The 8 Reales Cracked Castle puzzle.
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've been studying this series ever since buying "Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales, the Un-Real Reales" by Robert Gurney. It is a well researched book well ahead of current methods of counterfeit detection for this series! Mr. Gurney posts as SwamperBob on another forum and I've asked him to join us here to share his expertise. I hope he does.
In the book, Gurney mentions that the dies for these coins were prepared with punches. On the reverse, there is a shield with two castles. He mentioned that the Castle punch appears with a crack on several different dates (1772,73, and 74). At the FUN show he said there are more dates. I'm posting an image of the reverse of a Mexico 1797-Mo,FM coin. Note the diagonal break from the door and up thru the window.
Here is my question. In counterfeit detection, one series of U.S. gold coin fakes uses the same reverse die paired with obverse dies dated from 1861 to 1899 +. Obviously, the same broken punch cannot be used for decades w/o finally breaking! It seems that is what is happening here. coins from 1772 to 1797 with the same broken punch! This is very suspicious, even impossible. The coins I see on the Internet look 100% genuine. Anyone have a thought on this situation? Do you have any of these coins in your collection. For now, as a stretch, if these coins are not genuine, there should be repeating marks on the reverse dies also.
Comments
Are you referring to the "broken castle" from chapter 3 of Bob Gurney's book? If so, these are unique to a series of Potosi counterfeits. For those who don't have the book, this post shows a series of images of the broken castle.
Here's one of mine that I bought from Dan Sedwick and subsequently had slabbed by NGC.
Are you referring to the break often seen in the castle punch of early Carlos IV 8 Reales?
8 Reales Madness Collection
Thanks for the reply. That break is on the wrong side of the castle and as you posted it is found from the Potosi Mint (pp#150 in the book) . The Mexico Mint coins are different. The crack is on the right side of the castle (pp#148 in the book).
AFAIK, the jury is out on the Mexican coins but they too have been slabbed as genuine. Now, if the Potosi coins dated 1774 to 1782 have been determined to be deceptive counterfeits, it would seem that the Mexico Mint coins must also be counterfeit! This is getting good.
What is needed now is to find two coins of the same date from either the Mexico or Potosi mint with identical repeating marks.
The examples I posted are all from Mexico City and all authentic as confirmed by SG, proper edging, etc...
The extreme example on the left is this one:
8 Reales Madness Collection
The way I read the discussion on page 148, the crack in the castle is a feature of the Mexico City matrix block and therefore will be present on every master punch. If that is the case, any Mexico City issue in this date range without the crack should be considered suspicious.
I have a certified date run of the Charles III 8 reales portraits and you can see the crack on all but the most worn issues.
Thanks. Let's examine your images.
The castles are made from a punch. All three castles are different die states as we should expect (?). The middle castle appears to have the die break continuing up through the castle and into the field.
@TwoKopeiki said:
On the large image above (obverse and reverse) It appears that a crack continues through the base of the castle and into the field below and across the shield base. Yet, in the small image of the castle on the left alone there is no evidence of this. Do any of these coins have a break through the castle and into the field? That should be very unusual and something that would defy explanation.
And we must remember, a broken castle on a genuine coin can be transferred and appear on a fake.
The problem is (and it is not impossible to have happened) the matrix block needed to be used for twenty years in a broken state. I believe that during that time span there were several changes to the punches for the letters and numerals.
No one is calling any coins counterfeit. As I read more, there are just some things that don't add up in my mind. And as can be seen on the Internet, coins as these have been graded by the TPGS.
Interesting discussion !!!
Just a guess, but they could have kept an older matrix block and reused it when they went back to the FM assayer that was used in the early 1770's. Now if you find the same crack on late 1770's coins that used FF assayer, that would be interesting.
Edit: Upon further reviewing jgenn's date run I see the cracked castle does appear on FF assayer coins, so my theory flies out the window. Perhaps the individual punch used to render the castles onto the matrix block had a crack? shrug
Highly enthusiastic about world coins, contemporary circulating counterfeits and unusual stuff
Very interesting analysis. Do we know if Mexican mint officials kept ledger notations about this punch flaw or failure. There must have been quality control comments noted somewhere considering the effort used to create the series. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall
There must have been more than just a single set of "King Punches" at any time, or masterful re-engraving taking place after the die was created, since the broken castle is not a standard characteristic for the portrait series. It appears in some years more than others (1793, 1794) but as you get closer to Ferdinand VII draped bust series it shows up less and less. Based on my notes, there are a number of years that have both with and without the castle window die break.
8 Reales Madness Collection
This is complete speculative bs, but bear with me and my hopefully sound logic.
I don't know what the production process for the initial matrix was back then, but I assume there were letter, number and other design element punches involved rather than hand engraving (due to consistency across decades). Also guessing that such punches would have been made of a harder metal than the one they were being used on and could be retooled once the details dulled.
Considering the multiplication rule: matrix block > master punch > die > coin... whatever tools were used to create the initial block would have been far fewer in number.
It would result in the same thing we see as well, an incuse crack on relief features equivalent to a raised crack in the fields.
TwoKopeiki's gorgeous coin shows it as falling flush with the fields. That sort of "perfection" could be a result of multiple design transfers in the minting process.
Wondering how long would a high quality and well maintained tool set last back in those days. Maybe not implausible that it could be 25+ years. Retooling can also account for differences throughout the years.
Again, speculative bs. I look forward to learning from this thread. Genuine 8 reales are not my forte (as odd as that may sound).
Highly enthusiastic about world coins, contemporary circulating counterfeits and unusual stuff
@WorldCoinsDmitry It's important to understand the die creation process back then. Each die was punched by hand and every one is different. The dies for Portrait coins were never hubbed from master dies. Each die was made with a set of individual punches referred to as a matrix punch set.
A die could not be hubbed until steam power was available to create the pressure needed to press a punch into the die face. A manual press or even the horse driven press could not make an 8 Reales die in one pressing.
A punch can contain as little as a dot (the period between words in the legends) or it can be as large as the King's portrait. So you see often that the dot locations vary - they are great die identifiers - almost no one notices them but they are so small that it is easy to distinguish two dies by these tiny features.
Just try to find two coins made from the same die. Unless you have coins from a hoard you are going to have to hunt for a while to do it. Remember Mexico literally produced hundreds of dies each year and no two were identical.
The biggest punch which was set into the blank die face was called the King punch. It was the first set after the die face was ground and centered. Once the King punch was set, the die was checked the graver added a series of scribed circles for positioning the legend and date. The starting spots of the words were laid out on the die face with tick marks on the arcs and finally the punches for each letter or number were set along the guide lines.
The engravers setting lines or ticks were polished off the die in the final steps before completing the die. The last detail added was the dentils. This is the most common place for a setters arc to be visible - between the dentils.
On the reverse the Shield outlines are the King punch and each element gets punched in one at a time. The two castles and lions are made with one punch each so they match, but the exact location varies. The pillars get punched in one at a time so the angle and precise position varies. The crown is a punch so it can be tilted - in contact with the rest of the shield or not.
Each fleur-de-lis and the pomegranate are individual punches. But the letters on the ribbons are NOT punched elements they are part of the pillar punch.
When a punch sets poorly the graver can correct, strengthen or add tiny elements using a series of engraving tools. I have a few examples of heavily reworked dies, where the engraver changed the location of dots and letters in the legend.
Looks at this one:
8 Reales Madness Collection
Thank you @TwoKopeiki for taking the time to explain that in detail. I had visualized the process all wrong
Highly enthusiastic about world coins, contemporary circulating counterfeits and unusual stuff
Sure thing! Most of this info came from discussions with Bob Gurney over the years, so the credit belongs there.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Ironically much of the reasoning behind my post is from some of Bob’s posts on CCF (rest in peace to the world coins section there unfortunately). He had described the process and the matrix block as being a die that was used to make master punches which were in turn used to make the actual dies that struck the coins. I was conceptualizing how the matrix “die” was manufactured, which apparently may not even be an actual thing.
I have largely avoided these coins since so much of the available modern info (at least in English) comes from a single origin source that most people accept without hesitation. I find that deeply troubling, but that’s just my own view of the landscape.
Still love the contemporary counterfeit versions though
Highly enthusiastic about world coins, contemporary circulating counterfeits and unusual stuff
It appears that some of the breaks go thru the window and some are under it?
Successful BST deals with mustangt and jesbroken. Now EVERYTHING is for sale.
Sorry I am a bit late to the discussion. I have been a member of this forum for some time and I had to reset my password to join in.
First thank you for the kind words about my book "Counterfeit Portrait Eight-Reales".
There are a couple technical corrections that need to be cleared up so that my position taken in the book can be fully understood.
First the matrix block was an actual thing. It was a steel block on which the features of a coin were engraved. They were used to make all of the punches needed to create a finished coin. This was the way that design details were controlled by Spain so that coins would carry standard images and discourage counterfeiting. There was a matrix block for each denomination. The largest features created King punches - the ones that were set into the die face first. Matrix blocks were made in Spain of extremely fine (hard) steel and they were shipped to the new world mints. The late arrival of a new matrix block for King Ferdinand VII is why we have so many "fantasy portraits" are seen in the issues of the colonial mints from 1808 to 1811. If you look you can find photos of matrix blocks that still exist in Museum collections. They are engraved on all sides with standard features seen on finished coins.
If you have access to Frank Gilboy's book "The Milled Columnarios of Central and South America" you can see a picture of the matrix block (punch block) itself for the reverse of a Portrait 8R of Charles III. The block was made in Madrid in 1770. The picture belongs to Glenn Murray. What shows is one of 6 faces of the block - details on other sides picture letters, numbers stops and all other features.
This photo and others like it provides the proof needed to see what the individual reverse and edge die punches contained. In turn that information can be used to determine when forgers make errors in die production. The images that needed to be repeated most were represented by two images on the block so that twice as many working punches could be crafted. Based on my study one matrix block per king was all that was really needed. More have been made but thus far there is no conclusive evidence to support that position.
The image on the matrix block is a negative image - it is the reverse of what you see on the finished coin - the matrix block image is identical to the image that must be made on the working die. The coin made from the working die is a positive image. Get that relationship fixed in your mind. There are a minimum of two steps to make the punchs that makes the die. In cases where many more dies might be needed it is possible to add pairs of steps to the process thereby creating sub and sub-sub masters.
Next look at the groups of details on the block. The "king punch" for this side will contain the shield outline. There is one copy of that image. There are two castles, two lions and two pomegranates. There are two edge segments that consist of a rectangle a circle and a second rectangle. This means that the punch used to create the edge die contained three segments and that the circle - a perfect circle - was in the center. That is why I make such an issue of out of round circles on the edge design. It is the only part of the edge punch that could not be overstruck by a rectangle creating a squaring of the side of the circle. It is also why I view all two segment edge patterns as counterfeit. The dentil lozenges used to create the circle around the die (anti-clipping devise as well) consist of 5 lozenges arranged in an arc. There are two such impressions on this face of the block. Variable spacing of dentiles can only occur in a pattern that is repeated every 5th segment. I suspect that the 5th lozenge is overstruck in each case to preclude angle points in the arc. Other patterns are forgeries or they need to be plausibly explained.
The first step in the die making process was to make an impression of each detail from the block onto the face of a softened piece of die steel. This initial step produced a "master" punch - a positive image - identical to what would appear on the finished coin. It was from these master positive images that the negative punches could be produced to craft working dies. This intermediate step is the reason a matrix block could be used for decades. If the mint needed a great many dies the process could be repeated to make sub masters.
The beauty of the system is in the ability to multiply identical punches. If the block could be used 100 times before an image was damaged - each of the positive masters could make 100 - working punches (a possible total of 10,000 punches available to craft working dies). Repeat the process again and you could make 100,000,000 pieces. You can use any number you see as theoretically possible.
The second issue is did the matrix block itself crack? I am referring to both cases that have been addressed so far, I do not believe so. The negative image in the block is not where I would expect a stress fracture. The most logical place for a fracture to occur is in the positive master punch where the castle is raised like the feature on the coin. The break in the die image is a raised feature leaving a hole in the castle on the coin. To look like a crack on the coin the die feature must be raised.
The reason this is important for the Potosi coin breaks (illustrated above by jgenn) is that the breaks appear on coins dated over a range from 1775 to 1794 and on a counterfeit 1789 coin mounted in the bottom of a bowl. The extended use of a broken positive punch is difficult to envision but the fact that same punch appears on several counterfeit coins seals the deal for me. One of the counterfeit coins in my collection is a Sheffield plate issue with the broken castle. The Sheffield process was invented in England in 1743 as a single sided plating method but the two sided process was not introduced until 1765. Edging the raw copper edge with a silver ribbon followed in 1785. So in this case to say that the Sheffield Plate coin could have been made in the mint itself is not a viable option. The possibility that such a 1778 Sheffield plate (two sided and edged coin) could have been made in the Potosi mint has been suggested in the past to dispute my example. All of the examples I own of the Potosi broken castle are counterfeit proven either by weight, density or XRF test.
Now - the Mexico fracture from the corner of the parapet down to the window must be addressed. This is a very common break. It occurs at a point where I would expect a punch to break. An an inside 90 degree corner is textbook for stress concentration. Cracks of this nature are also seen on many coins from different mints and time periods. Not all of the cracks are identical. The Potosi castle crack on the other hand crosses the mid point of the right leg of the castle. This is not a stress concentration point so the break was not a "normal" or routinely seen fracture. Also it is not a crack seen on dies from the other mints.
Real (no pun intended) Numismatics. Thank you gentlemen.
I just went to school and my head is full of visions of the minting process of that era. Thanks to all who shared their expertise in the subject. I love CU! Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall
THANK YOU, Mr. Gurney!
Welcome Swamperbob!
Perhaps the tool that was used to make the impression of the castle into the matrix block had a stress fracture. In that case the reverse image captured in the matrix block would ensure that each punch made from that impression would also include the break.
That was exactly my reasoning, but as the design features are said above to be engraved rather than punched it makes no sense.
Highly enthusiastic about world coins, contemporary circulating counterfeits and unusual stuff
What a great discussion! I had never thought of or heard of master punches.
That would naturally make sense.
Way back in the 70's when I was first trying to learn how to tell fakes from real, the guy who was teaching me said that a test for a counterfeit 8 ...Escudo...(not Real) was if the crown base was incomplete on one side.
If that was from a master punch, then a tilt when stamping could do that.