Pillars Mo1733, Mo1760, Lm1766 (Your Opinions)

I am afraid to put my harsh opinion on these 3 dos mundos...
1733 - Mere looking at the entrance of the castle, it should have keystones on top of the doors.
1760 - letter Q; 3 fleur-de-lis at the center; and 2-globes are not correct.
1766 - obverse is the same as 1760 although with the other pictures..
All edges of the 3 coins are nebulous.
I can not imagine how horrible it would be if I am correct in my above opinion, how I wish I am wrong fireandice. But mere looking at your 3 coins edges... I am already disheartened
I hope someone in our community prove me wrong in my sudden conclusion...
By the way Fireandice - you have a very nice ID combination and you are very much to the forum

fireandice556 Welcome to the discussion. First I have to agree with you that the Columnario 8Rs - even the forgeries - are beautiful coins.

The best reference on the Columnario coins is Gilboy's book which was only published in 1999 so I understand the lack of good information in 1990. I hope you have purchased that book.

The 1733 Mo is unfortunately a VERY BEAUTIFUL forgery. The die work is very well done but the edge is applied incorrectly. You refer to the "edge collar". That is not correct terminology and it will result in confusion - there is NO COLLAR involved. The primary error I see is the application of the edge design - the laps are NOT the same length. The blanks or original coins (depending on priority) were edged using a two die flat bar milling machine so the laps must be of equal length and opposite. When they are not - another method was employed which makes the coin a forgery.

It is a great fake, but it actually looks too GOOD to be true as the saying goes. There are few other clues and none of those clues is adequate on its own for a diagnosis of forgery. One of those clues is the dentils - look closely at the area below the date (for example) - the ends of the dentils are tripled! This points to a form of direct transfer from an original coin. That would account for the accuracy of the design. But it also points to a process that is superior to other transfer processes I am aware of. A date of 1990 seems early for such a transfer. The Chinese were not "tooled up" for such an operation in 1990. So I would look toward some other source. Numismatic possibly US.

There are also a few (but I emphasise FEW) lumps in the fields and the problem of lumps in the protected areas of the die seems to have been corrected somehow. There are also small dots adjacent to some of the letters which look like die setter's marks. Those were usually ground off at the completion of the die, but some did survive on originals.

So either we have one of the best transfer copy images I have ever seen or we have a hand engraved die which was nearly flawless.

All on all a fantastic fake and a VERY DANGEROUS type.

The 1760 Mo is much harder to decide on. The weigh seems fine for the wear and the design is correct. I see nothing about this coin that screams forgery. It has been harshly cleaned. The edge is odd but not quite conclusive. This kind of edge is possible when wear (especially intentional wear to steal silver) enters into the equation. I would study the center of the edge and look for filing lines running in one direction that would point to a modern rotary grinder. Theft of silver would have been done by hand not machine and the file marks would be more random. Of course this type of filed edge also appears on forgeries where the edge is filed to cover a seam. That technique dates to the 1980s at least and is seen on Chinese copies. The weight 26,87 grams also seems a bit on the heavy side for silver to have been stolen. I would expect loss of an entire gram.

The two worlds are not in my opinion necessarily incorrect. The globes are not round but that did happen at times on originals. It is however, not normal. The design of the continents seems correct. Damage to the globes by the subsequent application of the Crown punch would be my guess as to why the Globes had to be retooled making then go out of round. In my opinion, the crown was punched too low.

The coin should be checked using SG - if it is old enough ca 1990 - I would not expect to see the correct assay of silver employed for a forgery. The introduction of silver in China is very recent. This date is not rare enough to be a silver Numismatic forgery either.

The 1766 Peruvian 8R is in my opinion a forgery. The seam between the edge and the faces shows the tell-tale gap seen on shrunken injection molded coins. The details are correct. The tooled rosette is a rarer R4 variety according to Gilboy so I suspect it was a Numismatic forgery.

Sorry, but you possibly have 1 original.