Central American Republic 1831 for Costa Rica

genosse

Hello, friends!
At the last auction #49 Stephen Album Rare Coins, an interesting coin was sold - 8 reales of the Central American Republic of 1831 for Costa Rica.
The weight of the coin is 24.31 grams, which is much less than the standard weight for these coins (27,07 grams).
This is probably why the auction called the coin an "old imitation".
The coin does not look like an obvious contemporary counterfeit.
But I do not think that this is a modern fake.
I see that the coin is minted, not cast.
At the same time, it is clearly visible that there was a double strike that shortened the word LIBRE to IBRE.
The auction kindly sent me a photo of the edge of the coin.
The photo shows the overlap on the edge (shown with a red arrow).
Unfortunately, the auction sent only one photo of the edge of the coin, so I cannot say whether there is a similar overlap on the opposite side of the coin.
I think that this is a genuine coin minted on a blank of lesser weight.
Or this coin was minted from another coin of 8 reales, which had a non-standard weight.
I would like to hear your opinion.
If the person who bought this coin is a member of our forum, I would be very grateful if he would give his opinion.

scubafuel

Did the auction house say if they xrf tested the coin for silver content?

SimonW

That’s very, very interesting

MrEureka

I’m not sure what it is but I like it! FWIW, most 1831-F’’s were struck over other coins. Maybe all of them.

Rexford

The die work looks accurate. It’s a die match to this piece, which is similarly noted as underweight, and appears to be struck on a cast planchet. The hypothesis in the description that earlier cast Mexican 8 Reales were reused may be correct.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/costa-rica/costa-rica-central-american-republic-8-reales-1831-f-cr-/a/3021-20418.s

It also pretty clearly utilizes the same die punches that were used on the dies for this piece: https://coins.ha.com/itm/costa-rica/costa-rica-central-american-republic-8-reales-1831cr-f-/a/3012-23715.s?ic16=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-PreviousPricesHeritage-081514

So, whoever bought the coin likely scored.

threefifty

My opinion is that the hosts would be more likely to be worn 8 reales rather than cast Mexican 8 reales from the War of Independence period specifically. Most of those would have casting stamps (Chihuahua, Monclova, Oaxaca royalist) or be insurgent issues of widely varying quality (SUD, the Suprema Junta issues). All are uncommon to rare and I wouldn't think they would be desirable as planchets.

realeswatcher

Interesting piece. Dies look regal, edge as well... Aside from that wonky tree doubling, note the ghosting under the deformed "8" denomination - not sure exactly what we're seeing there.

Certainly a much different beast than this:

@Rexford said

So, whoever bought the coin likely scored.

Absolutely. The wrong venue for a quirky issue like this - great for their Asian specialization, butnot the requisite knowledge base in Latin Amer., as this thread quickly proved. Saw the weight with the test cut and ass-u-med.

We all do make our mistakes...

Rexford

@threefifty said:
My opinion is that the hosts would be more likely to be worn 8 reales rather than cast Mexican 8 reales from the War of Independence period specifically. Most of those would have casting stamps (Chihuahua, Monclova, Oaxaca royalist) or be insurgent issues of widely varying quality (SUD, the Suprema Junta issues). All are uncommon to rare and I wouldn't think they would be desirable as planchets.

Neither would worn-down underweight 8 Reales. Also, 24 grams is way too underweight to just be from your everyday wear. The underweight Heritage piece also demonstrates pitting that suggests a cast planchet, and the edge of the OP piece is suggestive of casting to me. Unstamped contemporary cast counterfeits like this are not that uncommon and would explain the incorrect weight: https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-FME6C/colombia-cast-contemporary-counterfeit-8-reales-1814-p-jf-popayan-mint-ferdinand-vii-1808-33-fine It could be that these were mistaken for genuine articles at the time, or intentionally reused to cut costs on silver.

@realeswatcher the doubling and ghosting you’re seeing are both the result of the planchet coming into contact with the die twice.

genosse

@scubafuel said:
Did the auction house say if they xrf tested the coin for silver content?

The auction lot description did not provide any information about the silver content of the coin.
I was not going to buy this coin at any price.
Therefore, I did not ask for additional analysis, just to satisfy my curiosity.

genosse

@Rexford said:
The die work looks accurate. It’s a die match to this piece, which is similarly noted as underweight, and appears to be struck on a cast planchet. The hypothesis in the description that earlier cast Mexican 8 Reales were reused may be correct.

This is a very good example of a Heritage auction with a coin that weighs 24.78 grams.
This coin confirms my theory.
I had Mexican 8 reales 1818 minted at the Guadalajara mint that weighed 24.18 grams.
And this coin did not arouse my suspicions as a modern fake.

genosse

@realeswatcher said:

Certainly a much different beast than this:

I also wanted to show this contemporary counterfeit as an example!))))
Did you buy it on eBay?
While I was calculating the shipping cost, this contemporary counterfeit was already sold.
I have a contemporary counterfeit from 1831 minted in Guatemala.
It is very similar in artistic style and has the same edge.
It is made of silver.
The coin weighs 26.36 grams.
Hydrostatic weighing showed 760 silver fineness

Rexford

@genosse said:

@Rexford said:
The die work looks accurate. It’s a die match to this piece, which is similarly noted as underweight, and appears to be struck on a cast planchet. The hypothesis in the description that earlier cast Mexican 8 Reales were reused may be correct.

This is a very good example of a Heritage auction with a coin that weighs 24.78 grams.
This coin confirms my theory.
I had Mexican 8 reales 1818 minted at the Guadalajara mint that weighed 24.18 grams.
And this coin did not arouse my suspicions as a modern fake.

That is very strange. Those are genuine dies and I also don't think it looks like a modern transfer, so either it's clipped and the edge re-engraved (the part in the photo looks original, but perhaps another part of the edge - I'd want to see the part at 6:00) or it's an extreme outlier. I don't think I've ever seen that.

genosse

@Rexford said:
That is very strange. Those are genuine dies and I also don't think it looks like a modern transfer, so either it's clipped and the edge re-engraved (the part in the photo looks original, but perhaps another part of the edge - I'd want to see the part at 6:00) or it's an extreme outlier. I don't think I've ever seen that.

I sold this coin a long time ago.
Rectangles and circles were all around the edge of the coin.
I think that there was no restoration of the edge
I regret that I did not do a hydrostatic weighing of this coin and did not find out the silver content in it

realeswatcher

There are certainly any number of Mex WOI (UNcountermarked) branch mint 8R that vary widely in weight... early 1810s Zacatecas foremost among them.

realeswatcher

@genosse said:

@realeswatcher said:

Certainly a much different beast than this:

I also wanted to show this contemporary counterfeit as an example!))))
Did you buy it on eBay?
While I was calculating the shipping cost, this contemporary counterfeit was already sold.

I think the recent eBay piece that I posted is modern, not contemporary. @MrEureka, you generally agree, yes?

Your 1831 NG mint is also interesting! Not at home... I need to check my files, feel I've seen a match.

genosse

@realeswatcher said:
Your 1831 NG mint is also interesting! Not at home... I need to check my files, feel I've seen a match.

You may have seen my contemporary counterfeit on the website www.monedasdeguatemala.com.
This coin is at the bottom of the photo.

MrEureka

@realeswatcher said:

@genosse said:

@realeswatcher said:

Certainly a much different beast than this:

I also wanted to show this contemporary counterfeit as an example!))))
Did you buy it on eBay?
While I was calculating the shipping cost, this contemporary counterfeit was already sold.

I think the recent eBay piece that I posted is modern, not contemporary. @MrEureka, you generally agree, yes?

Not sure. My best guess is that they’re contemporary, because they to have circulated. In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen any uncirculated examples from this family of counterfeits.

MrEureka

@genosse said:

@realeswatcher said:
Your 1831 NG mint is also interesting! Not at home... I need to check my files, feel I've seen a match.

You may have seen my contemporary counterfeit on the website www.monedasdeguatemala.com.
This coin is at the bottom of the photo.

Is there any evidence that indicates that these were produced in Honduras?

genosse

@MrEureka said:
Is there any evidence that indicates that these were produced in Honduras?

I have not read anywhere about evidence that they were made in Honduras.
I think the place of production of these counterfeits in Honduras is determined by the much more numerous counterfeits of 2 reales coins from the Tegucigalpa mint.

genosse

I would not exclude the version that the 8 reales coin for Costa Rica 1831 that I showed could have been minted on a smaller weight blank.
It is known that in 1829, during another civil war, the troops of General Francisco Morazan plundered the Guatemalan mint.
Therefore, the mint minted coins in 1830 and 1831 in very small quantities.
It is known that the 8 reales coins for Costa Rica were minted at the Guatemala mint in the first years.
Perhaps the poor condition of the mint or the desire to save silver caused minting on smaller weight blanks.
Such a situation very often occurred during civil wars, military coups and political instability, which is so typical for Latin American countries during this period.

Boosibri

@MrEureka said:

@genosse said:

@realeswatcher said:
Your 1831 NG mint is also interesting! Not at home... I need to check my files, feel I've seen a match.

You may have seen my contemporary counterfeit on the website www.monedasdeguatemala.com.
This coin is at the bottom of the photo.

Is there any evidence that indicates that these were produced in Honduras?

Given the person who runs the page, I’d guess that there is no evidence to support.

ELuis

@genosse said:

@MrEureka said:
Is there any evidence that indicates that these were produced in Honduras?

I have not read anywhere about evidence that they were made in Honduras.
I think the place of production of these counterfeits in Honduras is determined by the much more numerous counterfeits of 2 reales coins from the Tegucigalpa mint.

So, maybe this one is good?
Coins dated 1833 struck in copper, with or without silvering, are common early counterfeits; A common variety contains a legend error …PROVISINAL… on the obverse; Legitimate examples are considered very scarce to rare. .333 silver
Silver-plated copper coins from this date are mostly counterfeits.

How about this? .100 silver do we see or can see that or normally show up like this?

genosse

@ELuis said:
So, maybe this one is good?

I showed a counterfeit with an error in the legend.
These counterfeits have a very specific sun.
It looks like a sad theatrical mask))))
I think there were so many contemporary counterfeits of 2 reales coins from the Tegucigalpa mint that all the counterfeits of the CAR coins were considered to be made in Honduras.

MrEureka

@ELuis said:

@genosse said:

@MrEureka said:
Is there any evidence that indicates that these were produced in Honduras?

I have not read anywhere about evidence that they were made in Honduras.
I think the place of production of these counterfeits in Honduras is determined by the much more numerous counterfeits of 2 reales coins from the Tegucigalpa mint.

The very common fake 1833 2 Reales are believed to have been made at the Belleville mint in NJ, of all places. The most obvious diagnostic is the shadow around the tree top, which makes it look almost like it was double struck. Belleville counterfeited other things as well, which were passed throughout the Americas.

genosse

@MrEureka said:
The very common fake 1833 2 Reales are believed to have been made at the Belleville mint in NJ, of all places. The most obvious diagnostic is the shadow around the tree top, which makes it look almost like it was double struck. Belleville counterfeited other things as well, which were passed throughout the Americas.

It should be noted that the Belleville mint only minted copper coins.

CarlosJ

@genosse said:
I would not exclude the version that the 8 reales coin for Costa Rica 1831 that I showed could have been minted on a smaller weight blank.
It is known that in 1829, during another civil war, the troops of General Francisco Morazan plundered the Guatemalan mint.
Therefore, the mint minted coins in 1830 and 1831 in very small quantities.
It is known that the 8 reales coins for Costa Rica were minted at the Guatemala mint in the first years.
Perhaps the poor condition of the mint or the desire to save silver caused minting on smaller weight blanks.
Such a situation very often occurred during civil wars, military coups and political instability, which is so typical for Latin American countries during this period.

Hi all. I realize this is an older thread. I am curious what are the tentative sources for the above quote "It is known that the 8 reales coins for Costa Rica were minted at the Guatemala mint in the first years." In my opinion, this is fully incorrect. Dies were made and sent but no coins were struck in Guatemala for Costa Rica. It is also proven at this point that most of the 1831-F 8 Reales coins were overstruck over circulating coins of the period, and that many (probably most, per Gresham's ;aw) of those circulating coins were war of Independence Mexican coins that were often underweight. The coin that is shown first is fully authentic.

genosse

@CarlosJ said:

I am curious what are the tentative sources for the above quote "It is known that the 8 reales coins for Costa Rica were minted at the Guatemala mint in the first years." In my opinion, this is fully incorrect.

Information about the minting of 8 reales coins of 1831 for Costa Rica at the Guatemalan mint is taken from the website monedasdeguatemala.com.
This version is based on a similar edge design.
Perhaps I should have clarified that this is a version, not a fact.
I have not yet found any documentary evidence (or refutations) of this.
I was primarily interested in the answer to the question: is the coin I showed a contemporary counterfeit or not?

Boosibri

@MrEureka said:

@genosse said:

@realeswatcher said:
Your 1831 NG mint is also interesting! Not at home... I need to check my files, feel I've seen a match.

You may have seen my contemporary counterfeit on the website www.monedasdeguatemala.com.
This coin is at the bottom of the photo.

Is there any evidence that indicates that these were produced in Honduras?

@genosse said:

@CarlosJ said:

I am curious what are the tentative sources for the above quote "It is known that the 8 reales coins for Costa Rica were minted at the Guatemala mint in the first years." In my opinion, this is fully incorrect.

Information about the minting of 8 reales coins of 1831 for Costa Rica at the Guatemalan mint is taken from the website monedasdeguatemala.com.
This version is based on a similar edge design.
Perhaps I should have clarified that this is a version, not a fact.
I have not yet found any documentary evidence (or refutations) of this.
I was primarily interested in the answer to the question: is the coin I showed a contemporary counterfeit or not?

I wouldn’t believe anything Victor Sandoval, the owner of monedasdeguatemala.com, claims without independently verifying. He has made wild claims with just the thinnest of circumstantial evidence to back them up.

I believe he is claiming that all 1754-G Arabic 5 8 reales are modern fakes now as one unsubstantiated claim.

genosse

@Boosibri said:
I wouldn’t believe anything Victor Sandoval, the owner of monedasdeguatemala.com, claims without independently verifying.

Victor Sandoval wrote Posiblemente acuñadas en casa de moneda de Guatemala (Possibly minted at the Guatemalan mint.)
I apologize - it was my mistake that I wrote about this as a fact, and not as a version.
But for me, something else is important - it seems that we all decided that the coin I showed is of low weight because it was minted from an 8 reales coin from the War of Independence in Mexico with a low weight.
However, from the photo of the auction, this cannot be said with certainty.
And if tomorrow the buyer writes here on the forum "Hello friends. I have the coin and I do not see that it was minted from another coin."
What version will there be then?
That's why I wrote about the poor condition of the mint, the desire to save silver and use low-weight blanks..

CarlosJ

The proven facts for the CR mint 8 Reales F are roughly as follows (from memory):

• dies were engraved in Guatemala.
• assayer initial is Felix Mora.
• 8 reales of the WOI series circulated and were accepted, provided fineness was ok, although weight varied greatly among those (like the early monedas provisional de Zacatecas coins).
• A batch of around 600 coins was officially validated in 1822 with a crown countermark. Coins that were of good fineness but varying weights. In that operation, similarly with the LCV countermark in Veracruz, the light coins were marked with a new value in accordance to the weight difference. Legal status of those countermarked coins was confirmed in 1825, when the Granada imitation cobs (for example) were considered not legal tender.
• most of those countermarked coins were redeemed in 1832, at the time the 1831 F coins were first being struck. From the evidence provided by the coins themselves, the redemption was made by over striking.
• Overstruck coins for the 1831 F are the norm. Blank weights also exist but are very rare and show correct weight. Those blank weight perhaps account for the scant numbers of 8 Reales that appear as minted in 1832-1838 from mint records (Mora was ousted in 1838 from the mint facing a trial).
• most of the overstruck coins show little evidence of the over striking but it usually is there, although identification of the base coin is usually impossible. If a coin shows low weight, is struck from correct dies and knowing the above facts, it’s entirely logical to assume that it indeed is one of those lower weight WOI coins that were circulating in CR at the time, or at least that’s my opinion.
• The site you mention is misleading to say the least :-). Main problem being that it’s intellectually dishonest.

genosse

@CarlosJ said:
The proven facts for the CR mint 8 Reales F are roughly as follows (from memory):

Thank you very much for the information.
It explains a lot.
I have a question - can you show examples of contemporary counterfeits of 8 reales coins of Costa Rica?

CarlosJ

I am unaware of contemporary counterfeit 8 Reales from CR. I have seen one contemporary counterfeit 8 Escudos from CR. The shown examples with the crude engraving dated 1824, 1830 and 1831 are modern counterfeits from the second half of the 20th century.

MrEureka

Here’s an obviously overstruck 31-F. The host is an 8 reales countermarked in Mexico during the War for Independence. Another piece with the same countermark shown for comparison.

One more thing about the 31-F pictured above. See how there's a patch of metal to the upper right of the countermark? I believe that is a little bit of extra metal added to the host coin, to bring it up to the CR weight standard, and that the punch on that splash of metal was the means by which it was secured to the host.

@carlosj?

TwoKopeiki

@MrEureka said:
Here’s an obviously overstruck 31-F. The host is an 8 reales countermarked in Mexico during the War for Independence. Another piece with the same countermark shown for comparison.

One more thing about the 31-F pictured above. See how there's a patch of metal to the upper right of the countermark? I believe that is a little bit of extra metal added to the host coin, to bring it up to the CR weight standard, and that the punch on that splash of metal was the means by which it was secured to the host.

@carlosj?

Well that took me on a wild ride as i gradually scrolled through that post. At first I was like "Oh, hey, that's awesome - Andy got an authentic NORTE W4I example. Those are pretty rare". Then seeing the label I keep scrolling back up trying to see what overstrike they were talking about and whether there was a Costa Rica counterstamp I was missing. Only afterwards I scrolled down to the actual coin in question, which made my jaw drop. That's quite a find! Interesting hypothesis on the added metal and the punch. Was there any record of this practice back at the San Jose Mint?

genosse

@CarlosJ said:
I am unaware of contemporary counterfeit 8 Reales from CR. I have seen one contemporary counterfeit 8 Escudos from CR.

I have also seen contemporary counterfeit Costa Rican gold coins of various denominations.
Apparently there were more of them in circulation than silver coins?

genosse

@MrEureka said:

One more thing about the 31-F pictured above. See how there's a patch of metal to the upper right of the countermark? I believe that is a little bit of extra metal added to the host coin, to bring it up to the CR weight standard, and that the punch on that splash of metal was the means by which it was secured to the host.

Very interesting!
I read about a similar method of increasing the weight of lightweight coin blanks at the Lima Mint in the notes of the American captain Amasa Delano, who visited the mint in 1805.

However, as far as I know, no Spanish colonial coins with such a plug have been found yet.
And I have not read about such a practice at the mints of Latin American countries in the first half of the 19th century.
I have a photo of an 8 escudo coin from Rio de la Plata from 1828, but apparently the rivet on the coin simply sealed a hole.

I have only seen such plugs on US dollars from 1795

Euclid

Here is a coin I have stared at for quite a while on the sliver of hope that I could Identify the undertype. I have instead noticed what seems like a lot of spots of lamination or something similar. Now I'm wondering if the added metal theory could account for some of what I see, especially by the 8, or if it was just struck on a heavily laminated host. Does anyone have thoughts or theories?

Euclid

@CarlosJ said:
The proven facts for the CR mint 8 Reales F are roughly as follows (from memory):

• dies were engraved in Guatemala.
• assayer initial is Felix Mora.
• 8 reales of the WOI series circulated and were accepted, provided fineness was ok, although weight varied greatly among those (like the early monedas provisional de Zacatecas coins).
• A batch of around 600 coins was officially validated in 1822 with a crown countermark. Coins that were of good fineness but varying weights. In that operation, similarly with the LCV countermark in Veracruz, the light coins were marked with a new value in accordance to the weight difference. Legal status of those countermarked coins was confirmed in 1825, when the Granada imitation cobs (for example) were considered not legal tender.
• most of those countermarked coins were redeemed in 1832, at the time the 1831 F coins were first being struck. From the evidence provided by the coins themselves, the redemption was made by over striking.
• Overstruck coins for the 1831 F are the norm. Blank weights also exist but are very rare and show correct weight. Those blank weight perhaps account for the scant numbers of 8 Reales that appear as minted in 1832-1838 from mint records (Mora was ousted in 1838 from the mint facing a trial).
• most of the overstruck coins show little evidence of the over striking but it usually is there, although identification of the base coin is usually impossible. If a coin shows low weight, is struck from correct dies and knowing the above facts, it’s entirely logical to assume that it indeed is one of those lower weight WOI coins that were circulating in CR at the time, or at least that’s my opinion.
• The site you mention is misleading to say the least :-). Main problem being that it’s intellectually dishonest.

Thanks a lot for sharing this @CarlosJ can you add any information about the E assayer coins and where those fit in the chronology?