I bought this coin on Ebay from a well-known and highly rated seller. Once I received it, I measured its diameter and weighed it, coming out with 39 mm and 26.34 g. The diameter seems fine, but the weight is a bit lower than the minimum tolerance, although I think that the amount of wear on the coin doesn't make the weight a red flag by itself. Additionally, I'm able to rub off some of the black residue on the edges of the coin and I don't think any of the marks on the coin are casting bubbles. I'm not expert enough to judge any other factors myself and I was wondering if anyone here could give me their opinion. The seller's pictures and my own pictures are attached below.
"They" have made fakes with chops. I see genuine characteristics and C/F characteristics one this coin so I have not commented. Edit: I did some thinking and so rather than leaving folks hanging, I don't like the pimples or the broken lion tale. The cracked castle is a good sign. Unfortunately these days, the ability to copy tiny details makes authentication hard. The edge looks OK. One thing we all can do is look up the examples 1810-Mo,HJ 8 Rls on the Internet that have been authenticated.
I don't have an 1810 for comparison, but the pattern of wear and the chop marks look promising to me. Here are a 1791 and 1796 with chops of mine for a rough comparison. As far as I know they are authentic.
Interesting observations. I did not notice the broken lion tail, although now it does seem like a suspect detail.
AndrewC, posted:"Interesting observations. I did not notice the broken lion tail, although now it does seem like a suspect detail." This is a fascinating series full of contemporary counterfeits and some time ago the modern C/F'ers got into the game. One good book I recommend for further reading is Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales the Un-Real Reales. Decades ago, when the transfer process to make fake dies was not very good, I learned that the dies for these coins were made using punches. This is all in the book above. Therefore, we could find a letter (like an "N") with a tiny defect of some kind (like a nick on an upright) and all the "N's" would be identical. In the case of the OP's coin, the tails are the same. That's a + IF that is on other coins of this date and mint. However, with the excellent transfer processes used these days to make fakes, it is no longer as helpful. I did not find a coin of this date and mint w/broken tail punch on the Internet - yet!
Please go back and ask Bob about the broken castle. What are the dates this punch was used? If this is a contemporary fake, the broken castle should appear on a long series of different dates.
Bob is actually saying it's more likely to be authentic, with metal composition containing trace gold really placing it in period Mexico being the last check to do. I remember the broken castle discussion a few years back on PCGS forums and I agree with Bob in that it's most likely a common point of failure of the punch and not an issue with the matrix block. Like you said, this crack can be found in examples across many decades.
