A Fake That Is Actually Modern 1816 8 Reales

I'm reminded of something like this:

I actually fell into that trap some years ago on one of these. Further observation, appearance of multiple dates, etc. revealed what it was. I now presume it's a mid-century creation like the 1816 discussed.

I actually think most people buy them thinking they're genuine pillar 8R.

So... I was going through some pics today and it occurred to me that one example of this "1816" type in question which I had pulled from Worthpoint ebay archives (first pic below) was in fact a specimen I had seen before in a grouping of primarily contemporary counterfeit 8R (a few genuine pieces mixed in) at a show a few years back. They were mostly or all Mexico... Colonial Mo mint, a few "questionable" Royalist branch mint, one Iturbide, plus some early Cap & Ray. I bought a few pieces but also took quick pics of the main binder sheet; some of these pieces then ended up on ebay about a year ago from (I think) a different dealer in the region.

These pieces were predominantly deeply/darkly-toned and most had old blunt damage marks that appear to have been crude cancellations. My overall impression was that this was an contemporary grouping of "fake money" that someone had accrued, cancelled and then buried.

Shown below was the ebay pic I previously linked plus a few screenshots of the grouping. The coin in question is mistakenly called "1818" in the binder sheet - the toning pattern clearly show it's that exact coin.

Anyway, food for thought. Could be recent environmental damage to a collection stored together in really poor conditions, but it really didn't present like that.

Well, yeah, there were (are) a lot of dealers and even some collectors who are knowledgeable and sharp-eyed enough to spot a "not genuine" coin... but yet not sophisticated enough to appreciate contemporary counterfeits... who would simply throw all their "fakes" together in a "black cabinet" without much further thought.

However, would such a grouping be stored in conditions that would cause such dark toning as most of these pieces had? How damp was that basement?!!

That example exhibits a great deal of copper corrosion, but that alone does not make me change my mind. The coin is modern without any doubt. The method of manufacture is incorrect as physically evidenced by the appearance of the edge on examples that are near MS. The very few other clues to modernity are more difficult to explain unless you observe dozens of identical examples until a statistical pattern appears.

The contaminant that appears in some examples is absolute proof of modernity because it is an element not naturally occurring in Mexican silver strata and which was not used commercially until the 20th century. However, some other examples of the same coin are made with other alloys which do not contain the modern element. Various alloys are common for any series of counterfeits both contemporary and modern, but it only takes only one example made with an impossible element to taint all other examples of the same die pairing.

Even more heavily worn than the piece posted back on Page 1. Interesting there's an almost identical slash mark on the chest compared to that same piece...

I'm looking at the pics I have and I'm realizing it's not actually a scratch... just a deeply engraved fold in Fernando's drapery. On the two really worn examples, it remains while everything else around it was worn flat and thus it mimics a scratch.