| Author |
Replies: 10 / Views: 2,871 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
425 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
odentheviking The first coin is the Riddell #223 eagle die mated with a Cap die dated 1830. It is part of a closely related group of forgeries that all use a distinctive eagle punch. Riddell lists versions dated 1829, 1830, 1832 and 1833. The Riddell example is dated 1832 (the most common version). They are all Zs mint mark coins with assayer initials OM. I have added an example dated 1831 as well and there are a few rather minor die varieties. The identifying characteristic for high grade copies is the eagle which has a "broken" or "open" toe on the foot that grasps the cactus. Here is a copy of your image with a circle showing the TOE.  There is a second Riddell listing for a coin using the same eagle - the Riddell # 221 is an 1829 version also Zs but with the assayer initials AO.     The coin was a remarkable success as evidenced by the number of examples like this one that show excessive wear. It is a Sheffield Plate coin that uses several different core metals. Most cores were rather "silvery" in color making the plate harder to spot. The copper core examples are scarcer as are the solid alloy varieties. These are typically slightly underweight about 26 grams brand new. But with no doubt whatsoever the coin is STRUCK. Sheffield plate often wears oddly because of strike hardening around the sharply defined features. It is contemporaneous since Riddell's book dates to 1845. The second coin is also a variety of a Riddell type. The Riddell # 274 is extremely similar to this coin in the finer details. The Riddell 274 has TWO clear toes on the foot grasping the eagle. The variant type like yours has THREE toes. Here is the original version. 
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
425 Posts |
Thank you Swamperbob for the information. It seems if I wish to start collecting this counterfeits I will need to get a copy of this Riddell Book!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
426 Posts |
Hey oden!
Lucky for us it is free to view online. Just goolge "A monograph of the silver dollar" and it will be the first link under google books. The best part is that you can view it for free! It has become second nature to me to look at this book when considering buying a new cap & rays, especially online since all you have to work with are pictures.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
425 Posts |
Thanks for the tip off RealPeso! Whata great resorce and FREE on line! This is a great coin forum.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
The online version of Riddell is a great resource - just be aware that when hunting in the book for a specific coin that there are many more dates then appear in Riddell. So it is best to become familiar with the appearance of BOTH dies. Dates were changed on the dies by the forgers. They also freely re-mated die pairs.
For example, lets say you are looking for an 1836 Zs 8R in Riddell. You don't find the coin listed under Zs for 1836. So you think it is real, Right? NOT NECESSARILY. You need to be aware that an unlisted 1836 Zs OM cap die was mated with the Eagle die seen on the # 374 (a coin dated 1842).
A second example involves the small group of Miscellaneous mint marks that are at the end of Riddell. Those mint marks do not match any REAL mint mark. But those random letters were also altered so that the design of the eagle is MORE CRITICAL than any Date, mint, assayer combination.
So with the caveat - to look at all the dies - you have a great FREE resource available.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
425 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
426 Posts |
hey oden,
I don't know anything about the pillar series and I dont think this is the "big" problem you mentioned but isn't one of the issues the shape of the "9" in the date? Isn't the bottom supposed to be a curve and not straight?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
425 Posts |
You are right that the numbers are wrong, but that is not the "Big Problem" I was talking about. Lets pretend that the date of "1839" was done right by the forger, and the edge is correct, what is wrong?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
425 Posts |
No one knows? OK, this goes back to what Swamperbob was saying about forgers using the same plate over again. The front and the back of a Pillar should match. This coin is dated 1739 and should have "PHILIP.V" on the back, but it has "CAROLVS.III",(for Pillars dated 1760-1771). Also on top of the two pillars there should be two, "Royal", matching crowns on a 1739 dated coin. But in 1754 the Mexico City Mint,(Thats the "O" over "M"), changed the left crown to a "Imperial" crown. So a coin like this one should be dated 1760 to 1771, but NOT 1739. The one that really boggles my mind..... I have a very nice fake Pillar dated 1776. I know this is a very popular date for collectors, but why date a coin 5 years after the serious ended?
You know what...... I would bet you guys already knew all of this and I am just wasteing your time. I'll shut up now and stop posting.
p.s. I do have a few nice contemperary counterfeits of Spanish cobs and Pillars if anyone else collects them or would like to see them, just send me a private messege. PB.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
You are 100% correct about the King being incorrect for the date - that happens more often than you might think and it is hard to imagine that a collector whould not KNOW the years for each King but I have seen many collectors that actually miss something like this.
To be real all - of the elements must match up. Coinage designs, date, King, Assayers and mint. The exceptions are RARE so if you have one with elements that do not match chances are you have a fake.
There is an entire series of Wrong King coins listed in Riddell because the dates did not match the correct King.
There are also incorrect Portraits and of course incorrect series - a counterfeit dated after the series ceased like the 1870s Portrait 8Rs of Charles the 4th that are rather common.
So when looking at any coin look for anomalies. It is a good defence.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 2,871 |
|