Geo3 C/S...the real deal?

jayPem

Been looking for the Octogonal awhile now.. and here it is! Pretty confident that it's legit but if there are still any experts checking in here, I'd love to hear your thoughts 😊

jgenn

How do you know the host is genuine?

jayPem

Although I don't have the research material I'd need to do a thorough check on all the markers, I have little doubt the host is genuine.
Also, I doubt the seller would have let it go if it was a CC...😊

jgenn

Someone doubted it enough to do a test cut. I would like to know the weight and see the entire edge.

The research material you need is https://amazon.com/Counterfeit-Portrait-Eight-Reales-Real-Reales/dp/0990802906

jayPem

I just can't decide if I'm ready to pull the trigger on the hardcover.. I'm told it's one to have 🤔

Will post weight and edge pics asap

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jayPem

@btcollects said:
looks suspect to me - damage made to deceive

Be specific, if you don't mind.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jayPem

That's more like it 😂
Don't get me wrong, there are issues with this coin to be sure. That's why I was able to afford this one...
It's retoning from an old wipe, as they say and looks quite acceptable in hand. The scratches in the field are initials.
The areas of lumpyness look more like die rust than casting roughness to me, but that could be wishful thinking.
Bear with me, I will post more pics now and perhaps we can all sleuth this out together. 😄

jayPem

jayPem

As to the lack of a slab, outside of authentication, there's not alot of reason to slab lower grade counterstamped pieces, imho. They're damaged coins by definition and don't gain much from entombment.
Of course I'll send it in if it doesn't pass the sniff test, but I'd just be cracking it back out and I'd rather not throw away the bucks right now..🤔

EVillageProwler

An edge test cut is commonplace. A coin with rim designs is hard to counterfeit, because you have to make a collar, a flan, dies and then strike.

For a low value piece, that’s a lot of effort to counterfeit.

The c/m, however, is a different matter.

jayPem

@EVillageProwler said:
An edge test cut is commonplace. A coin with rim designs is hard to counterfeit, because you have to make a collar, a flan, dies and then strike.

For a low value piece, that’s a lot of effort to counterfeit.

The c/m, however, is a different matter.

Bingo!
How would you go about authenticating the c/m?

TwoKopeiki

A coin with rim designs is hard to counterfeit, because you have to make a collar, a flan, dies and then strike.

You would not use a collar when trying to counterfeit a coin that had a planchet edged in a parallel die machine prior to being struck on a no-collar screw press.

Not enough information to tell if the host is authentic, but the counterstamp doesnt match the few examples I have in my archives, so I would lean towards it not being authentic.

jayPem

Maybe close, but not quite..
There are many different stamps used. Will keep looking for a match.

TwoKopeiki

@jayPem said:
Maybe close, but not quite..
There are many different stamps used. Will keep looking for a match.

Do we know how many punches were used?

TwoKopeiki

'The octagonal mark on any of the classes from I to IV should offer no difficulty. The stamp is larger and more difficult to copy. A careful comparison of any octagonal stamped piece with a sil- ver penny of the second or third type of George III [i.e. 1792, 1795, 1800] should at once reveal the fact of whether it is a forgery or not ...

The press prediction that the new stamp would soon be counterfeited was accurate and a major- ity of the dollars with octagonal countermark seen today have been stamped with a false puncheon. The large head adapted from the Maundy penny design of 1792, 1795 and 1800 was difficult to copy accurately and evidently the Bank's clerks were able to recognize and reject the counterfeits for redemption at issue price - thrusting them back onto the public from where many of the survivors have found their way into numismatic circles

TwoKopeiki

Since we now know the punches used (Maundy 1D), it's easy to compare with what it should be:

TwoKopeiki

Thanks for posting this coin. I've learned quite a bit today about these. Check out this article posted on British Numismatic Society's website: THE BANK OF ENGLAND COUNTERMARKED DOLLARS, 1797-1804

Insider2

The coin looks Ok the C/S does not. Send it to our host.

jayPem

jayPem

Here are a few more from HA.
They are all graded.
So, considering the possibility there is no match made with a known die or stamp, would anyone care to hazard an opinion on whether the coin has a modern fake stamp or a contemporary one?
These Octogonal stamps (much more so the ovals) where faked at the time and applied to legit 8r's to take advantage of the added value of the bank stamp.
But they where also counterfeited entirely, stamp and all...both crudely and more subtlely, and with many different known examples.
More of a concern to me, is do we have a legit 8r with a modern fake stamp?

jayPem

There is also this from a forum thread awhile back.
I suspect this to be a modern fake stamp on a "good" bust$.
Just a hunch though, not sure what the process would be to determine that..?

Insider2

Unfortunately, just because a coin is TPG'ed and in a slab does not prove in all cases that the C/S is genuine. Your research so far makes the OP's punch look suspicious.

jayPem

@Insider2 said:
Unfortunately, just because a coin is TPG'ed and in a slab does not prove in all cases that the C/S is genuine. Your research so far makes the OP's punch look suspicious.

Exactly. And I've been told that is an issue with George III stamps.
Still, how would one go about separating the contemporary from the modern?

Insider2

That would take a lot of research but don't bother because IMO, it is too late.

First you would need to study the pieces that have been locked away in museum collections before the 1950's too learn what the genuine C/S look like. Some of those specimens may not be OK. Then you would need to look at each piece sold in auction since then. Unfortunately, you would be out of luck because the images are not good enough in any catalogue until recent times. Nevertheless, some genuine coins from long ago can be traced due to marks on the coin itself. I suspect that by the 1970's counterfeits have unknowingly become accepted as genuine. That leaves matching the fabric, design, and defects found on the punches. This cannot be done completely using images. So we are left with this...anything in a slab is "guaranteed to be genuine until proven otherwise."

TwoKopeiki

@Insider2 said:
That would take a lot of research but don't bother because IMO, it is too late.

First you would need to study the pieces that have been locked away in museum collections before the 1950's too learn what the genuine C/S look like. Some of those specimens may not be OK. Then you would need to look at each piece sold in auction since then. Unfortunately, you would be out of luck because the images are not good enough in any catalogue until recent times. Nevertheless, some genuine coins from long ago can be traced due to marks on the coin itself. I suspect that by the 1970's counterfeits have unknowingly become accepted as genuine. That leaves matching the fabric, design, and defects found on the punches. This cannot be done completely using images. So we are left with this...anything in a slab is "guaranteed to be genuine until proven otherwise."

And IMO, it's not too late. Especially for a series that has been already studied and documented by numismatists for about 200 years. Get up to speed first - start with the Manville article and then keep going through the references: Pridmore, Kelly, Philips, Davis, Oman, Bradbury's Book of Hallmarks, etc... If there are still questions once you're done, i bet it will make for an interesting investigation. Especially since we live in the information age with thousands of examples of these counterstamps in digital format.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Insider2

@TwoKopeiki said:

@Insider2 said:
That would take a lot of research but don't bother because IMO, it is too late.

First you would need to study the pieces that have been locked away in museum collections before the 1950's too learn what the genuine C/S look like. Some of those specimens may not be OK. Then you would need to look at each piece sold in auction since then. Unfortunately, you would be out of luck because the images are not good enough in any catalogue until recent times. Nevertheless, some genuine coins from long ago can be traced due to marks on the coin itself. I suspect that by the 1970's counterfeits have unknowingly become accepted as genuine. That leaves matching the fabric, design, and defects found on the punches. This cannot be done completely using images. So we are left with this...anything in a slab is "guaranteed to be genuine until proven otherwise."

And IMO, it's not too late. Especially for a series that has been already studied and documented by numismatists for about 200 years. Get up to speed first - start with the Manville article and then keep going through the references: Pridmore, Kelly, Philips, Davis, Oman, Bradbury's Book of Hallmarks, etc... If there are still questions once you're done, i bet it will make for an interesting investigation. Especially since we live in the information age with thousands of examples of these counterstamps in digital format.

Why don't you write a reference?

realeswatcher

Someone doubted it enough to do a test cut. I would like to know the weight and see the entire edge.

Indeed... obviously there were so many counterfeits of the type (oval AND octagon), people would have been extra wary about these. However, the design elements of the HOST 8R are definitively NOT contemporary counterfeit... and yet the piece clearly looks to have legitimate age to it. The test cut looks OK... and that's not something that typically gets forged... but hard to be certain from afar. jayPem, did the cut look aged in hand?

My immediate thought seeing this piece on eBay was:

-- genuine host (again, host HAS to be either genuine, or a modern fake given the correct design elements),

-- absolutely NON regal stamp

To me, the crude styling would indicate CONTEMPORARY counterfeit stamp as opposed to modern concoction... but that's best left to a dedicated aficionado of these BOE types to weigh in on.

BTW, and this is interesting - this coin was sold by Bob and John's co-author Gord Nichols!! He should know... and of the (3) of them, he's the one with a specific interest in CCs of George III token issues (he's a Canadian subject of the Crown).

Auction pics:

jayPem

@jayPem said:
Although I don't have the research material I'd need to do a thorough check on all the markers, I have little doubt the host is genuine.
Also, I doubt the seller would have let it go if it was a CC...😊

BTW, and this is interesting - this coin was sold by Bob and John's co-author Gord Nichols!! He should know... and of the (3) of them, he's the one with a specific interest in CCs of George III token issues (he's a Canadian subject of the Crown).

Well, I wasn't going to get this specific...but I did imply that the coin had been in expert hands recently 😅

jayPem

The information dug up by TwoKopeiki regarding the Maundy die closed the book on this one for sure (lmho)..
Now it's a question of how close fakers have gotten to replicating those punches over time?
Probably an extremly remote possibility that contemporary coins could have been produced with stamps good enough to fool a numismatist, but no doubt there are modern fakes around that would be much harder to spot..
🤔

jayPem

Oh, as to the test cut, it looked good to me.
As I understand it, good coins were commonly stamped with fake punches. This allowed you to glean the extra value added to the 8r...(1 shilling ?)

realeswatcher

As I understand it, good coins were commonly stamped with fake punches...

A FREQUENT occurrence!!

As to trying to discern a contemporary counterfeit punch from a modern (20th century until now) numismatic fake punch... "Fabric" was mentioned by Insider. One has to become pretty knowledgeable in a series to get to that, of course.

As you said, contemporary counterfeit stamps of the ca. 1800 timeframe are NOT going to looks accurate to our modern, learned eyes.

One also assumes that the modern forger is generally attempting to make a stamp that looks as much like the GENUINE regal stamp a possible. But of course... there's nothing to say they CAN'T try to imitate a goofy-looking contemporary stamp - especially since the large presence of contemporary counterfeit stamps is common knowledge. Also nothing to say that some attempts were just poor/crude. Conversely, it can be hard to make a piece of metal counterstamped yesterday look like one counterstamped 200 years ago.

That's where "fabric" comes in... really having a good eye for how engraving, stamp relief, the back side of the stamp, etc., etc.. typically present. Comes with knowledge and study.

Another good thing to do is study pieces that are DEFINITIVELY contemporary 8R hosts... where the "coin" was made and THEN a contemporary counterfeit stamp got punched on SEPARATELY afterwards......... as opposed to a stamp appearing directly on a die or mold used to produce a counterfeit in one step (which seems to sometimes be the case).

Not octagonal, but I feel pretty good about these being legitimate contemporary counterfeit stamps on regal 8R hosts: