CHILE, 10 PESOS 1968, ESCUADRA LIBERTADORA DEL PERÚ, RESTRIKE, SILVER PROOF!!!

Evidence nonetheless is provided by the contour of the genuine coin which is not exactly flat. With high resolution photographs, we can directly see the coin's contours or evidence of those contours.

This is a fragment of an image from a Mexico 1993-Mo Huehueteotl N$5. Note that the curvature of the proof surface is shown brightly underneath the "Huehueteotl" inscription and to right of the surface below the rim underneath the "N$5" denomination:

The following example isn't quite as high resolution as the first, however, we see evidence of the curvature in the reflection of the rim off of the polycarbonate holder. Note that the reflection follows a perfect circle until distorted by the "1968:"

If the replica coin is produced from a polished mold, as I suspect, then such edges would be sharp, not as gradual the ones shown which allow the flow of metal around the features of the coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Received the counterfeit coin today:


The counterfeit coins do indeed have super flat mirrored surfaces. No distortion of light around raised lettering:

They all share a mold mark, either for the injection gate or a vent:


The "fluted" effected is made by evenly spaced etched grooves:

(Note that the genuine CHILE 1968-SO ESCUADRA LIBERTADORA PLATA 10 PESOS has a smooth edge.)

Doubtful that the metallurgical tests will show pure silver.

"Carrie Lynn Johnson" takes the precaution to post in fluent Spanish a warning that this coin may not be as it appears:

Under his Ebay alias carriebear31, he posts that he wishes me not to contact him further:

 

Compared the appearance of a genuine Chile 1968-So Escuadra Libertadora Silver 10 Pesos with the fake coin:

Notice that the fake appears bluish as compared with the 999 silver coin:


Since the NGC will not waste time on counterfeits, I will do a specific gravity test in lieu of metallurgical tests. Pure silver is ~10.49 gm/cc for which I will use the Mexico 2005-Mo Casa de Moneda de Mexico 470 Aniversario 10 Pesos coin to test. Silver amalgam has a density of ~14.0 gm/cc, while 60/40 tin/lead solder would be ~8.5 gm/cc. My scale is broken. A new scale arrives later today.

PS - carriebear31 is auctioning yet another counterfeit.

 

The package scale that arrived today is in no way sensitive enough. Ordered a Smart Weigh SW-ACC200-BLK scale from Ratuken and a Universal specific gravity kit from bullion-traderuk on Ebay. Plan is to have the coin falsified by the NGC and then find its specific gravity before the Ebay 30 Day Money-back Guarantee expiration.

Silver glitter flaked off the counterfeit as I prepared the NGC package.

 

Received a Brifit Digital Mini Scale, 200g /0.01g Pocket Scale with 50g calibration weight and a Universal specific gravity kit from bullion-traderuk.

The specific gravity of the coin was 8.7 gm/cc, weighing in at 50.35 gm and displacing 5.78 cc of water.

Result very similar to tin/lead solder.

A genuine coin weighed 44.30 gm and displaced 4.13 cc of water (10.7 gm/cc).

Air bubbles in the samples are likely the cause of the elevated density readings.

60/40 solder has a specific gravity of 8.51 gm/cc, while pure silver has a specific gravity of 10.49 gm/cc.

Even so, using the edge of the coin, was able to print the following note:

Soon, I'll be receiving the coin in a body bag from the NGC which has recently graded the coin as "NOT GENUINE."

 

You wont see flow lines because modern proof coins are struck multiple times on polished planchets. Some of the spin cast coins are quite close to proofs. The only major difference is in the fields. Spin cast is perfectly flat, struck has a slightly concave or convex look depending on how the dies were prepared. Hard to spot in a photo.

 

Slight convexity in the coin background design, if present, allows the engraver more flexibility in the design of the relief. A flat background, by contrast, results in a relief with less depth so as not to exceed the rim of the coin. We know that when pressed, metal flows from the background to fill out the details of the relief.

These are photographs of high relief coins:


Notice the 3D effect:

These coin surfaces have flat backgrounds:


However, if a coin is poured, there likely is no engraver to advise on which designs would be feasible for pressing.

I do not believe it feasible that the counterfeit coins with their super flat backgrounds and their sand-cast reliefs could have been struck in quantity.

Rather, they were poured, as evident by the mold mark on the counterfeit.

 

Never seen or heard of a cast proof.

 

The topic of this thread is such a coin. A sand-cast mold was taken of an authentic coin, then the surfaces of the background were polished. After casting, the coin was machined to produce the fluting effect on the rim. Evidence of the machined rim flaked off the coin as silver glitter when I transferred the coin for shipping to the NGC where it was pronounced a fake. The metal used in the mold for the coin was 60/40 solder, not silver. A mold mark is evident on the coin.

 

Oh, meant reeded edge rather than fluted and a genuine coin has reeded edges, as well, not smooth.

 

Received the graded "restrike" today from the NGC. NOT GENUINE. No surprise:
Will the return of this fake stem the flow of Ebay auctions of this coin?

 

What you keep referring to as a "mold mark" appears to be a die chip. If you really think about the process to create proof fields/frosted relief features, you'd realize it's not cast.

 

Well done. Coins are struck with dies. Ceramics are cast with molds.

 

The Navajo Indians have refined the techniques of sand-cast molding silver jewelry. First, a sand-cast mold is created to add an exaggerated relief, at the cost of obscuring fine detail. Then, a "master coin" is cast (using silver, for example, with a melting point of 1763°F). Then, a second mold is created using a suitable metal or alloy with a melting point that is lower than that the master coin (lead, for example, has a melting point of 621.4°F). It is this secondary mold that is polished flat to lend a mirrored background to the solder-molded coin.

Additionally, the coin is molded from an alloy that is harder than lead, but still soft enough to write with, as this image shows:


Finally, in addition to its softness, the metal must appear silver enough to fool you.

60/40 tin/lead solder fulfills all of these requirements with a melting point of 370°F.

A specific gravity test produced results congruent with this hypothesis within the tolerance prescribed by measuring the specific gravity of a genuine coin known to be pure silver.

The volume of the sand-cast molded coin is ~5.78 cc while the genuine coin's volume is ~4.13 cc. This difference in volume is congruent with a mold that has been polished flat.

Also, notice how rough the reeded edge actually is:

The coin was first cast, then a machine cut grooves at precision intervals, resulting in silver like flakes which fell from the coin.

A mold mark is additional evidence of the cast.

 

No one is arguing if the coin is authentic or not, it obviously is fake. But it is a common cheaply made fake struck from polished, but not well made, dies and struck in an equally poor quality collar to imprint the reeded edge. You can polish a mold until your hands fall off, the result will be a clean and smooth surface without bumps, but it will not have a mirror finish. The casting process simply does not produce this effect. It's a matter of science rather than opinion.

 

While I did suspect a silver or lead amalgam, the tin/lead solder outcome was a surprise.

Even so, having created tin/lead solder artifacts myself over 40 years ago, I disagree with your assessment that the final reproduction had to involve pressing.

The reflective nature of the coin has less to do with polishing of the mold and more to do with the surface tension of molten solder itself.

Even the relief features are impacted by the effect of this surface tension, such that the original frosted finish could not be reproduced, leaving only a shiny, coarse, and approximate rendering of the sand like material used for the initial mold.

I've reported to Ebay the total of two coins as fakes and included as references many of the images posted in this thread.

Unfortunately, the seller is eager to get the coins back, eliminating the possibility of my own Ebay listing imitating and exposing carriebear31's fraud.

 

eBay is slowly becoming irrelevant in the market place. The recent supreme court ruling on collection of state sales tax is enough to make buying on eBay more trouble than it is worth. Even if the coin is real (which we all know is not always the case), for many eBay buyers the collection of sales tax on top of everything else is enough to give the local show or coin shop a competitive advantage for the first time in a long while.

 

The "die chip" could be a "die pit" produced in the course of spark-erosion for producing proof-like counterfeits. See https://www.pcgs.com/news/The-Fundamentals-Of-Counterfeit-Detection--Part-1

The seller provided photos of his attempt to prove the coin is not tin/lead solder:





The small "die pit" in the lower left between the large dentile and the number "1820" identifies the torched and flaking coin as having common origin to the thread topic.

The sand-cast like finish is also missing from this coin's devices and the rim edge, so that it is unclear whether the finish evaporated under the heat of the blowtorch or whether this counterfeit is representative of a different prototype.

However, the inconspicuous the placement of the singular "die pit" seems contrived rather than accidental.

If the seller does refuse any of the returns, Ebay will still confiscate my money. Then, I would apply the "ring test," take my soldering iron out of storage, and brand the word "COPY" on the coin.

 

With the exception of automobiles, my state only collects sales taxes from businesses, not from yard sales.

 

Wait and see what happens within the next 24 months, it's way too easy for the states to collect tax on internet sales and the banks re: credit card issuers will likely be willing accomplices in implementing it. For a fee of course. I sense there is a consensus growing among many that the internet in general is the source of much of our dysfunction in society, and tax policy has a funny way of rearing its ugly head from the muck in such instances. I suspect if there were a one cent per minute tax on using Facebook, the company would collapse tomorrow.