Hello everyone, I need some help on this Coin please. I just bought it and have a few questions. First and foremost does it look to be Authentic? Also on one of the photos below there seems to be a small glob of metal on the back (arrow pointing to it), anyone has any idea what that is? Oh yea, it weighs 26.88 grams. There is also some fading of letters on the reverse (have arrows pointing to it)....Could that be just a bad worn out die? . In hand it is a very nice coin, just trying to educate myself.Hopefully someone can help me out on these questions. I would appreciate it very much. Thanks, Frank
Frank - The weight is pretty close to the minimum. But based on the overall appearance of the coin I'd have to say it was fake. An in hand exam may make me change my mind, but to be honest I doubt it.
GDJSM: Wouldn't the coin be underweight just by looking at the weak strike? That is, in order to be this weak a strike, wouldn't have to be underweight? Or, were they that exact that it wouldn't have happened?
It appears to be real to me, but hard to say without closer examination of the overlaps in the edge, as well as closer look at the surface. It appears struck, with "rough" area indicating thinner planchet in that spot. Not sure what the "crud" is on the pillar. Check the edge - it should have two spots, opposite of each other, where pattern overlaps. That's due to the way blanks were edged. ~Roman
They were pretty exact. These are the tolerances - maximum - 27.2638 grams minimum - 26.8646 grams Any coin above or below those weight was either adjusted with a file ( which is why you see adjustment marks ) or flat out rejected and melted. But as I said, in this case it is not the weight which bothers me. And I don't think that is a weak strike - I think it is damage. What bothers me is the blob of metal for one, another is the soapy appearance, another is the somewhat mushy details on legends and devices, and another is what appears to be casting bubbles.
That is true of the pillar and wave series - depending on date and mint even that rule varies - but not of the portrait series.
I would love to know what your sources are for this information. It was my understanding from in-depth discussions with people specializing in the series that the edges applied to Portrait 8 Reale coins were made on a two die apparatus. The blanks were squeezed between two parallel flat bar dies. One bar die was mobile (moved with a screw apparatus) while the other was fixed. As the moving die bar traveled along parallel to the fixed die - the blank rolled along between the two dies under very high pressure. This reduced the diameter of the blank to the appropriate 39 mm and it upset the rim slightly to prepare the blank for striking. The edge design was applied to the opposite sides of the coin at the same time. The two die apparatus therefore produced TWO overlaps on exactly opposite sides of the coin and of precisely the same length. One overlap means that the detail was applied with only one die. This series was also struck in an open screw press AFTER they were edged. ~Roman
Are the suspect casting bubbles in front of the nose, a few behind the head, and in the IIII behind that? Or am I looking at the wrong features.
The areas I am seeing them are in the armor & legends on the obverse, on the reverse I see them mainly in the fields and columns.
Fair enough - The Milled Columnarios Of Central And South America by Frank F. Gilboy. Now you're probably going to tell me that this book only deals with the pillar & wave design, and you are correct. But in this book it also explains how and why the edge design came to be as well as the differences in the edge designs for each mint and date periods and why there were differences in the edge design to begin with. And that is the important part here - the why. You are correct in the method you describe for imparting the edge design, but you are incorrect in assuming that having only one edge overlap, or even no edge overlap, has anything to do with the number of edge dies used. What it has to do with, and the why or the reason there were differences, is the size of the coin or planchet. For if the size varied at all, then the overlap of the edge design or lack thereof would be entirely dependant on what exactly the size was - this was the critical issue. Now, that being said - the edge dies were made by hand just like the obverse & reverse dies. And because they were made by hand there were certain variances - no two dies were exactly alike. And that is why at the different mints and for different date periods there were differences. Even with the pillar & wave series, some of the mints were able to achieve only 1 edge overlap and sometimes no overlap at all. This of course was determined by what the exact size of the coin and the exact size of the dies. The size of coin that worked best to produce seamless edges was 39.2 to 39.8 millimeters. This allowed the edge design to be imparted almost perfectly - seamlessly. Anyway, by 1770 - 1771 almost all of the mints, with the exception of Lima, had managed to consistently produce planchets of the correct size. And when the portrait series began in 1772 this level of quality continued for the most part. There were exceptions of course where the planchet size varied slightly and when it did the overlap of the edge design also varied. So, just like with the pillar & wave series the edge design of the protrait series also vaired. Sometimes there were two overlaps, sometimes one and sometimes there was no overlap to be found at all. It was inevitable due to slight variations in planchet size as well the edge dies themselves.
That book only deals with pillar & wave design... I will need to go over my notes on the subject once I'm home tonight to build a more substantial case, because I still disagree with some of the points you make ~Roman
You're more than welcome to - I love a good discussion :thumb: One thing I didn't mention though, I collected these coins for over 30 yrs and still continue to study them. And all of my personal observations of the coins themselves reinforce my comments.
I respect your experience, however .... Original portrait 8 reales of Mexico City have two matching overlaps exactly opposite one another. The edging machine always produces pairs of identical overlaps. The only way to have "no overlap" that I could see would the edge with two distinct edge designs, not connected. One overlap is simply impossible to have with the edging press that was used at that time. As far as the details of a Mexico City edge itself - it is very regular in size and spacings. The circles are circles not squares with round holes in them. The rectangles are rectangles not squares and not trapezoids. Other brach mints have some variation but NOT Mexico City. I'll write more once I'm home and get my hands on sources, so I don't sounds like I am pulling this out of thin air. ~Roman
Forgot to mention that it's possible to have more than 2 overlaps, but, again, in pairs exactly opposite of each other, because planchets were very rough cut so they often popped out of the edger resulting in multiple starts and stops in the edge design. But because it was done on a two part edger - the overlaps in the design must occur in pairs. ~Roman
One of my sources is Robert Gurney (swamperbob). Here's one of his posts that also contains a drawing of the edging process: http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=7192 Ok, I seriosly need to get back to work if I am to get out of here before 7pm. ~Roman
With all respect to swamperbob and yourself, the laws of physics are what they are and cannot be ignored. Now what I mean by that is that if the coin or planchet is off a given size and the edge die is of a given size, then the joint/ overlap or lack thereof is going to be in a given place - period. And if that size is such that the design comes together at just the right place, then there will be no overlap/joint or there will be one or there will be two or there will be more than two as you described. It seems we have one main point of disagreement, that being that there are always 2 overlaps/joints or more. But the very same physics that dictate this also dictate what I am saying - all that is required is the proper size of both the coin/planchet and edge die. By the way I do disagree with one of your new points, that being that the planchets were rough cut. On the contrary, the planchets for the portrait series were very uniform and well shaped in regard to roundness. Common sense dictates this was so because the coins themselves are very round. And rolling them between two edge dies would not remove any roughness nor make them any more round than they were before that took place.
Ok, getting ready to leave work and just wanted to point-out that when I mentioned "rough" planchet - I was talking about surfaces, not the edge. The edge was, in fact, close to perfect circle, since, after rolling ingots into uniformed "sheet" of silver, the blanks were punched using a press, similar to the "blanking press" used by mints today. True, unless the "moving" side of the edging machine also moved towards the other side to secure the blank in place and not just parallel to it. If the distance between the sides of the machine was stationary, how would you fit and secure the blank in the first place? Try to visualize the process. That being said, I often noticed that people having a disagreement over any subject, are simply miscommunicating the same idea. Does that make sense? English is not my native language and I still struggle with getting my point across, at times. ~Roman
I am learning all i can about this coin because i want to begin collecting it, so please correct me if i am wrong. and add any comments Thanks. All counterfeits of the era were designed to fool the person using it trade by reducing the silver content by weight - That is what i have been told. The weight of a counterfeit is approx 25 grams(that is what i have been told). Based on weight his coin is 26.88 grams; couldn’t the damage be during circulation reducing the weight by a couple tenths of a gram ? couldn’t the pits be due to ground damage if the coin has spent some time in the ground ? If it is contemporary fake, with the weight in the tolerance, could the metal be of a lesser fineness? are most modern fakes minted as opposed to casted ? I am searching for answers more than giving them so any help thanks.
I see what you are saying, it may be better illustrated as teeth in a gear, at a specific diameter the gear will line up perfectly, change the diameter and keep the tooth width the same and they will not mesh up(unless you reduce the diameter to one whole tooth width). And both top and bottom dies may not be perfectly milled to comply to the same exact diameter. so two specific diameters of coins will produce single overlaps. One for the upper die and the other for the bottom die. Two dies perfectly matched at a specific diameter will produce no overlap. Both dies would have to be exact to prevent any overlap, and given the period that this was produced it probably was a rare thing. They probably tried to make the dies for a specific diameter and as it was back then the tolerances were too great to get a perfect fit.
I understand exactly what you mean by that. And you are correct, you're just not thinking it all the way through. You see, the two edge dies are both movable and stationary - just at different times, or at least one them is anyway. The one die has to moveable in two directions, for as you say you need to insert the blank between them. So here is what happens. The coin/planchet is placed between the two edge dies, then the moveable die is moved towards the other until it touches the coin/planchet with a certain amount of pressure being applied. But, and this is the important part, from that point onwards the moveable die never comes any closer to the the other die, from then on it only moves in a parallel direction to it with the distance between them remaining exactly the same. And because that distance remains exactly the same during the process, so does the edge design. Yup, I certainly agree with that too. But I must say, for someone who's native language is not English - you certainly do a good job with it :thumb: