@Abuelo said: @MrEureka very nice! Really tough mint! That 1874 coin saw a lot of action in its youth really nice bunch.
I’m intrigued because I think the 1878 may be a contemporary counterfeit. The relatively crude die work and the rarity of the date are the best clues, as is the different shape of the eagle’s head. Granted, I don’t know this series well, so don’t take my suspicions as gospel.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka you very well may be right. The coin is circulated enough that some of the details are lost. The cactus seems to be right. The snake head might be right. The eagle is otherwise too worn to say much. Clearly I do not knownthe weight yet I assume NGC was happy with it... Will take a look into the specific GA series more in detail...
Well, I do not own any other Guadalajara from the same time but Kirk Menczer did (even one with same assayer), thankfully. I chose these 3 coins because are relatively contemporary (1870s) and at least one of them was well circulated (I did not use the 71 and 73 that MrE showed as I thought were too far removed and instead added the 81). So here we go:
And the reverse:
While the coin in question (1878) is very worn and borderline damaged, I can make few comments:
The snakes for 1877 and 78 have prognathism.
The 77 and 78 snake have a similar curvature at the level of the eagle's neck, the 74 seems different.
The eagle in 78 is too worn to really make much more comments. The wings appear ok, yet the difference in the head is noted. Who knows if this is due to the fact that is worn/damaged or something more nefarious.
The legends in the 78 obverse are too worn to say much, at least to me.
The cacti in 77 and 78 are very similar in marks despite how worn it is.
On the reverse, the oak and laurel leaves look really good to me, even when the stems in the 78 are a bit thicker (keep in mind that the coin is minuscule). That difference might be due to how circulated the coin is.
The suspicious part to me comes in the reverse, in the CENTAVOS as the T and the N are suspect. That said, if you look at the T in the 1874 is clearly different from the 1877. But the N looks different. Again, damage? Circulation? Something else?
Again, I can tell little about the weight as I do not know it. The coin does look like silver.
If counterfeit, they did go for a lot of effort and cost for little reward as even then, 10 C was not a lot of money.
That said, I can see why @MrEureka raised the very good point. Personally (with all my bias) I can be convinced is the real deal, but would not go as far as to testify in Congress about it. Still, very happy to own it. Comparing uncirculated coins to AG3 is a difficult business.
@Abuelo There are some differences as you say, particularly the pointed N. However, it’s very close in most other details where contemporary counterfeits usually aren’t. I think I’m with you in the “real” camp.
Great discussion on a really interesting coin @Abuelo. I don't know the series well enough to comment specifically on the authenticity, but you could always crack it out and get a weight/specific gravity/XRF reading to get more information.
And if you do not know, here is Abuelo to tell you This is one of the classic errors in Mexican numismatics (one of many) and the classic in the series of "Peso Fuertes". The assayer initials should be AM but were inverted to MA. Apparently they discovered the mistake as the coin is very rare. One appearance in Heritage's archives and 3 in Stack's that I was able to find (for the type). After I finished with the dose of Christmas' decorations this afternoon (as @Boosibri knows) I was wasting time on eBay... and then I wasted a lot of money
Comments
@MrEureka very nice! Really tough mint! That 1874 coin saw a lot of action in its youth
really nice bunch.
I’m intrigued because I think the 1878 may be a contemporary counterfeit. The relatively crude die work and the rarity of the date are the best clues, as is the different shape of the eagle’s head. Granted, I don’t know this series well, so don’t take my suspicions as gospel.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka you very well may be right. The coin is circulated enough that some of the details are lost. The cactus seems to be right. The snake head might be right. The eagle is otherwise too worn to say much. Clearly I do not knownthe weight yet I assume NGC was happy with it... Will take a look into the specific GA series more in detail...
Well, I do not own any other Guadalajara from the same time but Kirk Menczer did (even one with same assayer), thankfully. I chose these 3 coins because are relatively contemporary (1870s) and at least one of them was well circulated (I did not use the 71 and 73 that MrE showed as I thought were too far removed and instead added the 81). So here we go:
And the reverse:
While the coin in question (1878) is very worn and borderline damaged, I can make few comments:
That said, I can see why @MrEureka raised the very good point. Personally (with all my bias) I can be convinced is the real deal, but would not go as far as to testify in Congress about it. Still, very happy to own it. Comparing uncirculated coins to AG3 is a difficult business.
@Abuelo There are some differences as you say, particularly the pointed N. However, it’s very close in most other details where contemporary counterfeits usually aren’t. I think I’m with you in the “real” camp.
@scubafuel at the same time if you see the N in REPUBLICA MEXICANA, the N is basically normal.
Great discussion on a really interesting coin @Abuelo. I don't know the series well enough to comment specifically on the authenticity, but you could always crack it out and get a weight/specific gravity/XRF reading to get more information.
If you know, you know...
And if you do not know, here is Abuelo to tell you
This is one of the classic errors in Mexican numismatics (one of many) and the classic in the series of "Peso Fuertes". The assayer initials should be AM but were inverted to MA. Apparently they discovered the mistake as the coin is very rare. One appearance in Heritage's archives and 3 in Stack's that I was able to find (for the type). After I finished with the dose of Christmas' decorations this afternoon (as @Boosibri knows) I was wasting time on eBay... and then I wasted a lot of money 