Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Lima 8 Reales 1772 - Double Dot Variety - Gilboy L-8-25B - Opinions Please

I have had this coin for many years, ex Aureo in the early 90's. As the title indicates, it is a double dot variety, R-4 per Gilboy.
The coin is in fairly good condition, yet the edge design is quite weak around of the periphery.

Would greatly appreciate your opinions on it. I am also interested in how Brad Yonaka desribes the variety in his book.
Weight - 26,93 gr.
Diameter - 39,0 - 39,5 mm.

Many thanks!




Comments

  • BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 11,841 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yonaka calls it R. There is a variety with neither mintmark dotted which is R4.

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 354 ✭✭✭
    edited March 22, 2021 9:37PM

    Really curious edge pattern but just from the obv/rev surfaces/patina, that piece absolutely must be genuine.

    One could speculate the edge application was done incredibly weakly - leaving a mushy imprint and all those pores, as the strike didn't eliminate trapped air bubbles in the planchet. By contrast, it got a really nice strike from the actual dies, and thus no trace of that porosity on the obv/rev.

    Can you see any trace of overlaps through the mush? I would bet one of them should be between U and E in VTRAQUE.

    Whoever has them handy, let's see some edges of Lima late pillars or even the first few years (72, 73) of portraits.

    Regarding rarity, I'd say go with Yonaka's current observations over Gilboy. From my limited experience in this specific area, some of those Gilboy rarity indications might be a bit iffy for Lima (thinking of Charles III 1760 with two dots).

  • WCCWCC Posts: 2,349 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @realeswatcher said:

    Regarding rarity, I'd say go with Yonaka's current observations over Yonaka. From my limited experience in this specific area, some of those Gilboy rarity indications might be a bit iffy for Lima (thinking of Charles III 1760 with two dots).

    I don't put much credibility in Gilboy's rarity ratings, except for the ones known or considered to be known as rare or among the rarest. This isn't specifically for 8R but generally.

    First, his scale only applies to grades of VF and above, except of the rarest which he does not specify.

    Second, while the mintages are a lot higher in many instances than I previously assumed, if the coins were as common as he claims, it would be easy or at least much easier to buy.

    His rating of "Common" is supposed to mean over 1000 VF. Ignoring TPG numerical grade eligibility, I believe this applies to many 8R but possibly none of the other denominations outside of some dates from Mexico. The low prices create additional uncertainty but don't think this much.

  • EddiEddi Posts: 443 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Boosibri said:
    Yonaka calls it R. There is a variety with neither mintmark dotted which is R4.

    Thank you.
    That is quite interesting. I was not aware there is a 'no dot' variety for 1772 Lima Columnarios. Gilboy only notes the single dot (on left MM) whis he rates 'S' , and this one, the double dot.

    I checked acsearch listings for all three. As expected, the single dot accounts for the vast majority of listings, while the double and no-dot varieties seem both quite scarce.

  • EddiEddi Posts: 443 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @realeswatcher said:
    Really curious edge pattern but just from the obv/rev surfaces/patina, that piece absolutely must be genuine.

    One could speculate the edge application was done incredibly weakly - leaving a mushy imprint and all those pores, as the strike didn't eliminate trapped air bubbles in the planchet. By contrast, it got a really nice strike from the actual dies, and thus no trace of that porosity on the obv/rev.

    Can you see any trace of overlaps through the mush? I would bet one of them should be between U and E in VTRAQUE.

    Whoever has them handy, let's see some edges of Lima late pillars or even the first few years (72, 73) of portraits.

    Regarding rarity, I'd say go with Yonaka's current observations over Yonaka. From my limited experience in this specific area, some of those Gilboy rarity indications might be a bit iffy for Lima (thinking of Charles III 1760 with two dots).

    realeswatcher, thank you very much for your comments.

    Your explanation for the weak/mushy edge design seems very plausible. That would be a good explanation.

    I took some pictures of the area just above U and E in VTRAQUE, as you suggested - the edge design weakness in that area makes it unfortunately difficult to see (for me) if there is an overlap there.


  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 354 ✭✭✭

    There is indeed an overlap at that spot. While everything is mushy, you CAN clearly see the outline of the individual tulips. Working left to right, notice how long that one section mostly over the "U" is - I'd say about about 1 1/2 tulip-lengths? That's the overlap. Continuing on, the next tulip (over the space between "U" and "E") is back to normal length.

    I figured one was there because the rim pushes outward a bit (and planchet looks very slightly thinner/tapered) there between "U" and "E". Often, you'll find an overlap at such a spot - clearly an effect of the edge application procedure.

  • EddiEddi Posts: 443 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @realeswatcher said:
    There is indeed an overlap at that spot. While everything is mushy, you CAN clearly see the outline of the individual tulips. Working left to right, notice how long that one section mostly over the "U" is - I'd say about about 1 1/2 tulip-lengths? That's the overlap. Continuing on, the next tulip (over the space between "U" and "E") is back to normal length.

    I figured one was there because the rim pushes outward a bit (and planchet looks very slightly thinner/tapered) there between "U" and "E". Often, you'll find an overlap at such a spot - clearly an effect of the edge application procedure.

    Thank you very much for your help and sharing this information.

  • Crazy8sCrazy8s Posts: 69 ✭✭✭

    Here is one out of my collection. From a Ponterio auction sometime in the mid- late 90s. Well struck with a few small chop marks. Very scarce coin and seldom offered for sale based on my observations. The coin has not been out of my safe deposit box in 20+ years so I have no pictures of the edge but if there is interest I can make a trip to the bank and retrieve the coin for pictures.

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 354 ✭✭✭

    @Eddi said:

    @Boosibri said:
    Yonaka calls it R. There is a variety with neither mintmark dotted which is R4.

    Thank you.
    That is quite interesting. I was not aware there is a 'no dot' variety for 1772 Lima Columnarios. Gilboy only notes the single dot (on left MM) whis he rates 'S' , and this one, the double dot.

    I checked acsearch listings for all three. As expected, the single dot accounts for the vast majority of listings, while the double and no-dot varieties seem both quite scarce.

    Out of curiosity, did my own run-through on the ACsearch listings. Another step would be to review Worthpoint eBay archives (weeding out fakes, of course), but didn't do that at this time.

    Going by these observed auction appearances, the "one dot" variety is certainly most common by far - my unofficial count is 51 "one dot" examples out of 57 total Lima pillar 8R.

    It would certainly seem that "no dots" is the true rarity - just ONE out of the 57 pillar pieces. Given that scarcity, the piece sold quite cheap despite its chopmarks:
    https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/1-1KYR7/peru-8-reales-1772-jm-charles-iii-1759-88-pcgs-genuine-chopmark-au-details-secure-holder

    As for "two dots", I find (5) examples. Yonaka's rarity ratings seem to jive with this:
    https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=576736
    https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=806877
    https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-2223G/peru-8-reales-1772-jm
    https://coins.ha.com/itm/peru/world-coins/peru-charles-iii-pillar-8-reales-1772-lm-jm-xf-details-surface-hairlines-ngc-/a/3040-33166.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
    https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5682082


    As an aside, food for thought perhaps related to the rim/edge issue on Eddi's example- note that rim perimeter distortion definitely seems to occur on a number of examples.

    Look at the last two linked "two dots" examples - the final one is particularly oblong. Also see the following example - the common "one dot" type, but notably out-of-round:
    https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-22MJ7/peru-8-reales-1772-jm

  • realeswatcherrealeswatcher Posts: 354 ✭✭✭

    Also of note: in doing some additional searching, there's a fake of the 1772 "two dots" to be aware of. Same underlying model coin - perhaps with two different styles in terms of quality of execution.

    The bottom two pieces shown are obvious Chinese fakes by their "fabric". Piece #4 has lower resolution photos, but I'm fairly certain it is the same type as #3.

    The top two pieces shown are uncertain and, if indeed fake, much more deceptive. A connection to #3 (fake) is definite by the presence of identical "post-mintage" style marks.

    However, I'm iffy on a few things. First, Piece #1 and Piece #2 both LOOK pretty good and either could certainly fool people. Beyond that, I'm also not totally certain that "Piece #1" isn't in fact the same exact coin as "Piece #2" (which appeared later) - just with some fake toning applied.

    If that is the case, it is possible this piece COULD be genuine... and is fact the model coin for the obviously fake #3 and #4. However, if #1 and #2 are in fact two DIFFERENT specimens, at least one has to be fake given the identical marks - and perhaps both are. Thus, the options are:

    -- #1 and #2 are the same specimen - FAKE, a better-executed version of the fakes seen in Pic #3 and #4
    -- #1 and #2 are the same coin - GENUINE, apparently used as the model coin for a fake
    -- #1 and #2 are different pieces - one is a genuine coin and the other is a fake modeled on it
    -- #1 and #2 are different pieces - BOTH are fake




  • WCCWCC Posts: 2,349 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @realeswatcher said:

    @Eddi said:

    @Boosibri said:
    Yonaka calls it R. There is a variety with neither mintmark dotted which is R4.

    Out of curiosity, did my own run-through on the ACsearch listings. Another step would be to review Worthpoint eBay archives (weeding out fakes, of course), but didn't do that at this time.

    Going by these observed auction appearances, the "one dot" variety is certainly most common by far - my unofficial count is 51 "one dot" examples out of 57 total Lima pillar 8R.

    It would certainly seem that "no dots" is the true rarity - just ONE out of the 57 pillar pieces. Given that scarcity, the piece sold quite cheap despite its chopmarks:

    As an aside, food for thought perhaps related to the rim/edge issue on Eddi's example- note that rim perimeter distortion definitely seems to occur on a number of examples.

    Look at the last two linked "two dots" examples - the final one is particularly oblong. Also see the following example - the common "one dot" type, but notably out-of-round:
    https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-22MJ7/peru-8-reales-1772-jm

    I doubt there are many collectors (hardly any at all) who will pay meaningful premiums) for any pillar series by die variety outside of the Mexico 8R, especially for below better quality coins with "issues".

    Some of the Rudman Mexico 8R sold for noticeable premiums for this reason. In 2016, I also sold a 1754 Mexico 2R in an NGC AU-50 holder for about $800. IMO the coin was somewhat under graded but it must have been a scarcer variety, as otherwise I have no idea why someone would pay that price.

  • @realeswatcher said:
    Also of note: in doing some additional searching, there's a fake of the 1772 "two dots" to be aware of. Same underlying model coin - perhaps with two different styles in terms of quality of execution.

    > The bottom two pieces shown are obvious Chinese fakes by their "fabric". Piece #4 has lower resolution photos, but I'm fairly certain it is the same type as #3.

    The top two pieces shown are uncertain and, if indeed fake, much more deceptive. A connection to #3 (fake) is definite by the presence of identical "post-mintage" style marks.

    However, I'm iffy on a few things. First, Piece #1 and Piece #2 both LOOK pretty good and either could certainly fool people. Beyond that, I'm also not totally certain that "Piece #1" isn't in fact the same exact coin as "Piece #2" (which appeared later) - just with some fake toning applied.

    If that is the case, it is possible this piece COULD be genuine... and is fact the model coin for the obviously fake #3 and #4. However, if #1 and #2 are in fact two DIFFERENT specimens, at least one has to be fake given the identical marks - and perhaps both are. Thus, the options are:

    -- #1 and #2 are the same specimen - FAKE, a better-executed version of the fakes seen in Pic #3 and #4
    -- #1 and #2 are the same coin - GENUINE, apparently used as the model coin for a fake
    -- #1 and #2 are different pieces - one is a genuine coin and the other is a fake modeled on it
    -- #1 and #2 are different pieces - BOTH are fake




    As a newish collector what do you mean when referencing the "fabric"?

Sign In or Register to comment.