1795 8 Reales Mexico Mint Genuine? Opinions Please?

ttxp

Sadly I have no idea? I know nothing about the type to start with and its mounted in the base of a Sterling bowl. Unless the bowl is destroyed to remove the coin its impossible to weigh it or see the rim for that fact?

If the coin is genuine it was made with a pitted die quite evident in the lettering O of Carolus? I have had no luck in finding a site with images of the various obverse dies for this year / mint? Its probably a counterfeit copy but before I dismiss it as such, an opinion or two from those more familiar with the series would be of help?

Hopefully the images load? If not, I would be happy to forward the trio.

laurentyvan

I would have to question the 179"5" which looks like 1796.



Here's one of mine. If looking at the date helps, look at the 17...

ttxp

Your coin has more space between the wording on the legend where mine seems to be spaced closer. The letters on your coin are thinner and the 9 in the date is quite different than the example on my version? The coin in my silver bowl is probably a replica?

It would be interesting to know if it is of modern manufacture or one from the period? I have a group of these bowls from other makers, the others all contain genuine versions (or authorized re-strikes) of other coins, a Morgan, Maria Theresa Re-strike and so forth. The silver smith who made the bowl is unknown and the age is unknown? So many questions?

TwoKopeiki

Looks authentic, to me, albeit harshly cleaned.

Laurent, correct me if I'm wrong, but yours is not Mexico City mint. I believe you have an example from Lima?

laurentyvan

TwoKopeiki, I believe you are correct, it's not Mexico, but it's Bolivia 1799PP.

ttxp, these are my observations:

Your strike seems flat and lifeless, the letters and numbers are too thick (I think) by comparison to others I've seen. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence of wear, not enough little pits, scratches, dings, etc. that a coin like yours should have, simply a flat strike with a patina that seems way too even and consistent for its age. Having said that I'm no expert so who knows? Added: perhaps it's simply the image that produces the feeling that it's a forgery...

I read this recently concerning Chinese coins and found it interesting:
"A genuine coin has something about it that cannot be reproduced on a forgery. That something is called "Shen" by the Chinese. It is the essence of artistry, created through the joint efforts of the brushmaster who wrote the legend and the workers who minted the coins. An artist produces a painting through a moment of inspiration, and then goes on to make copies of it, but to the observer, there is the feeling that something . . was not passed on . . . that something is "Shen." . . . A real coin has a sharper look, the alloy more compact, the legend natural and full of vigor, and the signs of aging apparent. All these factors come together to form a profile that is inimitable. We observe a coin in its entirety, that is, we look at its profile. If the coin is genuine, the "Shen" is sure to be there; a forgery appears dull and lifeless in comparison, an empty mask devoid of "Shen." "

TwoKopeiki

Laurent, whoever wrote that quote must feel very passionately about coins

laurentyvan

After studying the coin a little more thoroughly I may have been a little hasty, especially since it's at the bottom of a bowl... and been no doubt polished, etc.

ajaan

It might just be the image but it looks like someone took an eraser to that coin.

CIVITAS

I have to agree with TwoKopeiki. Genuine coin that has been badly abused.

ttxp

I appreciate all the input. Yes, the coin has been polished to a sheen any silver bowl lover would want, and one that any numismatic minded individual would cringe at.

The die varieties between these coins must be amazing and so the subtile differences only complicate the problem for me, were this a Morgan I might know better? Of the 5 bowls I have recently acquired this is the only one where the coin remains an enigma?

I wish it were as simple as having it weighed, the edge examined and so forth? Being the centerpiece of a coin bowl makes that impossible without destroying the bowl itself. I also don't collect these coins and so lack reference books on the subject. Oh well.............

Carolyn

laurentyvan

Doesn't matter, any numismatist might want it without regard to the coin's condition.

MrEureka

I don't know if the coin is real, but I do believe that it is possible to polish the "Shen" out of a coin.

drwstr123

<< <i>I don't know if the coin is real, but I do believe that it is possible to polish the "Shen" out of a coin. >>


Ouch!

Preussen

<< <i>Sadly I have no idea? I know nothing about the type to start with and its mounted in the base of a Sterling bowl. Unless the bowl is destroyed to remove the coin its impossible to weigh it or see the rim for that fact?

If the coin is genuine it was made with a pitted die quite evident in the lettering O of Carolus? I have had no luck in finding a site with images of the various obverse dies for this year / mint? Its probably a counterfeit copy but before I dismiss it as such, an opinion or two from those more familiar with the series would be of help?

Hopefully the images load? >>



Why do you end statements with question marks?