New 1770-Lima 8-reales variety?
JackofHearts
Posts: 6 ✭
I thought this 1770 Lima 8-reales was a Yonaka L8-70b. The coin weighs 26.91gm and is 39.59mm in diameter.
However on closer inspection, the right ligature LM does not have a cross-bar to form an “A”.
Maybe a new variety?
Tagged:
0
Comments
Maybe...as you say, no variety shown without the right ligature.
The obverse and reverse dies have no similarities to any other 1770 varieties. Note the “E” in “VTRAQUE” and the cross position with a crowded “HI” in “HISPAN”.
I’m voting fake.
Perhaps email Brad for his thoughts.
Latin American Collection
The coin IS kind of dubious-looking on first glance. Some digging confirms that it appears to be a fake with a number of other twin specimens floating around in the market.
The 2nd piece shown below (after yours, edited for easy comparison) is from a Spain auction in 2014. Clearly from the same "dies", nearly identical looking piece - TOO MUCH so. A close study appears to show that certain marks which should be unique to each individual specimen (post-mint damage, small planchet/lamination defects) appear to match between both sets of images... BUT then other marks that clearly show on one piece do not seem to appear on the other. Thus, we're seeing two different specimens... apparently cast "twins".
Doing more digging, others turn up. 3rd shown is another specimen (replete with fake peripheral tone):
And then #4 is an even sloppier execution of this 1770 Lima no dot pillars side - improperly mated with a MEXICO shield!:
Brad Yonaka is on top of the fakes that are out there. This one has been around for some years, it seems, so I'm sure he's aware of it.
PS: Looks like there may be a version of the same "no dot" fake mold which retains the crossbar on the Right mintmark...
The piece below (which looks genuine by comparison - the area by CAROLUS with clear honest planchet stress and delineated rim, for example) looks to be the likely "model" coin for the fakes. Patrick Tan collection, sold 2008.
The crossbar is there on this piece, but compromised/obscured either by damage and/or a planchet flaw and/or die decay. Upon copying it, most of this feature was lost (maybe also touched up a bit).
Well done @realeswatcher
Latin American Collection
Thank you for the thorough analysis!
I'm hoping to meet up with Brad at the next Long Beach Coin Show in September 2021 to show him the coin. I will report back and post a reply with his impression of the coin.
Hi All -
I wanted to follow up on this thread to provide some closure.
I couldn't make the Long Beach show in September, but I did visit the Long Beach show this weekend (Feb 17-19). I was unable to meet with Brad Yonaka but I did exchange emails with him. He said, based on the images, the size and weight, he felt the coin was genuine and would categorize it as an L8-70b.
While at the show, I visited Robert Hamilton ( https://allaboutcoins.com/about-us-1 ) who, apparently, teaches counterfeiting classes for the ANA. He looked at the coin and said it was genuine.
So, it looks like my calculated gamble paid off. In Brad Yonaka's book, he describes the L8-70b variety as "very rare" and with the odd ligature it might be considered a discovery piece.
And didn't you tell Brad that there was photographic evidence of multiple copies of that coin? If you didn't, I would call that incredibly disingenuous.
So why didn't you submit it to be graded????
Campbells website is a bit high in the self congratulations
Latin American Collection
Still looks like a relatively modern counterfeit to me. But like folks said - send it in for grading.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Most over 20 years ago….
To answer the question about why I didn't send it in for grading... quite simple; I don't really care what grade it is, I don't want to spend the money to do it and I don't want it encapsulated. All I want to know is if it is authentic or not.
I'm truly amused with the naysayers. The coin was verified authentic by a guy with the credentials below. I should also mention that he was referred to me by the PCGS folks at the Long Beach show.
"Head Authenticator for the lead team for the Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force. He instructs and give seminars for the following Federal agencies; U.S. Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U. S. Customs Agents, U. S. Border Patrol, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Unit, U. S. Treasury Department, Homeland Security, U. S. Mint, U. S. Marshals and Affiliated Agents."
And i'm amused at your assumption that people sharing their feedback on this post don't have a more relevant set of credentials when it comes to authenticating 18th Century Spanish Colonial pillars. But hey, it sounds like you've made up your mind. My advice - try to be more of a critical / curious thinker next time. Perhaps you'll learn something in the process.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Never mind.
Not worth wasting my time.
@realeswatcher gave you more than enough information on your piece for any reasonable person to conclude that it is of dubious origins. To then withhold all of that information from Brad and others is really just an effort to confirm what you want to hear.
Latin American Collection
No one is stopping any of you from inviting Brad to this thread.
The Heritage Patrick Tan piece from 2008 I posted previously leaves no room for doubt. Characteristics unique to that (seemingly genuine) piece were copied onto your example and the others I posted (one example in particular). Look specifically at the lower portion of the Tan piece vs. yours... planchet stress marks were copied, as well as the specific way in which the off-centered strike interacted with the rim upset from the edge design (see below the date).
As always, there's the give and take between wanting to educate by spelling out specific flaws... vs. not wanting to tip off forgers.
I'm sure the guy mentioned can smell an added mintmark 1909-S VDB a mile away... but this is not his forte. And again, to be fair... the example presents quite well. The surface looks good from a distance.
Brad has been emailed, but there's really no question here.
Link to the Heritage piece, btw:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/peru/world-coins/peru-carlos-iii-pillar-8-reales-1770-jm-/a/3002-21940.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Looks fake to me as well.
Brad will say what any specialist would: he was able to attribute the dies, but authentication should not be done from photos.
Look at these areas realeswatcher is talking about. how would your coin have the exactly same PLANCHET defects as the Patrick Tan example above? Only explanation is a die transfer made from a genuine example. Unfortunate, as I understand the process to be destructive to the coin used in creating a transfer die.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I wouldn’t buy it, and I’m actively looking for one… looks fake to me.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
@realeswatcher
Below are two images. The top image is of my 1770 LM and the second of Patrick Tan's 1770 LM that you referenced in your message.
I tapped my high-tech photographic equipment to take this photo (sunlight and an iPhone
) so bear with me.
With a little magnification and angled lighting you can see that my Pillar was minted after a die clash occurred. Look at the weak image of the castle just to the right of the "S" in "PLUS". Also look at the vertical line above and between the two globes. Both of these artifacts are from the shield on the opposite side of the coin.
The Patrick Tan Pillar does not exhibit these artifacts so my coin cannot be a copy of his coin.
What is more plausible, is that my coin was minted with a later, degenerated die, than the Patrick Tan coin. This would explain why the crossbar in the "A" in the right-hand ligature is missing.
Your thoughts?
My 1770 LM:
Patrick Tan's 1770 LM:
The die clash just points to the fact that your coin was struck with clashed dies. Counterfeit dies made using a transfer process from the Patrick Tan coin, in your case.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Again, remember the important things that we DO know for certain:
-- Those planchet stress marks match EXACTLY from the Tan piece to both yours and that 2nd example shown. That is a feature unique to individual planchets which DO NOT appear on/get transmitted from dies. And, tellingly, note how muted they appear on yours and the 2nd copy I showed as compared to the Tan piece.
-- The absolutely identical positioning of the "strike" - specifically relative to the "indents" caused by the tuliped edge pattern - on the Tan piece, yours and the others shown is simply impossibly coincidental on individually struck coins of that period.
Aside from that, we have pics of a fake with what is clearly a version of this same pillars side (that area under the 0 of 1770 confirms - plus the tick above E in VTRAQUE, which appears clearly on the Tan piece AND yours)... muled with a Mexico shield!!
The first two points alone confirm, indisputably, that we are dealing with forgery in this case.
The clash is an interesting feature, and no, it does not appear to be present on the original Tan coin. It IS, however, there on the 2nd copy I showed (can clearly see the castle turret between L pillar and the crown).
Somehow, with whatever method(s) were used to produce copies, a die clash occurred. A real cynicist could propose that it was done on purpose, as people do tend to take die clash as evidence a coin is not a forgery... but who knows.
Delving into the how/why would be a great exercise in learning more about forgery production for something with the time and interest.
jgenn, TwoKopeiki, wanna email swamperbob??
Piece auctioned by Marti Hervera/Soler y Llach in July 2013 - another example. Small pics, unfortunately, but you can see the identifying stress crack in the C of CAROLUS and also the die clash ghost castle between the L pillar and the crown.
Rim is more obviously suspect on this piece than on JackofHearts' and that one other example I showed (the brightly lit pic).
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=388978
And then, LOL, this piece - Baldwin's Hong Kong auction, Aug. 2007, a year before the Tan piece was auctioned:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=388978
Clearly identical "dies" and IDing features (e.g., the planchet stress marks) as the others BUT this time with a fully formed bar on the M of the right mintmark... AND die cracking through the VTR of VTRAQUE that does not seem to appear on any other piece.
Interestingly, it also has that rim nick above the right portion of the E in VTRAQUE.
Am trying to wrap my head the exact sequencing upon seeing this additional older piece. We're seeing forgery here, based on identical marks across multiple coins that almost certainly COULDN'T be imparted from the dies... and a couple of the pieces of these "dies" ARE forgeries if you saw them individually. However, several are quite convincing pieces...
I emailed Brad Y. a few days back about this but haven't heard back - maybe someone else show him this thread? Also, jgenn, TwoKopeiki... wanna loop Bob in on this? He's the source on the technicals of production... I might actually crosspost this to CCF.
One more data point... Worthpoint eBay archives. Not sure of the date listed, but "NCS" holders and tiny archived pics, so probably early 2010s. Conveniently, the same seller had TWO, both with odd surfaces...
On both, the date appears to interact with the rim/edge in the same way as all the examples above... and yet one piece appears to have a bar on the M of the right mintmark while the 2nd CLEARLY does not.
EDIT: The piece that looks like it MAY have the bar on the mintmark... that may just be a toning arc that happens to run into that spot.
worthpoint.com/worthopedia/known-1770-lm-jm-lima-peru-reale-405354764
worthpoint.com/worthopedia/known-1770-lm-jm-lima-peru-reale-412064684
I pinged Bob.
8 Reales Madness Collection