Spanish 8 Reales, Pillar Dollars

Both are fake. 1732 would have Phillip V, the 1770 would have Carlos III. Besides they just "look wrong". Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The 1770 weighs about 27 grams.
The 1732 weighs about 30 grams.
I'm using a cheesy little hanging scale, but in a couple days my new digital jewlers scale.
Also what is the Specific Gravity, and how do I check it?

Hi friend,

I saw your comment about the 8 reales 1796 - "R8" error

do you have more information about ?
history, last sale, price, KM number, why this error

thanks and best regards from Brazil
Marcel Ribeiro

please, send your answer in my e-mail:
***Edited by Staff - Email removed - We share info here. ***

gdlovgren You are speaking about tolerances and the range of possible weight. The Eisenhower dollars (non-silver) types like most other token coins have a very wide range of tolerance since the value is uneffected. But the bullion coin is a different issue.

The 2001 ounce coin you have is 31.32 grams instead of 31.103 grams. The difference is 0.217 grams or 0.00697 of the total weight about 7/10ths of one percent. In terms of value in todays market that is about 23 cents. But in terms of 2001 tolerance, I believe it within the allowable weight range at that time. I do not collect these coins so I am not positive but the range for US coins was always good.

mrsilv1 If you could tell me which thread you are referring to I might be able to help you.

I agree - I use a Ohaus 4 beam balance accurate to 1/100th of a gram. It is the step between the triple beam high school scale and a true multi-thousand dollar analytical scale.

The scale sounds fine to me Ohaus is a good company and their scales arre accurate.

gdlovgren In each era and for each coin variety weight ranges were established by the government usually by law. The ability of a mint to produce coins of precisely the correct weight also varies often as a result of the technology employed at that time - SO there is NO one uniform answer to your question.

The first factor to consider is in my opinion the coinage itself. Are you looking at a token issue, a local issue (one government) or a World Trade coin. I would suggest that three different approaches are used. Token coinages whose value relies on acceptance in society rather than intrinsic metal content are less apt to apply rigid standards for the production of coins. Precision is costly so precision falls to the necessity of cost control. Take for example modern US coins mass produced to tolerances set by the vending machine industry. But a World Trade coin would technically be made to the highest standard because it is accepted based on the accuracy of the end product.

The Barber quarter of 1912 was a token coinage with a face value far exceeding silver content. In 1912 the average price for an ounce of silver was 64 cents. The quarter contained 0.18 oz for a value of about 11.5 cents or HALF FACE value. That is why I refer to it as a token coinage and why forgers were active making Dollar coins. Passing a dollar at face value in 1912 could make the forger 50 cents per coin (less costs of production). Doubling your money is a good incentive.

But in the days when silver was King (before 1870 lets say) - tolerances were much smaller. That is why older coins are often found with adjustment marks. These scratches from a file or rasp were made in the planchet or blank during the final weight check to make sure planchets were not too heavy. This was the era when 3-5% loss of weight due to wear sent a coin BACK to the mint for use as raw silver.

When silver prices plummeted there was in many cases a shift to wider tolerances in weight. After all, the coin was already a token with a face value higher much than the metal content. I recall seeing someplace a very detailed study by the mint on the wearing of coins in circulation that provided statistics about how long a coin could circulate before unacceptable metallic losses were incurred.

I am not a collector of the Barber series so I do not know how much weight is lost through normal wear and I can only suspect that in 1912 pressure for accuracy of initial weight was DOWN.

You should be able to find the tolerance levels for the Morgan dollar production by using google - I know they have been quoted before and I would suggest that if you follow those roughly you will be in the ballpark.

Sorry I can't provide a better answer but as far as I am concerned none exists.

However, if you were able to accurately measure SG you would be better off than simple weight. Silver assay tolerance was NOT compromised at any time that I am aware of - not in the US anyway.

Quote: "Man, I always hate to see people wind up with fakes!"

Unless that is what they wanted!