Extremelly rare 1686 Peruvian "presentation" 8 Reales in PCGS plastic on eBay - Fake!
TwoKopeiki
Posts: 9,740 ✭✭✭✭✭
Reposting for our friends @ Coin Community. I'm surprised that PCGS didn't catch a fake of such a rare coin. They even imaged it for coinfacts, so the image shows up when you look-up the certificate. Pretty huge miss, imo. If that was my slab, I'd be contacting the seller and offering a buy-back.
0
Comments
8 Reales Madness Collection
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>When you show the two together it looks decidedly wrong doesn't it. >>
Love the monkey lions on the fake one.
8 Reales Madness Collection
I would bet the Powers That Be at PCGS would be interested in this...and would want to make it good.
Cathy
ETA, has anyone emailed the ebay seller? I would not as I am no expert and would only be annoying. Also, am I reading the other thread correctly, this is a not quite contemporary fake, but one that might have it's own historical value? Like I said, interesting!
Any change this was sruck from different dies?
Are there several different die varieties for this date/series?
Contemporary counterfeit? If so, it could be rare in its own right I suppose
Also, the castle is different for those keeping score
Two Kopeiki- good catch so the questions can be further evaluated
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Not my series-
Any change this was sruck from different dies?
Are there several different die varieties for this date/series?
Contemporary counterfeit? If so, it could be rare in its own right I suppose
Also, the castle is different for those keeping score
Two Kopeiki- good catch so the questions can be further evaluated >>
What's interesting is that Calbeto, for some reason, also missed this one. In his "Compendium de 8 Reales" this type is actually listed as authentic. Folks from the other forum contacted Sedwick, who also agrees the die elements are to crude to be authentic. Think of it this way - these almost perfectly round pieces were supposed to be "Royals" or "Presentation" pieces. Great deal of care went into creating it. Why would they use such a crude die with some elements looking very amateur to showcase the Mint's ability?
8 Reales Madness Collection
I am pondering what to do and appreciate any advice. It does occur to me that if the coin is fake, how do I evaluate the value and how will pcgs evaluate the value under their grading guarantee?
Tony Mitchell
Silver State Coin
44 West First St
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 322-4166
<< <i>that's nutty. sounds like the author of the book needs to be contacted. >>
Calbeto? I imagine he is dead. The book was written in 1970.
Tony, I wouldn't imagine that PCGS will pay you a cent more than you paid for it, plus perhaps your grading fee.
<< <i>Why would they use such a crude die with some elements looking very amateur to showcase the Mint's ability? >>
Other than the lions looking like monkeys, what is so crude about the purported fake?
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would they use such a crude die with some elements looking very amateur to showcase the Mint's ability? >>
Other than the lions looking like monkeys, what is so crude about the purported fake? >>
It's a combination of the crudeness in the major element like the lions and water lines on the obverse combined with the much better overall condition than you would expect from an authentic piece.
<< <i>I am the owner of this coin. I submitted this coin to pcgs and it was graded in may 2011. I did not buy the coin until after having it certified. I am not competent to determine whether or not it is real - thus the submittal before purchase.
I am pondering what to do and appreciate any advice. It does occur to me that if the coin is fake, how do I evaluate the value and how will pcgs evaluate the value under their grading guarantee?
Tony Mitchell
Silver State Coin
44 West First St
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 322-4166 >>
The way I see it there are two ways of going about this:
1. You can contact PCGS and send it in for a review citing your concerns. They will then engage specialists like Ponterio or Sedwick who will most likely confirm the coin as a forgery. At this time, PCGS will buy the coin back based on either the price guide (perhaps using the authentic coin sold at Goldberg's as a price estimate) or whatever you paid for it.
2. You can update your eBay listing with a line stating your concern and then notify the buyer and have them deal with PCGS to get a re-evaluation and potentially a buy-back.
The way I see it, if the buyer is unaware of the concerns about this coin and later on finds this thread where the seller is made aware of the potential issue, they will feel cheated and might file a SNAD with eBay / PayPal. At the end of which, you'll most likely lose the case and have the sale amount withdrawn from your PayPal account and reimbursed to the buyer.
8 Reales Madness Collection
I do know and can identify MOST Canadian fake silver dollars...BUT NOT ALL!!!
it is one thing to suggest that a coin is a fake. It is however another to actually proof it "beyond a reasonable daubt".
I know, with coins like tht it comes immediately to mind.... Forgery....BUT..??? think about it first..
I assume that you simply compared the 2 coins, YOUR coin and the subject coin and noticed the differences. did you actually weigh and measure both?
and, who says that your original coin is authentic? mmmm ( no offense please..it has happened..)
who says it is not a test coin made before they started production? Or maybe they yested some new dies because the dies used were worn out? Does that make it a fake?
Who says this coin is not made with another set of dies? Or struck at another mint place? Does that make it a fake?
Or perhaps even ( spinning this now without knowing historic details) made by some opposing party to undermine a currency? ( like the mexican revolutionary money). That might nake it a counterfeit coin... maybe..
IF it is a fake, HOW COME no others have shown up? or are there any?
I have Canadian coins from 1862 (NB) which are supposed to be exactly the same. However, when 2 of them are next to each other it is very obvious that they are not the same. Does that make one of them a fake? and if, which one?
there is the famous 1967 Canada dollar, the Goose DOUBLE AND TRIPLE STRUCK, AND EVEN FLIP STRUCK 2TIMES. Does that make them fakes? despite a police investigation into the "how is that possible" , they are NOT fakes.
to many questions... and hardly any answers....
H
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would they use such a crude die with some elements looking very amateur to showcase the Mint's ability? >>
Other than the lions looking like monkeys, what is so crude about the purported fake? >>
It's a combination of the crudeness in the major element like the lions and water lines on the obverse combined with the much better overall condition than you would expect from an authentic piece. >>
I beg to differ, Roman. If anything, the real piece is more crude than the fake piece. If you did not see them side-by-side, the look of the waves and maybe even the look of the lions wouldn't tell you anything. Have you ever seen the lions on a colonial Philippine cuartillo or octavo?
Crudeness, or more correctly lack thereof, is only part of the identification that it is a fake. Another part of the identification is that the design elements do not match each other on the same piece. See, the elements of the real piece were made with punches. You would expect them to be identical (taking wear and punching force and angle into consideration) among all the same elements. Look, for example, at the "8"s and the "6"s of the real piece. See how similar they are to each other? Now look at those same elements of the fake piece compared to each other. Notice anything? That is why it is a fake, not because the lions look like monkeys.
By the way, YQQ, it is a fake. I confirmed with another expert who's been in this business a very long time. He is the former owner of the original piece pictured in this thread. He told me this is a classic fake, as opposed to a modern (i.e. Asian) fake. He said he saw this piece over 50 years ago. Almost any expert should have been able to recognize it. Apparently, PCGS didn't show it to any experts.
The real sad part of this story is the present owner's "story" just doesn't add up. He must have known what he had or why make the purchase contingent on certification. So why sell on ebay? What sense does it make to sell such an important and potentially valuable coin on ebay?
I see it's been removed from ebay now.
<< <i>I beg to differ, Roman. If anything, the real piece is more crude than the fake piece. If you did not see them side-by-side, the look of the waves and maybe even the look of the lions wouldn't tell you anything. Have you ever seen the lions on a colonial Philippine cuartillo or octavo? >>
Hi Stephen, that's what I meant when I said that the overall condition is better than what you would expect from an authentic piece. I have not seen any of the colonial Philippine coins you're referring to (would love to see some if you want to post a link), and since any pre-milled issues are outside of my collecting interest, the slabbed coin above would probably not raise any flags to me if I saw it in a dealer's case, just like most other world coins i'm not familiar with.
This thread was a re-post from another forum as per their request. And it looks like it did what it was supposed to do - the auction was taken down and multiple collectors, some specializing in this series, on two separate websites shared their knowledge on identifying a counterfeit.
8 Reales Madness Collection
<< <i>I have not seen any of the colonial Philippine coins you're referring to (would love to see some if you want to post a link) >>
Here's a pretty good one (which is why it deserved its own lot in a Heritage auction). Now you tell me, does that look like a lion or a Dachshund?
if this is a "classic" fake, when was it made? and WHY???
if it was made at the same time why ? way back, WHY???
they had absolutely NOT the faintest idea then that this would create such a controversy..
AND, what evidence do you have that YOUR coin imaged is NOT fake? I think that also asks for an answer.. or??/ yes, no, ???
AND, why only one????
it seems everyone is ignoring some key questions in pursuit of their own ideas...
but, beyond : he sadi / wrote, she said / wrote, there is NO evidence.... right?
But, before you make speculation, and that is exactly what it is, one should maybe get some very solid evidence.
50 years ago... so, WHY did this gent not make a fuzz then?
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
<< <i>can anyone please answer this in a way so even I, dummy, will understnd/:
if this is a "classic" fake, when was it made? and WHY???
if it was made at the same time why ? way back, WHY???
they had absolutely NOT the faintest idea then that this would create such a controversy..
AND, what evidence do you have that YOUR coin imaged is NOT fake? I think that also asks for an answer.. or??/ yes, no, ???
AND, why only one????
it seems everyone is ignoring some key questions in pursuit of their own ideas...
but, beyond : he sadi / wrote, she said / wrote, there is NO evidence.... right?
But, before you make speculation, and that is exactly what it is, one should maybe get some very solid evidence.
50 years ago... so, WHY did this gent not make a fuzz then? >>
There are thousands upon thousands of members of this forum. You might be the single most annoying out of all of them.
<< <i>can anyone please answer this in a way so even I, dummy, will understnd/:
if this is a "classic" fake, when was it made? and WHY???
if it was made at the same time why ? way back, WHY???
they had absolutely NOT the faintest idea then that this would create such a controversy.. >>
Looking through all the responses on the topic, it appears nobody has a definite explanation of the reason why it was made. The date appears to be either late 19th Century (specimen of this coin surfaced back then based on information from Carlos Jara) or 20th Century (Swamperbob's comments on the other forum, who is a specialized counterfeit collector). One thought is that it's either a numismatic counterfeit (which is hard to believe since the numismatists specialized in these coins would not be so easily fooled) or a tourist souvenir piece.
<< <i>It's definitely not a "contemporary counterfeit", but it's not particularly modern, either... On our Colonial Cobs forum, Carlos Jara (who has made a name for himself with his research on some fairly unresearched topics in Latin American numismatics and is generally "in the know" on Spanish realm numismatics) stated that a specimen of this fake can actually be traced back to the 1880's. This echoes what the Cayon auction indicated... Now, that's still well after the time where any coin of this design was used, so this almost certainly was never intended to be circulating fake money. Note also that even at the time when the subject of the fake was being made, this really isn't even a type that would have been targeted for that (few people would have even been exposed to Royals).
So then, does that mean its purpose was as a numismatic forgery/replica/imitation? Were they even executing numismatic fakes in the 1800's? You would think the hobby wasn't advanced enough yet...
Of note, Cayon also speculated in their auction description that it could be an Indian fake... that really doesn't seem to make sense. Not crude enough, how would the indigenous tribes even know about royals, etc. It is rather well done... so where DID it come from? >>
<< <i>AND, what evidence do you have that YOUR coin imaged is NOT fake? I think that also asks for an answer.. or??/ yes, no, ??? >>
I think without doing XRF testing of the metal and matching it back to the alloy composition from that particular mint at that particular time, you can't really be 100% sure anything is authentic. What you can do is reduce your risk of buying a counterfeit as much as you can by learning the series yourself - reading books on minting practices of the period you're interested in, learning die characteristics, sinking methods and practices (like an example with punches in Prueba's post), along with studying hundreds of coins either in-person or in reference books / auction catalogs. After a while, when you look at a new coin within your collecting area, there are no surprises because you expect everything to be a certain way based on your accumulated knowledge. If something is not, it will prompt you to take a second look and try to explain why it's different from your understanding.
<< <i>AND, why only one???? >>
It sounds like an example of this type surfaced first in the late 1800's, then in the Cayon sale a few years ago.
<< <i>but, beyond : he sadi / wrote, she said / wrote, there is NO evidence.... right? >>
I guess it depends on what you believe sufficient evidence in this case would be. There are multiple specialists in the series that believe this to be a counterfeit based on their own personal knowledge and experience.
<< <i>But, before you make speculation, and that is exactly what it is, one should maybe get some very solid evidence. >>
Again, what do you consider solid evidence in this case?
8 Reales Madness Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>I have not seen any of the colonial Philippine coins you're referring to (would love to see some if you want to post a link) >>
Here's a pretty good one (which is why it deserved its own lot in a Heritage auction). Now you tell me, does that look like a lion or a Dachshund?
Haha, that's supposed to be a lion?
There are quite a few examples of crude dies used in Mexico during the early years of the War of Independence and some wicked looking lions that come with it.
8 Reales Madness Collection
<< <i>The real sad part of this story is the present owner's "story" just doesn't add up. He must have known what he had or why make the purchase contingent on certification. So why sell on ebay? What sense does it make to sell such an important and potentially valuable coin on ebay? >>
That seems a bit harsh. It looks like this is a primarily bullion dealer who runs an extensive ebay business...why not sell the coin there (did I miss the value of this coin earlier?).
It looks like, as a dealer, he bought a coin he wasn't familiar with and based the purchase on it passing certification, and then tried to sell it. The auction is down and I would suspect the seller did that himself after being made aware.
Like I said, I had no intention of emailing him...I have no expertise in this series and I would just have been a pest. On the other hand several knowledgable people weighed in and the auction came down.
I hope he contacts PCGS regarding the coin--I'm sure PCGS will do the correct thing--this isn't a 'mechanical error' or typo on the slab...this is a big deal and PCGS is a reputable company.
<< <i>I hope he contacts PCGS regarding the coin--I'm sure PCGS will do the correct thing--this isn't a 'mechanical error' or typo on the slab...this is a big deal and PCGS is a reputable company. >>
Furthermore, I hope he comes back and shares his experience with using PCGS buy-back process.
8 Reales Madness Collection
.
Two Kopeiki,
As I mentioned, this `long ago time`is not at all my field. Just found it extremely interesting. You have actually explained most of what I really wanted to know in a way that even I dummy understand most of it.
Thank you for that. I am sure some others can also appreciate the time you took to explain.
Now, as my interest had been perked, I actually did call the seller in Reno. he is a nice fellow and he explained where he got the coin from. he was fully aware of the controversy this could create. his guess was right.
he posted his info. So please guys.. pick up the phone and chat with him...
<< <i>
<< <i>can anyone please answer this in a way so even I, dummy, will understnd/:
if this is a "classic" fake, when was it made? and WHY???
if it was made at the same time why ? way back, WHY???
they had absolutely NOT the faintest idea then that this would create such a controversy.. >>
Looking through all the responses on the topic, it appears nobody has a definite explanation of the reason why it was made. The date appears to be either late 19th Century (specimen of this coin surfaced back then based on information from Carlos Jara) or 20th Century (Swamperbob's comments on the other forum, who is a specialized counterfeit collector). One thought is that it's either a numismatic counterfeit (which is hard to believe since the numismatists specialized in these coins would not be so easily fooled) or a tourist souvenir piece.
<< <i>It's definitely not a "contemporary counterfeit", but it's not particularly modern, either... On our Colonial Cobs forum, Carlos Jara (who has made a name for himself with his research on some fairly unresearched topics in Latin American numismatics and is generally "in the know" on Spanish realm numismatics) stated that a specimen of this fake can actually be traced back to the 1880's. This echoes what the Cayon auction indicated... Now, that's still well after the time where any coin of this design was used, so this almost certainly was never intended to be circulating fake money. Note also that even at the time when the subject of the fake was being made, this really isn't even a type that would have been targeted for that (few people would have even been exposed to Royals).
So then, does that mean its purpose was as a numismatic forgery/replica/imitation? Were they even executing numismatic fakes in the 1800's? You would think the hobby wasn't advanced enough yet...
Of note, Cayon also speculated in their auction description that it could be an Indian fake... that really doesn't seem to make sense. Not crude enough, how would the indigenous tribes even know about royals, etc. It is rather well done... so where DID it come from? >>
<< <i>AND, what evidence do you have that YOUR coin imaged is NOT fake? I think that also asks for an answer.. or??/ yes, no, ??? >>
I think without doing XRF testing of the metal and matching it back to the alloy composition from that particular mint at that particular time, you can't really be 100% sure anything is authentic. What you can do is reduce your risk of buying a counterfeit as much as you can by learning the series yourself - reading books on minting practices of the period you're interested in, learning die characteristics, sinking methods and practices (like an example with punches in Prueba's post), along with studying hundreds of coins either in-person or in reference books / auction catalogs. After a while, when you look at a new coin within your collecting area, there are no surprises because you expect everything to be a certain way based on your accumulated knowledge. If something is not, it will prompt you to take a second look and try to explain why it's different from your understanding.
<< <i>AND, why only one???? >>
It sounds like an example of this type surfaced first in the late 1800's, then in the Cayon sale a few years ago.
<< <i>but, beyond : he sadi / wrote, she said / wrote, there is NO evidence.... right? >>
I guess it depends on what you believe sufficient evidence in this case would be. There are multiple specialists in the series that believe this to be a counterfeit based on their own personal knowledge and experience. >>
Hello to all. I registered in this forum to post a few thoughts on this interesting piece.
Re. its origin, I think that it is a “numismatic” forgery (meaning a modern copy made for collectors), made in Europe in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
A few of these “numismatic” forgeries were present in the Fonrobert sale, held in 1878, showing that forgers were at work at that time. Furthermore, even fantasies (meaning invented coins made for collectors) of European origin made for collectors of Latin American material can undoubtedly be traced to a European origin, a case in point being the Orelie Antoine 1 Peso coins, all produced starting in the late 1890’s (and later than 1874, which is the date they show). Another modern copy produced at that time is the imitation of the Santo Domingo Charles & Johanna 10 Reales, a plaster cast of which exists in the ANS.
In the particular field of the cob coins, the old South American collectors favoured the fully round ones “royals” over the regular ones (the latter referred to as “barbaric” in the old Jacques Schulman catalogs) creating the demand for this kind of replicas.
As posted earlier, a specimen of this replica 1686 Lima 8 Reales can be traced to the 1880’s. It is the Oscar Salbach specimen (collection sold by J. Schulman in 1911, but the original Salbach personal catalog-ledger shows a acquisition date of before 1890).
It is a different coin than this one, showing that a die was specifically made to strike these coins (which are struck, not cast). Furthermore, and this has not been mentioned yet, the Salbach piece was overstruck over an 8 Reales piece that had a “cadeneta” edge design (meaning the rectangle-and-circle design found on the bust silver coins struck after the pillar series). This alone precludes the possibility of the present piece being an original mint product. Other telling factors, such as the wrong punches for the lions castles, and letters can also be pointed out.
It would be interesting to see whether this present coin also shows that same edge design.
Regards to all.
http://www.lanumismatics.blogspot.com/
"A blog about Latin American Numismatics"
Thank you for joining the forums and for posting. Would you please post more often?
If anyone hasn't read Carlos' blog, please do. The articles are quite interesting and thought-provoking.
8 Reales Madness Collection
For convenience, I am linking the two public auction sales of the real piece (the one shown above):
First sale (Millennia Collection), May 2008, US$23,000 hammer.
Second sale, May 2010, US$20,000 hammer.
The fake coin above is plated in the 1892 book "Monetario Americano" by Alejandro Rosa (Buenos Aires). It is a line drawing, so I cannot tell if it is the same piece. If it isn't the same piece, either that coin gets around, or there exist several of them.
I realize this is an old thread but this example resurfaced in another coin group today and I wondered what happened with it?
Time to get it out of that holder, don't you think?
I guess it was never sent back to PCGS in 2011?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It still shows up in the cert verification.
So, lets think this through....
The guy buys it pending certification. PCGS certifies it, so if the story is correct, he buys it as a real coin. Presumably, he pays "real money" for it, otherwise the scam alert bells must be ringing in his head. He might have ripped it, but let's assume he didn't.
So now, he's into this coin for a decent amount. And 9 years later, it turns up again still in the same slab, which means it was never sent back, or PCGS was contacted and the payout wasn't sufficient.
So two things could have happened. The guy kept it and (perhaps) passed away and the coin is now in the possession of heirs. Or, more logically, the coin was sold as genuine to another gullible person.
My money is on the later. And of course, if he did rip it, that makes it all the worse.
Exactly! I found this thread researching this "coin" after it was posted in my group this morning.
Nice side-by-side comparison with another specimen on CoinFacts.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Ah, this silly ol' piece, which should ABSOLUTELY be obvious on first glance (back in 2011, also)...
Yes in terms of punch style, but not for shape/overall execution... as that's a "normal" Lima cob 8R as opposed to a round "Galano", aka "Royal", which this fantasy is more imitative of.
Note that those photos are the IDENTICAL ones used for this piece on eBay back in 2011 (refer back to top of thread). Aside from the database apparently never being updated, is there any proof this coin is still holdered and that someone didn't just copy the pics? If you read back through the threads on here, CoinComm, and our dormant cob forum (and those who discussed the coin should recall), the seller played a bit clueless but did pull the coin fairly quickly and gave his contact info. Of course, who knows what happened offline after that.
Where did the piece get posted? Note that someone purporting to be the seller updated the CoinComm. thread on this piece several months later as shown below. If that happened, certainly PCGS would have cracked the coin from their holder - which might explain why the old photos of the coin still holdered are being shown?
When one “settles up” with PCGS, they buy back the coin and if fake, they destroy it. It doesn’t go back to its previous owner.
I haven’t heard that PCGS would take the coin out of its holder and return the coin.
Maybe someone from PCGS can clarify?
I wonder about letting the person keep the coin... but I doubt they would destroy such a piece. It has numismatic (exonumismatic?) value/purpose - not simply some deceptive modern replica.
Would they destroy, say, a contemporary counterfeit Kleeberg 2R?
On a semi-related note, a known contemporary counterfeit Hookneck 8R (previously seen in a Goldberg 2016 sale) in an NGC50 holder just popped up on eBay. If someone destroyed that coin, very bad things should happen to that person.
A known expert in the field states this is not a contemporary piece but modern (possibly ‘60’s) and he is aware of other examples.
The submitter for certification restated it was removed from the slab and returned.
The page has been updated this afternoon: