8 Reales 1772 Lima Mint - Milled Type

1772 was the last year the Lima mint struck the milled columnario type.

When I bought this coin back in the late 90's, I was not aware that there are two varieties for the year: with a dot above one the "L" mintmarks,
or with a dot above both L's (on the obverse). Gilboy also describes this variety in his book (P. 159, L-8-25B, as R4).

A couple years later, 1991 I think, Superior auctioned a major collection of these, and it contained a 1772 with dots above both L's which they described as unique. Well, here is apparently another.

The coin was cleaned when i bought it, and has toned a little over the years.

Looking forward to your comments,

Eduard

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Eduard, are you sure about the authenticity of this coin?

And do you have a link to the photos of the coin from the Superior sale? The only photos I have of the 25B type are of fakes.

 

Brad, I bought this coin at an Aureo, Barcelona, Auction in 1989 or 1990. It was not described as the rare 2-dot type at all, just as an 1772 from Lima. It was only later that I discovered that there were 2 varieties, and
I was pleased (assuming it is indeed authenthic....).

I don't have a link to the Superior auction, but I do still have the catalogue. Here are pics I just took of the lot in question, and of the catalogue (It sold for $2200 at that sale. The coin seems to be slightly out of round).

I am not 100 % sure my coin is authentic, even if it came from Aureo.
I have seen fake 8 reales from Santiago, and they have another feel altogether. This one "feels" good to me, but I am not an expert by a long shot....

Let's see if we can pin this one down.

Eduard

 

I don't propose to be an expert either. You have the advantage of having the coin in hand to get more direct impressions, so that credits the coin in that respect. I assume you have weighed the coin and its edge devices look real.

Just speaking about design features, since that is all I can really speak on from your photos. One point that bothers me is the weak 'A' crossbar on the 'M' of the mintmark. The catalog example looks much bolder. Does your coin exhibit pitting from surface corrosion? That might help explain.

The other factor that troubles me is the tilt of the 'U' in QUE. The example in the catalog appears in line with the other letters. Yours looks tilted to the right, like the following examples (the difference is slight and I could be seeing something that is not there):





Both of the above coins have been offered on ebay by notorious sellers of fakes, one in China, the other in Spain.

In conclusion I can only say that it would be good to have it looked at by someone like Rick Ponterio or San Sedwick. I don't want to condemn the coin entirely by design inconsistencies, I only want to point out my observations.

If it is indeed the 25B, that's a great find, R4 is less than 10 known.

 

Doug, you misunderstand me, or more likely, I explained myself incorrectly.
My coin, IS NOT the coin in the Superior 1991 Sale catalogue. I bought mine from the auction firm of Aureo in Barcelona.

Acanthite, at your suggestion I contacted the firm of Dan Sedwick yesterday, and had a very pleasant discussion with a gentleman on the phone. I directed him to this post in C.T, and together we compared similarities and differences between my coin, the Superior coin, and a 25B which his firm has recently acquired from another source, and compared them with known fakes of the 25B.

Whilst it is obviously not possible to issue a final pronuncement from pictures alone, he concluded that there is a more than even chance my coin is legit. This based on differences between my coin and the fakes: for example some details on the shield on the reverse, and the shape and form of the numeral '2' in the date. In his opinion, all known fakes of the 25B have a differently cut '2' in the numeral. He recommended that i weigh the coin to be sure, which I will do to make sure it is within the nominal of 27.04 g's +/- 4% as described by Gilboy.

Having said all this, there are other 'feel good'signs about my coin: the surfaces are still a bit reflective and shown not at all the opaque, rough, or pebbly surfaces typical of a cast.

One other interesting point he made: the 25B is not as rare as Gilboy had suggested.

Regards,

Eduard

 

Good to hear that you were able to get an expert opinion. And that was an interesting comment they made regarding the rarity, I've wondered about some of the ratings in Gilboy, in certain cases they seem a bit off.

 

Hello,
I hope nobody minds if a new subscriber adds an observation...

I have what I now am sure is one of the counterfeit 1772 8 Reales with the dots over the LM mint marks. I've noticed on mine, and the other coins that are considered not genuine, that they all do not have the dot between the HISPAN and ET, as the real Reales in your referenced pictures seem to possess.

On the other hand, the book Eight Reales and Pesos of the New World shows a 1772 two-dot with possibly (poor, hard to see pictures) no dot between HISPAN and ET either! Could there be a third variation here?
Regards

 

Oops, the pictures are dim in my book, but it sure looks as though there are two dots... sorry. I'll try to post scans of my coin, which not only has the dots above both mint marks, it has been countermarked with the V.II. Queen Isabella II stamp.

 

Thank you, GDJMSP, but I've already had an email conversation with Mr. Clegg, at [FONT=&quot]www.columnarios.com, about this coin, and his opinion is that it is not genuine. :>(

This coin's twin, without a countermark, is on eBay right now, and they are asking $1,200 for it! That auction number is [/FONT]400052824332 if you would like to check it out. Go figure.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

If you mean that you think both coins we made by the same person, the coin in the auction you mention is not even close to being a twin to yours - without even considering the countermark.

Well, yes I did mean that... I've examined enlarged pics of both coins side by side, and every little anomaly on my coin, such as the break in the top right shield line, and the points on the curves of the shield, the crooked letters, the lack of a dot between the N and E the spacing of the IND, the shape of the U in VNU, the different shape of the curved tops of the left and right sides of the crown, the break in the top of the R in VTRA.... everything on my coin is duplicated on the eBay coin. The planchet looks a tiny bit bigger, but take away the chips, the dirt and coloring, and what is different about it except the wear on the crown on mine, and the countermark with resulting flattening of the small crown and tops of the worlds?

But I would never question Rick Ponterio or Frank Gilboy. I still strongly suggest you contact one of them.

I guess you are right, but, didn't Frank Gilboy die in '93? I don't know how much Rick Pontario charges for his authentication services, but I should check that out. I WANT my coin to be genuine!

 

You may also want to contact Dan Sedwick. I discussed my coin (see op) with a gentleman there who seemed quite knowledgeable. After comparing pictures, he reassured me about my coin, and also indicated a distinguishing feature of known fakes of the 1772 double dot variety is the "2" in the date missing a little tail. Does yours have this little tail? (can't see the detail too well on the picture). The other factor is of course the weight. Gilboy gives guidelines as to what an 8 Reales should weigh. Mine weighs 26.854 grams, well within the tolerance.

I wish for you your coin is genuine - a scarce double dot 1772 8 reales, and with a Phillipines countermark on top - that would be a truly scarce coin!

Eduard

 

It's easy to see at a glance they are not even similar - just look at the denticles, or rather the lack of them on your coin as compared to the ebay coin.

Yes, the larger planchet of the eBay coin, and it's center strike, shows all the dentiles. On my smaller diameter coin, the offset strike on the obverse only shows the dentiles on the right side, and the center strike on the reverse shows almost no dentiles at all. That asside, what about the similarities I mentioned? All the letters on both sides fall equally, the bases of the crown on the pillars are the same, and the "Empire" crown shows open work alike. The letters of both coins "contact" the crown and shield identically, etc.

My coin weighs 26.5xx grams, and is 1.524 inches in diameter.

And yes, Frank Gilboy did die in '93. But his son, also Frank Gilboy and the one who wrote the book on these coins, is still very much alive.

I had understood that his book was written by his son Christopher... my mistake. I've never seen his book, and the $1,400+ asking price of the one on Amazon will pretty surely ensure that I never will. :>( Maybe they will reprint it for more than the 500 lucky few who have one.
Regards

 

Eduard,

"a distinguishing feature of known fakes of the 1772 double dot variety is the "2" in the date missing a little tail. Does yours have this little tail? (can't see the detail too well on the picture)."

Well, I can't tell from my scan either! I'm on vacation right now in Denver, and won't be home for almost a week. The first thing I am going to do after walking through my front door, is look for the tail! Thanks for this information.

I wish for you your coin is genuine - a scarce double dot 1772 8 reales, and with a Phillipines countermark on top - that would be a truly scarce coin!

Thank you very much. I totally agree.

 

Look here:
http://www.coins2.com/imgsearch/spa...ISH-AMERICAN-PILLAR-COINAGE-1732-TO-1772.html


Good luck,

Eduard