the question becomes why is there a terminal state die fracture on a new die?

My concern is that soft dies crack quickly. Dental plastic casts used as dies fracture very quickly say after 5 or 6 strikes. But they are cheaply made do not damage the original coin and they produce a high quality field which only needs minor abrasive brushing to cover the inevitable surface blemishes in the die face. My concern is that a plastic die mimics what I see here. It is a plausible alternative explanation for the rust and cleaning lines and it is often seen with "soft" cracks and displacement fractures.

Die breaks are VERY common as is rust on the dies. Those who commented were correct. But just because it could happen you have to look at was it likely to happen - and was it likely that all these factors happened to combine here.

The shape of the edge figures is to me a very critical issue. The correct edge is always referred to as a circle and rectangle. But here it is a square containing a circle - rectangle - square containing a circle. For me that is simply the WRONG EDGE DESIGN. It may have been used but I have no proof it was. It would require a different punch. But think of how easy a forger could make that die. The edges of the figure are side to side saw cuts leaving a square of metal which you then drill out. Result a circle in a square - no need to make the circular punch to prepare the die.

The circle in the square pattern is well known to me I have numerous examples of COUNTERFEIT coins underweight and/or debased silver that use just this design.

I guess you have to be my head to understand my method. I do not usually diagnose on one fact. Sometimes it is possible - for instance a 21 gram 8R. But in most cases when commenting on a photograph, it is usually a combination of different factors that while each is possible in isolation they are rare in combination - which causes me to lean diagnose a coin as a counterfeit.

So just to recap a bit.

1. There are die lumps that could be rust or evidence of a plastic mold.
2. There are die scratches that could be from die brushing with a steel brush to remove surface rust or they could be caused by recent harsh cleaning or they could cover up a transfer impression.
3. There is a terminal die break which may have occurred on a new die or it could be a typical failure of a soft die.
4. There is the wrong edge design that "might" have been used or it could be a forgers shortcut method of creating the edge die.

So in this case, 1 and 2 are as likely to occur together as not. But they are far less likely when combined with 3 and the combination with 4 is a potential KILLER.

The likelihood of these 4 factors occurring on one and the same REAL coin is remote.

I have not addressed the other concerns like length of overlap - priority of overlap or specific gravity.

If the owner of this coin would like to have the SG tested I would agree to do it just to have the opportunity to see the coin in person. A picture may be worth a thousand words but a coin in hand is worth a million.

I checked the pictures on this post and decided to add a picture of the repunched? digit in the date. It is another suspicious element to add to the mix.




While copying the date picture I noticed another odd item that should be addressed. A series of depressions between the King's head and the DEI which have raised centers. To me they look like something dropped onto a wet transfer surface that corroded it in part.




Rayhaldo - let me know if you want an in person inspection and SG.

The 1809 8 Reale in question is now in my possession for analysis.

In person things are usually clearer than in pictures. However, in this case, having the coin here adds to the puzzle.

The coin has a perfect SG of 10.304. It weighs 26.895 grams also essentially perfect for the level of wear. The two edge overlaps are opposite one another and they are "approximately" the same length. In this case, precision is impossible because the edge dies ran off the side of the coin just at the overlap.

The coin is struck and it was edged PRIOR to the strike. The dies were very heavily fractured. The displacement die break is actually a double fracture which has displaced to TWO different levels.

The large scratches observed on the edge were made AFTER the coin was edged. That means they were not adjustment marks because the weight adjustment was done when the blank was in a raw state right after being punched.

The edging pattern does waver side to side suggesting there was no retainer lip on the edging die bar.

The die surfaces are VERY poor - there are numerous raised lumps and incuse lumps on the coin surface. The die work shows numerous indications of doubling. Not Strike Doubling but double imaging on the die itself. This appears to be the result of whatever method was used to manufacture the die. Some, like the 8 in the date, look like individual double punching while most look like transfer doubling in a soft "plastic" matrix.

Most of this portion of the analysis is a bit subjective and every feature has a corresponding "original" explanation. However, I did find one thing which points to a forgery which has NO explanation in the way an original was made. That is the edge design priority.

In previous posts, I have discussed how these coins were made on parallel die flat bar edging mills. This puts both sides on at the same time and results in laps that are opposite one another.

But here if you look at both ends of the image the priority of placement is wrong. A sketch may be better to explain.



I will take pictures of the details of the coin and post them later tonight if I can get them on my PC.

My verdict is COUNTERFEIT but VERY well executed in correct assay silver.