PPS - It should noted, big picture, this 4R type IS a rather deceptive fake. I think that people really really REALLY need to do their homework in the Spanish Colonial realm, ESPECIALLY with Pillars... and when I see most examples from these dies, things jump out at me... however that may be a case of the inside looking out.
I find these more deceptive than many of the Pillar 8R fakes out there... I'd say these are in the upper percentiles in terms of quality/"passability". As noted previously, this family of 4R has appeared in a NUMBER of respected firms' auctions.
Thank you very much for weighing in.
I do believe that your "tough love" was ultimately very beneficial to me.
I am still slowly working, as best as I am able, to acquire greater knowledge and understanding of pillars, portraits and numismatics in general.
I feel that I have definitely made progress in breaking down and grasping much of the knowledge you were trying to impart to me, and others, almost four years ago now.
It gets said frequently on these boards that the information and help shared amongst our members is truly invaluable. I can say that I personally could never have advanced in the way that I have, modest as it may be, without a forum like this and people like you. So please know that you, and others on these forums, have my deep and sincere thanks and appreciation.
So after uncovering a number of specimens of this fake bearing different dates between 1754 and 1759 (oddly all of those EXCEPT 1755)... I "think" this is the original example coin. Looks legit enough (wouldn't absolutely bet my life on it, but looks to be)... certainly at least a die match, matching marks/features. The scratches in the field left of the "PLUS" ribbon look to be actually done to the surface much moreso than other examples, on which they sensibly look more "copied over":
Do not know if I can post this 4R here or maybe might need to open a new thread/discussion. In my case I bought several 8R pillar types and all were fakes. So end up stoping buying these, have bought only one 1/2R pillar and that's it.
For example I have seen these two 4R Mo with a different condition and same year and noticed several differences:
And being a neophite on these, this is what I see on a bird's fly eye:
The distance or ofset from the round shape to the top of the date numerals.
The position of the left column crown related to the letter A from "VTRAQUE"
And also the position of the right column crown to letter N from "VNUM"
Also the distance from the top of the crowns in relation to thetop of main center crown:
Do not know if I am overlooking, any comments are welcome.
Read up on how the dies for these were made - separate punches for different design elements. Spacing/positioning will ALWAYS vary.
That said, the 1747 on the left in your first post is fake... it shows telltale signs, plus I've seen a matching example before. Do you have a link to where you saw that piece (or at least the shield side pic)?
To circle back to the 1754-1759 die-match fakes... the more I look at this current NGC 1755 example's surfaces and uneven patina... the more I'm questioning it.
@realeswatcher said:
Read up on how the dies for these were made - separate punches for different design elements. Spacing/positioning will ALWAYS vary.
That said, the 1747 on the left in your first post is fake... it shows telltale signs, plus I've seen a matching example before. Do you have a link to where you saw that piece (or at least the shield side pic)?
To circle back to the 1754-1759 die-match fakes... the more I look at this current NGC 1755 example's surfaces and uneven patina... the more I'm questioning it.
While we’re looking at 4 reales, I have this one. I think it’s technically a little over graded, but nice. Pretty sure it’s legit, NGC seems to think so also. Opinions?
Also, In my experience the ones struck this far off center tend to be real. 😂
@SimonW said:
While we’re looking at 4 reales, I have this one. I think it’s technically a little over graded, but nice. Pretty sure it’s legit, NGC seems to think so also. Opinions?
Also, In my experience the ones struck this far off center tend to be real. 😂
I do not know about varieties but on another coin ans same year, noticed the size of 'M' on the MF:
The 1741 is indeed overgraded, but really almost everything is now, especially in circ grades from that company. Nonetheless, a nice, wholesome genuine piece.
I do not know about varieties but on another coin ans same year, noticed the size of 'M' on the MF
Now, of course... going back to the "coin" which started this thread, the focus was on an apparent unknown variety in the crown styles on the pillars. A feature like that, where that specific style shift seems to be several years "off", CAN in fact be a clue which properly should draw suspicion. This is where knowing a specific series very well helps.
In the case of the 1741 pieces you posted, both of those look legit and a quick run through auction archives shows both assayer letter size varieties on obviously genuine pieces. Guessing Brad Yonaka's book details this.
Again, though, don't let slightly punch varieties automatically make you think one piece or another is necessarily fake. They are individual punches, and even different punches for the same letters/design elements within the same year as seen on those 1741 pieces (and of course, just how well the punch was pressed in can lead to varying appearance.
.....
I do not see a difference.
Two different pieces - both fakes from the same die/mold. Same exact impression of detail... similar style of fake patination.
This (bottom piece) sold on eBay recently. Better executed die match to a piece (top) I had seen a while back... This recent one got the MAACO Executive Artificial Tone Job rather than the $39.95 Hot Tank Shipwreck Special:
Comments
PPS - It should noted, big picture, this 4R type IS a rather deceptive fake. I think that people really really REALLY need to do their homework in the Spanish Colonial realm, ESPECIALLY with Pillars... and when I see most examples from these dies, things jump out at me... however that may be a case of the inside looking out.
I find these more deceptive than many of the Pillar 8R fakes out there... I'd say these are in the upper percentiles in terms of quality/"passability". As noted previously, this family of 4R has appeared in a NUMBER of respected firms' auctions.
Thank you very much for weighing in.
I do believe that your "tough love" was ultimately very beneficial to me.
I am still slowly working, as best as I am able, to acquire greater knowledge and understanding of pillars, portraits and numismatics in general.
I feel that I have definitely made progress in breaking down and grasping much of the knowledge you were trying to impart to me, and others, almost four years ago now.
It gets said frequently on these boards that the information and help shared amongst our members is truly invaluable. I can say that I personally could never have advanced in the way that I have, modest as it may be, without a forum like this and people like you. So please know that you, and others on these forums, have my deep and sincere thanks and appreciation.
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
Spanish Colonial Pillar Set
So after uncovering a number of specimens of this fake bearing different dates between 1754 and 1759 (oddly all of those EXCEPT 1755)... I "think" this is the original example coin. Looks legit enough (wouldn't absolutely bet my life on it, but looks to be)... certainly at least a die match, matching marks/features. The scratches in the field left of the "PLUS" ribbon look to be actually done to the surface much moreso than other examples, on which they sensibly look more "copied over":
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385685750564
Do not know if I can post this 4R here or maybe might need to open a new thread/discussion. In my case I bought several 8R pillar types and all were fakes. So end up stoping buying these, have bought only one 1/2R pillar and that's it.
For example I have seen these two 4R Mo with a different condition and same year and noticed several differences:
And being a neophite on these, this is what I see on a bird's fly eye:
Do not know if I am overlooking, any comments are welcome.
Thank you @realeswatcher here is a sample from an old sell at heritage that looks more to the one on the right above:
A VF details.
Read up on how the dies for these were made - separate punches for different design elements. Spacing/positioning will ALWAYS vary.
That said, the 1747 on the left in your first post is fake... it shows telltale signs, plus I've seen a matching example before. Do you have a link to where you saw that piece (or at least the shield side pic)?
To circle back to the 1754-1759 die-match fakes... the more I look at this current NGC 1755 example's surfaces and uneven patina... the more I'm questioning it.
Here is the other side:
And compare...
I do not see a difference.
While we’re looking at 4 reales, I have this one. I think it’s technically a little over graded, but nice. Pretty sure it’s legit, NGC seems to think so also. Opinions?
Also, In my experience the ones struck this far off center tend to be real. 😂
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
I do not know about varieties but on another coin ans same year, noticed the size of 'M' on the MF:
The 1741 is indeed overgraded, but really almost everything is now, especially in circ grades from that company. Nonetheless, a nice, wholesome genuine piece.
Now, of course... going back to the "coin" which started this thread, the focus was on an apparent unknown variety in the crown styles on the pillars. A feature like that, where that specific style shift seems to be several years "off", CAN in fact be a clue which properly should draw suspicion. This is where knowing a specific series very well helps.
In the case of the 1741 pieces you posted, both of those look legit and a quick run through auction archives shows both assayer letter size varieties on obviously genuine pieces. Guessing Brad Yonaka's book details this.
Again, though, don't let slightly punch varieties automatically make you think one piece or another is necessarily fake. They are individual punches, and even different punches for the same letters/design elements within the same year as seen on those 1741 pieces (and of course, just how well the punch was pressed in can lead to varying appearance.
.....
Two different pieces - both fakes from the same die/mold. Same exact impression of detail... similar style of fake patination.
10-4 - and thank you for all your help!
And the coin it is FS at 900Euros btw
This (bottom piece) sold on eBay recently. Better executed die match to a piece (top) I had seen a while back... This recent one got the MAACO Executive Artificial Tone Job rather than the $39.95 Hot Tank Shipwreck Special:
