Kleebergs - Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit 2 Reales

John, I'd need some time.

It's a worthwhile project to make a nice coherent reference with everything in one spot - though not totally easy. Cross-checking back and forth between the Kleeberg COAC chapter, your two updates which both have different formats and some duplication and such that needs to be coalesced... PLUS my own files which (and I have saved pics of a number of pieces not in any of those)... is cumbersome. Also, judging rarity of various types is almost total anecdotal guesswork with the main reference being so old/completely before the ebay era. I've thought for a while that a website with current knowledge/updates - along the lines of what the CC Bust Half Davignon ppl do, "Bad Metal", etc. - would be a great thing.

Meanwhile, a couple thoughts in general and on the piece threefifty posted.


--- Obviously the sole focus of the original Kleeberg project was the 2 Reales. This denomination (as genuine) was a frequently used workhorse coin here, probably more so than the other real denominations. As such, it clearly got more of the counterfeiters' attention in terms of output, so it's the most pertinent.

That said, I STRONGLY think you should expand the project to include what would be the first actual treatment of the other minor denoms., 1/2R, 1R and 4R. I'd say maybe 1/4R too, and I've seen a number of those, but they really saw little to no use here in the Colonies/States - do you want a "pieces that circulated here" focus, or to open it up to pieces suspected/known to have emanated from elsewhere like you and Bob's 8R treatment does? Obviously that's a bit of a different beast given the 8R's global circulation/appeal as specie/trade coinage, but worth weighing as a general question.

Those other denom. CCs are all SO desirable due to their scarcity overall, particularly to the advanced collector who recognizes this from experience... Obviously, would be a bit challenging to ascertain which pieces have actual USA links, saw usage here... but that's the case for the 2R also, no?

E.G., I have a pic (not sure if I bought it or not?) of a rather frequently seen Mexico 1804 CC 1R (have pics of at least 8 examples)... and one has the known "F. A. VACHE" merchant counterstamp. So, fairly solid proof that it's a counterfeit which circulated here - plus, if only from memory/impression, seems they almost always surface out of the USA. On the other hand, you have something like the common Santiago 1808 4R... "imitation". I recall Carlos Jara stating somewhere that these dated ca. 1870... and just from observation, they almost always come out of South America or Spain.


--- threefifty, if you've posted this one b4, I'm blanking on seeing it previously. If so, shame on me, really interesting piece. The JP assayer reverse is obviously impossibly late for that obverse, thus it's effectively a muling of mismatched obv and rev.

First things first... I'm going to say that the last digit almost certainly must be 8. This piece is rather accurate detail-wise, though obviously to (2) different coins (the obverse looks "mostly" faithful to an original regal piece - see below)... If you take a run through 1783 2R from Lima or any other mint, they used a defined flat-top 3. Compare 1788 issues in auction archives...


--- This coin, and the piece in John's 2017 update that he referred it possibly matching, both sort of raise a larger issue in several ways. That issue, which can be tricky... is how to handle/classify pieces that clearly seem to more accurately be considered simple casts rather than "hand-engraved" types. John, I believe I've mentioned to you before... I believe a number of pieces in your 2017 work are basically just simple, faithful-to-the-original casts of regal coins. (I would suggest doing a good cram review of genuine coins from all mints/dates as a refresher for this project). These, of course, aren't as sexy to collectors in this area, BUT YET are absolutely an intricate part of the same conversation... they were literally made for the exact same purpose!

However, what's the cutoff for being defined as the criterion for making it a true "Kleeberg" type? Traditionally, it's hand-worked dies...

So, along those lines... John's "K.83C - L51" is one of the pieces that for me is simply a perfect copy of a regal piece. I would not include that as a Kleeberg. Perhaps, though, a factor is how we think it was manufactured...

Then there's this piece threefifty posted... Firstly, John, this obverse is absolutely is NOT any precise match to your "K.83C" obverse. Referring to that last digit, whether an 8 or now, CLEARLY the tops are vastly different; there are other obvious visible differences as well. Careful comparison of design elements, legend character positioning, etc. is REALLY important here, obviously.

That said... OK, we know at least SOME deviation from simply casting a regal example (1788 or 178-whatever) occurred since we have an impossible muling of date/assayer. Looking at this piece... I'm a bit torn since most detail (e.g., the portrait) looks quite accurate/regal, to where I'd suspect a simple obv and rev cast (but again, two different muled)... however parts of the legend lettering, perhaps the pillars on the reverse, and also the denticles sort of look a tad "touched up" by hand.

Just on the fact that it's an obv/rev muling alone, I would definitely say it's a distinct-enough piece to merit inclusion.

As usual realeswatcher good points. Currently I have been the caretaker of Kleebergs since my Colonial Newsletter article of April, 2014 so currently we have 185 varieties listed. The (3) person team is WInston Zack - Lead Author, Jeff Rock (C4) and myself to make the draft final. We expect 2-3 years to produce the final draft but its not that daunting a task since I kept and still do keep meticulous records and the Stacks/Bowers (S/B) archives of Kleeberg sales are extraordinarily helpful and currently all the Kleeberg-unlisted sales in these S/B archives have been identified up to this point. I am currently posting my entire collections of Kleebergs (112 specimens - some duplicates) on Facebook. Zack, Rock and myself are discussing each one and varieties not in my collection are also being discussed/analyzed/recorded and pedigreed. For the last 15 years or so if anyone in C4 (primarily) cherry-picked a Kleeberg I was the go to person to give the next logical sequence Kleeberg variety #. MNA members are new to counterfeiting but are slowly WAKING UP that counterfeits do not poison a collection but in many ways enhance the overall collection. In terms of minors (1/2R,1R) and 4R CCCs this is being handled in the Facebook group. Dozens have already been listed. Obviously can't supply a link as CCF will delete this post but at this point at just under 1,000 members the infamous "realeswatcher" should have no trouble finding it. In terms of 3/50's Kleeberg who knows what the last numeral is until he performs an upgraded photo with better contrast & sends me the high quality photos via E-Mail. Sometimes some collectors have left coins with me and in these cases I do a free XRF analysis but it takes 3-4 months (long story since currently retired). Minors in Facebook, 4R CCCs in Facebook and the compilation of the 1998 ANS/COAC // Kleeberg/THe Colonial Newsletter (CNL) Update: 4/2011 // Forgotten Coins 25th Anniversary Book (2017) listed varieties
// My Kleeberg Master Paper Files Census unpublished papers #150-#185 varieties (record keeping which followed the Forgotten Book) all into ONE BOOK. JPL

Three/Fifty its a Kleeberg CCC2R = 100% certainty. Plain Edge, Medal Die turn. Crude lettering. Brass Alloy. Just work on that date. The upload KB limit here is the problem. Try to send to me privately or off this channel. JPL

John, just to throw my first-glance take at you quickly... This piece looks ESPECIALLY "regal-like" in appearance to me due to the slight off-centering, which is kind of a "thing" for Lima of this era. Clearly the design elements look regal as well.

I leave interpreting the advanced metallurgical study to you and your expertise... which is frankly sloppy/lazy on my end but it is what it is, I'm just not well-studied enough on it. I will say a low-grade silver alloy (or at least an alloy containing a decent amount of some whitish metal in there) looks accurate. I know you say it appears more even brown in hand... but I think the pics are trying to tell us something. Note how the lighter coloring looks rather plainly on display on the worn high points - NOT the other way around - proving it's in the alloy as opposed to silvering/wash, etc.

Regardless, forest through trees on this piece... note how porous it is (even considering it's primarily copper). From the surfaces, it just LOOKS cast, no? And again, combine that with proper detail AND typical Lima slightly off-centered positioning - it's an exact facsimile of a Lima mint emission. Cast makes the most sense for how such an exact recreation of a minor denomination would have been produced technologically (as opposed to transfer dies or ?).

Lastly, however this was made... there's no real hand-engraved element here. Just not really the "spirit" of what gets collected as "Kleebergs", true? As you know, many collectors don't typically find these "exact imitations" sexy, whether they're in fact casts or other... harder to sensibly catalog/attribute and simply less interesting to look at. That said, they ARE highly useful as study and comparison pieces and, I think, as companion pieces in a collection.

Why such crude, porous planchets then? Planchets themselves cast, then struck with (perhaps somewhat crude) transfer dies?

I could be sold on that... I simply know that visually, I can see that the posted 1800 example is SOME sort of essentially exact copy of an ACTUAL Lima piece. Figuring out the "how" I guess is the point of such scholarship and scientific analysis, right?

Does lead to that same philosophical question of how such "exact replica" contemporary counterfeits (of varying crudeness) are to be considered and catalogued vs. pieces from fully hand-engraved or at least "visibly reworked" dies, molds, etc.. Essentially, even if such a piece IS a crude die transfer and not a cast... they're both just "simple copies".

That's where there's a philosophical question is for me. So using this 1800 as an example... OK, say it's definitely struck from a transfer die as opposed to being a cast. But essentially, it offers the same effect as a cast - exact copy of an actual coin (or at least as a close as they could get it)... though clearly rather crudely executed.

It would have looked the same as a cast in the early 1800s to a potential victim... and it looks the same to a modern collector of such. So why include this and NOT a cast that by metallic signature, provenance, etc. is known or can be shown to be of the period? Is it because we can't "prove" it?

And then let's say you encounter a seemingly cast 2R example with significantly reworked/reengraved detail. That's by far a more collectible, "sexy" piece. But that gets excluded?

It's an interesting debate, especially if you have to use advanced scientific analysis to differentiate cast from struck in certain instances...

Yes these look familiar <BG>. Will keep you posted on the progress of the book Realeswatcher. Thanks for your input. JPL

I saw that a nice one sold on ebay yesterday - it was grouped in with some other low grade minors.