Mexico 1/2 Real - Serious help needed

1Bustcollector

I’m starting this thread today because I am seriously trying to obtain as much information as I can from individuals who are responsibly concerned about deducing proper information about this piece. I have been a collector of high grade (AU-58 through MS-66) Mexico Half Reals for a period of time........... that does not make me an expert but enough time where I have gained some knowledge in this specific series.

Currently, I am seeking information about this particular piece shown below.

Here is what I have found out from others: Generic history, dates, minting practices, and timelines. I am truly grateful, but it does not really solve what is happening here with this piece. If I can be as polite as possible, please take a look at the coin picture itself and put aside the “History” and delve into what you feel may have happened to the actual coin you see pictured. I have made notes on my end but would like to hear from others first. I am aware you can only do so much with photographs. The edge shot is included. Let's start here.....

This example weighs: 1.7 grams.
Vertical diameter: .680”
Horizontal diameter: .670”
Thickness: .034”

bidask

Have you considered submitimg to pcgs for authenticity,
grade (if it does) ?

TwoKopeiki

The coin is a counterfeit. It's of the portrait design, so it can't be dated 1770 (Mexico still used pillar design), FF assayers were used later (1777-1784), and Carolus IV legend with a Carolus III portrait is only seen in 1790 transitional issue. This reminds me of late 20th century counterfeits coming out of China with fudged legend details. I would send a note to Rob "swamperbob" Gurney (swamperbob22@aol.com) - he's an expert counterfeit researcher.

Cheers,

Roman.

1Bustcollector

Dietrich: Thanks. I have thought about submitting to the grading services..but I feel they would just bodybag without any concise reason. I still may end up there.

Roman: Very good information, thank you. I hear ya..........and have researched those points earlier. It definately helps to align your information. So,

If this is a counterfeit........

1) Is the Portrait wrong? or is this mated with a wrong reverse and altered date?
2) Has the date been altered? Which digits? it makes sense to be a 1790, therefore altering the 9 and not the zero.
3) If any of the two above then which?
4) If the Portrait is incorrect.......then is the FF of IV altered?
5) weight appears very close?
6) or, this thing is so way off on both obverse and reverse then why put so much time into an inexpensive item? It's a no name, isn't it?
7) What obverse and reverse dies are these from? Die marriage collectors are you out there?
8) Possibly altered: The date is altered from an 1790......the IV, and the FF would therefore make sense, correct?
9) Counterfeit: the reeding appears real, no?

coachbedford

If the 9 is altered to a 7, it is REALLY expertly done because I can see no trace of alternation-- but that would have to be the case, because you cannot have a 1770 date with Carlos III's bust (and certainly not Carlos IV bust), and " Carlos IV " in the legend. And if we consider the possibility of this being a modern Chinese fake, I can only ask are the modern Chinese counterfeits becoming THAT good? Because everything about the piece appears legitimately 1700s. Of course 1770 should be a pillar design half reale.

1Bustcollector

Yes, thanks coachbedford, this piece does look better than the norm.
A couple of things I noticed:
1) the zero, where the ends meet, don't appear original. Yes, the 7 appears unaltered!
2) the left facing Pillar is further away than the right side.
3) Small " tines" from devices - may be normal?

I don't have enough 1790's or others to compare die marriages that match.

But, other than that, it sure looks GOOD! Even the edge.

1Bustcollector

I forgot to mention: Just as Roman states, assyer FF ended 1784!

TwoKopeiki

I don't see this being an authentic piece, sorry. Edge image is not the best, but I don't see 180 degree overlaps in the pattern. Also, the lack of detail on the reverse is concerning. It's odd that you can see the slight outline of "U" and "L" in "PLUS" and "ULTRA", the highest points of contact, but not the details on the castles and lions?

Anyway, check with Bob on this. He is one of the few people that would be able to give you quite a bit of information on it.

1Bustcollector

Thanks Roman. I will look over more examples. Email sent to Rob.

TwoKopeiki

Any update on this? Curious to hear what Bob had to say.

1Bustcollector

Yes, Roman I do have a few updates. Sorry about not posting, my Father took a turn for the worst this last week wit some health problems and I have been a bit preoccoupied.
Here is what I have learned in a "nutshell." Bob has been wonderful to communicate with! He has certainly taught me a few things about this piece even though his expertise is with 8 Reales. Please read his coments throughly and let me know your thoughts. I will give his thoughts below, but please remember this is his "timeline of thoughts" below.

1) Since the photographs were done very well he was able to give better details, although we all know you really have to have the actual coin in hand.

2) The coin initially raised numerour questions beyond the obvious.........King combination, date mint assayer. (I will also say he stated what we all here on the Forum thought.....The legend was used only 1789 and 1790. The date predates the series and the assayer terminated in 1784).

3) Technically, concerning the coin itself, (this is where I need to get more info), all the letters around the periphery with a small exception are surrounded with carbon residue and appears to be recently oiled, but the last two digits are exceptionally clean-which leads some suspicion. This may have been an 89 instead of a 70.

4) It appears there may be tarnish scrapes on both sides caused by holding of the coin. He initially wondered/thought if this could have been a very rare "Sheffield" plate. By the pic the left pillar shows high point colorchanges-as if the silver was wearing off exposing a debased core. But the presence of similar high point marks on the design opposite (which are not high point for that side only that area) made me lean toward an altered original. Speculating why? Maybe to make a numismatic Rarity?

6) He asked me a question about the circular raised feature between P and A in HISPAN? Is it a fiber?

I commented: No, this and the other circular raised spot below G in GRATIA was lacquer. (note fiber at left of date). I had thought if it was an altered date, (my original thought), but only the "0" looks different to me. Bob's comment about carbon residue interested me as though it possibly masked things.

I thought the Pillar at left was spaced too far away, and I saw "tines" coming from some devices.........Bob thought it was normal for these designs and nothing to be concerned as they can be rather typical on original coins and the pillar spacing was definately a punch issue. Spacing tolerances with the mint.

Here is where it got more interesting:

7) The use of varnish to surface the coin makes Bob think the coin was bogus. It was used 20-30 years agoby coin doctors. I had replied I was told my coin came from Holland decades ago. (But my thought was that if it was counterfeit.......the talent was not that good way back then. No-a-days they are very good. Hmmm.

(Ok, for now I will stop my writing and take a break. I have more. My comments at this point are don't make up your mind so fast. I do want to hear everyone's comments at this junction...........PLEASE RESPOND YOUR THOUGHTS!)

TwoKopeiki

I'm reading this on a mobile device, so typing too much is a pain. Just wanted to say that I'm sorry to hear about your father's health and pray he recovers.

1Bustcollector

Thank you very much for the kind words of concern Roman, it is appreciated.

Ok, where I left off:

8) Bob had commented that the second 7 is likely a copy of the first 7, cast and soldered or glued to the coin. The 0 may have been copied from another coin but feels it may have been an applied device. He recommended a good soak of pure acetone to start. This would remove shellac and carbon residue. I was to then look at the transactions between the numbers and the fields. Another comment was a repaired hole from the looks of the picture but it was only a thought. In the end he felt the host coin is real, just a different date.

(I actually soaked the coin in pure acetone for about 20-30 minutes and found the lacquer came off very nicely. It did not appear to change the surface tone in any way-which it really should not. The entire coin actually looks very nice without all the lacquer areas that were of possible concern. The other thing that was surprising to me.........for the life of me, I cannot find anything wrong. No device digits fell off or had exposed glued areas in transition. There had been no change. So, since I could not find any obvious line at the base of the digits this meant either one or two things):

A) An alteration done from inside the coin.....a tunnel at the edge drilled to the numerals that are added to the thinned surface using a device that resembles a pair of needle nose pliers. Fortunately, I cannot see any possibility that this coin has been drilled. The edges look exceptional.

If at this point nothing really could be found then this may be a Fantasy.

All in all, I am extremely happy with the example I own! It just looks unbelievably remarkable - very convincing. What to do? Don't know, but I am still looking for more evidence. Bob has been such a terrific, expierenced individual in this area. Roman, I am so very happy you had reffered him to me. I learned a lot! Thank you.

Type2

This is a ez one just send it in.

1Bustcollector

Thanks Type2 for the suggestion, but it was not my purpose to merely send it in "right away - that's too easy! I'm looking for detailed results and I got pretty much excellent information from Bob that I can apply to other coins in the future. See below:

I really wanted to learn more about the technical aspects of this coin rather than submit and pay for a "code decision" that may or may not help pinpoint the "question" in this case. For example: (Damage code 98), (Altered surfaces code 94) or (not Genuine code 90). These codes will not list what is exactly wrong...........both digits altered, one digit altered of mule, or ???? Does PCGS or NGC go into SOME detail? Can this service be paid for?

I do realize I don't have too many choices at this point............ I will most likely submit later on.

I would have thought more people would have chimed in.............

pruebas

@1Bustcollector: One of these is coming up for auction (as genuine, of course), so I thought I’d revive this old thread to see if there had been anything new discovered.

It’s definitely an enigma. I’m far from convinced it’s genuine. But my interest is piqued.

Boosibri

@pruebas said:
@1Bustcollector: One of these is coming up for auction (as genuine, of course), so I thought I’d revive this old thread to see if there had been anything new discovered.

It’s definitely an enigma. I’m far from convinced it’s genuine. But my interest is piqued.

Which firm? I must have missed it in the usual Spanish auction firm catalogs.

Stork

And, completely off the main topic, how did you get the edge photos done? Fascinating! Very interesting and educational thread. (I hope the tags alert @1Bustcollector -- his last log on appears to have been September 2017).

pruebas

@Stork said:
And, completely off the main topic, how did you get the edge photos done?

Not sure about the OP, but in the pre-digital age, one would use a flashlight reflector to get the edge images like that.

Namvet69

This could be the plot of a movie. Truth can be stranger than fiction. Peace Roy

1Bustcollector

Boosibri, sorry for the very late responses: Attached is the listing for the second example:
https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=3115&category=64031&lot=2604010
I sent an email to this firm but never heard back....

Stork: I have special edge mirrors the were made by the late Russ Logan. Highly polished, chrome plated machined rings. In a pinch, flashlight bowl will work just fine as commented by pruebas.

FWIW, after all this time, I have positively determined that my example is counterfeit although extremely well done. Yes, many individuals have commented that it was but I needed to perform some extensive overlay/research as to what “exactly” it was and my findings have been written up in an email to myself. I love this piece no matter the outcome.

Namvet69: This was truly an expierence, and I got there....almost like a Sherlock Holmes or Columbo movie digging for answers. Lol.

Boosibri

@1Bustcollector said:
Boosibri, sorry for the very late responses: Attached is the listing for the second example:
https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=3115&category=64031&lot=2604010
I sent an email to this firm but never heard back....

Stork: I have special edge mirrors the were made by the late Russ Logan. Highly polished, chrome plated machined rings. In a pinch, flashlight bowl will work just fine as commented by pruebas.

FWIW, after all this time, I have positively determined that my example is counterfeit although extremely well done. Yes, many individuals have commented that it was but I needed to perform some extensive overlay/research as to what “exactly” it was and my findings have been written up in an email to myself. I love this piece no matter the outcome.

Namvet69: This was truly an expierence, and I got there....almost like a Sherlock Holmes or Columbo movie digging for answers. Lol.

Sorry I must have missed your email Rory. Hope al is well!

1Bustcollector

Hey everyone,

Darn! Part of that write up was missing - I kind of rushed it through...(I’ve had to deal with some pretty serious back pain over the past 35 years and my mind wasn’t into reviewing my words so well last night -

Anyway, it’s been quite a while since commenting on this piece and it was left hanging out there in the open somewhat forgotten. To be honest, I talked to so many individuals/dealers and others in the field and hit a slow point. (I did get one really nasty arrogant, response “demanding” to know where I got the piece from).

In any event, all individuals who originally commented were correct (see above), thank you very much Pruebas, Roman, Bidask, swamperbob, and others.

Most of the “timeline” device punches are incorrectly stamped.

Some possible alterations.(?)

Mushy or weak appearing devices on the reverse.

Halo darkness around letter/numerals (alterations?)

I also later found the Lion and Castle were not correct. Couple that with the fact another example surfaced it added confusion why two pieces would be altered? Probably not.

I think the XRF came out ok. Weight ok.

I really wish I had the other to compare. I was aware it existed before but the photo wasn’t real good. I believe(?) the particular lot was withdrawn(?).

Submitting really wasn’t going to be an option. I knew the outcome would merely be a code. I wanted more than that -

And so, among other things, it’s a fantastic piece non the less. I really wish I had the complete background story when this was done and by whom.

You all have been great in commenting and offered some excellent opinions! It was an enjoyable thread.

Note** Here is the Spanish to English translation on the other lot:

1/2 REAL Mexico. 1770-FF !!! A / Definitive bust of Carlos III to right. Ly .: CAROLVS.IV.DEI.GRATIA.1770. R / Classic shield of these pieces, ly .: .HISPAN.ET IND.R.mark de ceca.F.F. XC does not cite. 1.64 g. Marquita de punch in anv. and another one in rev. UNEXPECTED MBC + The FF testers in the Mexican mint include from 1778 to 1784 although we also know pieces from 1772 and 1771. We suppose that this coin in the transit of the columnario to the official bust of Carlos III could be tested by Francisco de la Peña and Flores y Francisco of Rivas Augusto. We believe that until 1771 the first coins of 2 Royals with the bust of Carlos III did not appear but some tests could be done with the date of 1770. In the transit of the Ly. CARLOS III to CARLOS IV could be used some stamps that had previously been discarded and this could be one of them. After this reasoning, we can also think about the possibility of an error of the recorder.

Insider2

Interesting thread. See if I have this correct.

1. The coin is a counterfeit.
2. The main reason is 1770 coins are all Pillars. Secondary: an incorrect assayer for the time period.

If these two reasons are correct, why are posters writing about altered dates?

Thus, I'm taking away from the thread that this coin is struck as it is. That means no alterations to the date, assayer, or Mintmark.

1Bustcollector

Insider2:

Originally......Looking back, in its simplist form, an altered date first appeared be a possibility.

1) A halo of dark toned substance encircling device punches. That needed to be removed to uncover any possibly tooling.

2) The date, 1770, does not agree with design.

3) The numeral punches (7’s and 0) on this example incorrectly shaped.

And, in the end......by the time we processed everyone’s reviews/observations I can also agree it is probably “as struck” without alterations....unless someone has added comments?