Comparing two sets of 1767 4 Reales - Is this two Variety types or is one set possibly Counterfeit

JohnnyCache

Note the two sets of examples of 4 reales from 1767.
One set shows 2 Tori and Plinth while the other only one Tori and Plinth.
Set 1 A B Set 2 A B

Some might suggest that wear has caused the Tori on the set with just one showing to have melded from two distinct Tori into one bar shape, but I'd suggest that isn't the case, particularly when you examine the wear on the other set of coins yet you can still see two distinct Tori bars at the bottom of the column.

The example in Yonaka shows 2 Tori. He speaks of observing two die pairs but notes differences in the way the crowns rest on the top of the pillars, not in the Tori. Other examples I have viewed show two as well. Any thought about this?

The set with one Tori also exhibits, for a lack of a better term, some stray metal, in a sort of spray pattern, near the mint mark on the right side (as viewed). It is much more visible on the darkly toned example but you can make out some indication of it on the lighter example.

The darkly toned example, when viewed at higher magnification, also seems to possibly show some very little tiny bubbles on it's surface. This is the set I am curious if it looks "all good" to those with more experience.

So, two questions to determine.
1) Variety or not 
2) Real or not
 

 

 

@TwoKopeiki
@realeswatcher

another example with 2 Tori and Plinth

Misc.

SimonW

That’s very very interesting. I hope it’s a variety, not a fake…but….

I agree with you, I don’t think it’s wear that Eliminated the plinth.

TwoKopeiki

Hey, i'm traveling right now, but looking at this on my phone - both single Tori examples are setting up red flags for me.

Rexford

Both of these coins look genuine to me. The small raised dots look like die rust, and the surface texture and wear look natural. The only parts that repeat are raised, not depressed.

I do not expect Yonaka would have all the dies listed in general. Anyway, if these coins were fake they would have been struck from dies transferred from a genuine coin, so the single plinth must be a variety that exists on a genuine coin.

WCC

@Rexford said:

I do not expect Yonaka would have all the dies listed in general.

Me either. His sample for the majority of individual dates is potentially too small.

Abuelo

I'm with @Rexford in this one... While hard to judge on pictures, they look ok to me.

TwoKopeiki

Looks fine blown-up at home. The dentils red flag seems to be an edging issue. The double Tori on the left pillar is the actual variety, isn't it? I find it interesting that Yonaka had it as the plate for the date, but used a magnified image from the single Tori obverse (VF25 lighter NGC coin above) to point out a variety with the Royal crown having an arc.

realeswatcher

Interesting post, just seeing it now. Will study in more detail, look at more examples... Just quickly, Coins #1, 3, 5 (1: softly struck globes, edge tone... 3:NGC 25... 5: PCGS Trueview toner) just from surface/patina look like unquestionably genuine pieces.

As that includes pieces of both styles in question, that points to the variety existing.

JohnnyCache

@realeswatcher said:
Interesting post, just seeing it now. Will study in more detail, look at more examples... Just quickly, Coins #1, 3, 5 (1: softly struck globes, edge tone... 3:NGC 25... 5: PCGS Trueview toner) just from surface/patina look like unquestionably genuine pieces.

As that includes pieces of both styles in question, that points to the variety existing.

Why is it that these stray marks appear so differently on these two examples? I would have expected that they would have been produced on each coin roughly the same and would have worn in a more comparable manner, given that the marks are not the high points on the coin and that other matching marks, such as the die chip showing on each coin by the M mint mark appear to have approximately similar wear.

JohnnyCache

These other 4 reales examples may, or may not, be useful regarding the Tori / Plinth issue.
1743
1743 #2 Single Tori Version
1751
1733
1742

realeswatcher

@JohnnyCache said:

Why is it that these stray marks appear so differently on these two examples? I would have expected that they would have been produced on each coin roughly the same and would have worn in a more comparable manner, given that the marks are not the high points on the coin and that other matching marks, such as the die chip showing on each coin by the M mint mark appear to have approximately similar wear.

Keen observation, but it's not worrying me much concerning these two "single tori left pillar" examples.

Clearly they ARE the same pillars-side die (shield side looks to be as well).

Firstly, I think the little spit coming out of the left side of M on the right mintmark is in fact pretty bold on the darker piece and that's just an effect of the photography.

Now, I would say those stray die marks above said mintmark are absolutely bolder on the darker toned piece. I think that piece received a better strike in that area in general - look at the pillar ribbon, the denticles... Note that the lighter toned one has a slightly shifted strike with the planchet seeming like it might be ever so slightly thinner in that area (those two attributes often seem to occur together... latter causing the former??).

One could speculate perhaps that perhaps, additionally, those depressions on the die got "filled in" a bit over time and thus appear less raised... but we don't have multiple examples to compare.

In general, the lighter grey NGC25 piece, 5745628-002, is still UNASSAILABLY genuine for me. Now the darker cameo toned one currently up for auction at HA (6704384-003) has some roughness, kind of iffy tone and surfaces in general and is by itself the type of coin that should be scrutinized more closely... However, comparing the two examples, I see no other suspicious matching marks, and clearly the strike impression and centering are different. They aren't "littermates".

I can't currently find any other single tori 1767 examples... I see just one 1767 4R fake in Worthpoint archives, but it's a double tori.

And regarding said "double tori" version... again, more than one example we see in archives is certainly genuine... also one example on Worthpoint holed and worn that definitely is.

Single or double seems to be a legit variant.

The next step, using Yonaka as a guide, is to study 1766 and 1768 examples if you really want to go down the rabbit hole.

realeswatcher

Started looking at 1766... sure enough, both varieties exist.

Now you would think "in theory" it should just be "single tori" as that's what the right pillar has, and as such double is an "error"... but in practice it just seems to be a slight cheat to even out "lopsidedness" with the waves "base" and the "plinthes".

Going down a certain VAM road of pedanticism in terms of collectibility here... but this is a useful exercise in authentication, study of dies, etc.

JohnnyCache

@realeswatcher said:
looking... but in practice it just seems to be a slight cheat to even out "lopsidedness" with the waves "base" and the "plinthes".

... but this is a useful exercise in authentication, study of dies, etc.

Thank you @realeswatcher, for me this exercise was for the study of the coins themselves. Once bitten, twice shy, the darker toned 4 reales has toning and some surface attributes that reminded me of the counterfeit that fooled me before. I was somewhat interested in the coin but then after continuing to study it further, I came across the issue of the single/ double tori, as well as other things such as the little spit / spray that appears so different on each coin. At that point I began to have some doubts and wanted a few second opinions. Personally I find the discussion around posts like this to be very helpful. Thanks to all who offered their thoughts and opinions.

*grammar

AngryDragon

Now that I have a vested interest in the authenticity of the 1767 (6704384-003) that recently sold on HA, it would appear that the one Tori left column is different from the two Tori design. If you examine the attached image you can see how various features line up between these examples.

Comments are appreciated