MathieuMa First thing to do is ask a few questions of the seller. Weight - exact not according to the book. Edge - can you get pictures? Then ask about return policy.
I notice that you refer to the coin as a Fernandus VI - the coin appears to be a Philip V. Just wondering if you noticed that this is the posthumous strike?
As to the picture. Here are a few observations on what I look for.
Notice the way the edging has distorted the dentils on the faces of the coin. This indicates the coin was edged AFTER it was struck. This practice was unfortunately variable in 1747 so either Pre-strike or Post strike edge applications can occur. However on later date 8Rs the edging was normally done PRE-STRIKE. That said - I always look just a bit closer at coins from the late 1740's which still use the Post strike edging process. WHY? Because a forger can hide an edge seam very easily underneath a post strike applied lotus edge.
,
The second thing I notice, that jumps right out, is the odd coloration in the area above the Dos Mundos. Something happened there and it was POST strike. It appears to be a smoothed out depression. This damage could be anything. It is Damage and lowers the value of an original so take it into account. But being a very suspicious guy, I wonder if the word COPY was there at one time?
The next observation I make is that I don't see any serious cuts, nicks or other damage to the fields (except around the depression noted above). These are dollar coins and are heavy. They get cut up in circulation very easily. I get suspicious when I see no nicks in the fields because it means the coin must not have circulated long. No bag marks. If it didn't circulate much - then I ask why is it as worn as it appears to be? I do take note of some high point nicks on the tops of high details but
no field nicks. In a modern tube fed edger - the coins are stacked and suffer high point abrasion and high point nicks due to machine vibration and dropping the coins into the feeder. But the tube prevents many real bag marks and the fields are largely protected by the mechanics of the operation.
Now I am getting suspicious.
The next thing I notice is the very nice even toning - lighter at the center darker near the edges. Really attractive. But this appearance is seen far more often on forged coins than on real ones.
Now I am getting REALLY suspicious.
If you notice - up to this point I have not really looked at the design of the coin much. I checked the style (PILLAR) and the date (1747) so I would know what to expect as far as manufacturing methods. But otherwise my observations are confined to the physical appearance of the coin.
The process to this point takes less than 30 seconds. Writing it up so as to explain the thought process takes far longer.
The next thing to verify is that the date, mint, King and assayer combination existed. Many people skip this or forget it, but many forgers slip up at this point always good to check. It this case 1747 falls in the reign of Ferdinand VI. The coin legend reads Philip V who was NOT KING in 1747. He died in 1746. But a quick check of the Mexican coin book says there was a posthumous issue dated 1747 issued in Mexico City with assayer initials MF. So it is a real existant variety.
In person, I would next weigh the coin and see it it falls into the expected range of allowable weight. This coin should weigh 26.8 or 26.9 grams. Much less and I would get concerned. I would also be concerned if it weighed over 27.0 grams as well. You can compare that to what the seller says.
Next I finally actually look at the design of the coin. I would start with the edge but that is NOT possible at this point. I would be looking for something WRONG in this case. Are there two opposed edge laps. Is the design UNIFORM in segment size and spacing and is the detail correct for Mexico City in 1747. Hopefully the photos from the seller would provide clues. I do not divulge information on what the correct edge design should be - that is still hard for most forgers to locate. It is public record but they need to earn their keep.
The two face dies use a design that is VERY near perfect. I normally use Gilboy to check. That is where I end my analysis.
The problem with the design being correct is that it is the EASIEST part of the process for a modern forger. All you need is a good high quality picture of an original and you can make a copy die or mold that matches the coin. It is what comes next that gets difficult and hard to match to an original.
I agree that the two faces look original. But what I am actually saying is that this tells you almost nothing about whether or not the coin is REAL. Today a computer assisted engraver can use a digitized photo to cut a very accurate die. Plastics can also be used to cast very accurate molds and even dies. So getting the pictures right is not the problem it was in 1811. The last 200 years have seen technology almost eliminate the role of a skilled engraver in the forgery business.
I recall one early
ebay fraud which may still happen. The seller posted a picture of a coin. Just a picture. If you won and paid you get nothing or perhaps the picture. The seller was long gone.
In evaluating forgeries from pictures that is all you have a picture. Look for clues first as to how the coin was made - not at what the "picture" is of.
I am advising everyone to be cautious.
Posted 04/17/2011 10:13 pm
