1866 CA Jc 8 Reales PCGS Certified XF

Well, if you had to deal with this seller like I did, you'd wonder too realeswatcher . I'm still dealing with him. At least for up to another week too. Hopefully not any longer than that.

It does sound absurd the way you put it. I do now doubt he would have done all that, you make a good point. All I know is he was ok until the auction ended, then it was his way or the highway before the coin was even shipped to me. Should have taken the highway. But then I would not have the knowledge I have now (I would have my money though!).

I do think the coin may have been genuine. I'll never truly know. But the uncertainty was NOT worth the risk of over $2K to me. As long as I receive the refund, I'm ok with it all. Let some other "schlub" take the risk.

I feel much more comfortable in buying 8 Reales coins now and checking their authenticity by tests I perform myself. And I have not even received the binary scope yet either.

I've always weighed and examined Morgan dollars and have collected them for so many years (many decades) that - like swamperbob has stated on 8 Reales - I can look at them and they are like old friends. Fakes jump right out at me. And I know different mints produce different attributes in the same denomination coins made in the same years also. I personally like early "S" mint Morgans in comparison to other mints (sometimes some very nice CC strikes come in higher IMHO, but watch out for many obverse bag marks on CCs). But Philadelphia and especially the New Orleans mint that has such weak breast feathers and similar traits on Liberty's hair are turn offs compared to full stuck examples from other mints (San Fran & CC).

I had never done a single specific gravity test myself before reading about them here on CCF and how important they are in this series of 8 reales especially. Do you not agree that 8 Reales are the most counterfeited coin in the world realeswatcher ?

And XRF analysis. In 50 plus years of collecting (on and off admittedly), I did not realize all that XRF entails. And PCGS doesn't even use it on these?

A couple of people posting on this thread have admitted that they've purposely stayed away from these coins because of these factors, understandably so. What a shame. Hopefully they will read this thread and change their minds. I was thinking about giving them up collecting wise too, but something kept me going and I'm glad I did. I think even you yourself realeswatcher advised me to stay away from the latter 8 Reales that have Dragon's teeth as a counterfeiting aid because they were too "standardized". Maybe that was another member on this forum, not sure, but it was good advice, whomever it came from.

There is just something fascinating about over 100 to over 200 plus year old coins to me and 8 Reales especially. I was generally always a big USA collector until recently and am so glad I expanded my horizons. Looking at the same dead Presidents for so many years finally took it's toll on me.

I am certainly glad swamperbob has his doubts on the 1866 coin and brought them up. I'm sure I could have sold the coin at some point in the future and maybe even made a profit on it (doubtful though, IMHO I paid top dollar for it). And these 1866 year 8 Reales certainly don't come along often. It may well be the only year I never have in my C&R collection. But it's also got me into the other "pre" cap & rays 8 Reales and I can apply the same principles and procedures into checking them for authenticity too.

As far as PCGS and other TPGs. They may be good for the industry as a whole. But I do not like the Sheldon scale for grading. Too many variables. Seen too many coins graded higher than better struck and surfaced same year and mint examples. But that's another thread.

It is an expensive hobby for sure. If TPGs don't improve in some areas, the whole hobby will suffer I would think. Counterfeiting is getting much better. I've got a 1893-S Morgan that would fool the best by visual only, even has ALMOST the right weight. So SG tests and weights should absolutely be added to holders by these companies if they are to remain "reliable". And at the 2016 Orlando FUN show I found it quite amusing that they had many, many PCGS attired, suited employees standing around at PCGS tables accepting and returning coins for people submitting them for same day verification. So many in fact that there were always a least a couple of them just standing there doing nothing, even late in the day. Training them or others to do documentation and these tests that are not rocket science would lend much more credibility to their names.

Again, as long as I receive a refund eventually, I feel like I did the correct thing to protect my interests and - very important in life - learned quite more than I was expecting...always a good thing.
even if you're a schlub.

And as a last note on PCGS: When I now see an 8 Reales for sale in a PCGS holder, I'm more inclined NOT to buy it as I cannot take it out of it's holder and authenticate it myself. With the knowledge of what they don't do in authenticating them now, I'm glad I DON'T have ANY Cap and Ray 8 Reales in PCGS holders! I do have three or four in NGC holders, and that's enough knowing what I do now.

I have a possible silver electrodeposited coin on E-Bay now:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2533893502....m1555.l2649

Its at an elevated price so not to receive bids and will end it as an error listing if it has even one bid. For educational purposes only. This week I am bringing it into my old lab colleague and will run some further XRF and SEM/EDS tests. I knew when Bob Gurney told me of this new form of silver electrodeposition counterfeit for these C&R's it will be a tough form of counterfeit to diagnose or to at least get some diagnostics of its nature on coins in raw and in slabs when viewing at auction previews. I have examined several in my collection and did get XRF surface readings of close to 98-99% Ag. Whatever ... not a form of silver surface enrichment but simply almost a pure silver film being applied to a base metal. I hope to do some microscopic shots of this application which is called SEM Micrographs to understand this 19thC application method after talking to Bob as a post 1840 method which I discuss in detail in Forgotten. Will share data in several weeks. Unfortunately I retired recently so this has halted to some degree examing these C&R CCC with more Material Analysis testing. JPL.

20021sc today we live in a world impacted heavily by TPG coins. One of my favorite quotes or data found was by David Bowers who once in an old Rare Coin Review when with Bowers & Merena indicated through a survey he performed is that the average collector spends only 20 minutes a week studying or looking at his coins. That's it! TPG's are good IMO. They serve as a tool to help buying when a coin is not in hand and I do enjoy many coins I have bought in NGC or PCGS holders. The problem is many counterfeits have made their way into TPG's as Bob has shown. The problem is no one knows everything and once you get into earlier periods of manufacturing or foreign coins - mistakes are made. Scientific analyses helps in this cause. Remember - there is a lot of people walking around in numismatics that believe in this current notion - This coin is not in a TPG holder - there is probably something wrong with it? There is some truth to this notion! There is also truth in that once all the U.S. coins worth certifying were certified how do we keep this TPG business going? Ancients, Foreign and Paper Money. With alot of good comes a little evil sometimes?

JPL

20021sc Thank you - very nice and kind summation.

After you become familiar with your new scope buy a couple cheap counterfeits so that you can see first hand in 3D what they look like. It is eye opening.

Also if you ever get to handle a Sheffield Plate 8R that has worn through the plating into the core metal study the seam. That boundary line between the two metals is distinctive. I can't really put it into words you need to see it and KNOW what it looks like. Then if you ever see one at a show even using a loupe, the characteristics should jump right out at you.

Once you get that feeling - you will know why I believed your TPG coin was slabbed in error and why I believe you clearly made the correct decision.

Thanks again for presenting the issue for discussion I hope people generally have come away with a positive impression. TPGs are good at what the do all the time grade US coins. When they get to earlier (more counterfeited) series they necessarily make more errors. I just wish they were more receptive to correction when it happens.

swamperbob :
Yes, I already have five counterfeits that I acquired years ago thinking they were real at the time. (Five out of about 30 that I bought over 15 years ago out of roughly 30 total, so what, about 17 percent of what I initially thought were real? Maybe that is a rough estimate of actually how many counterfeits were circulating back then?). I looked at them and I even think one may well be a Sheffield Plate (an 1832 Durango). I'm very busy this week, but I will look at them all under the scope soon and let you know what I find. Thank you for all your help in this matter. I do feel relieved that I possibly avoided a catastrophic investment! I would still have the coin had not you, and I believe it was colonialjohn initially, had doubts about it's authenticity. Thank you both very much.

RealPeso :
Yes, I have done business with people like this at times throughout my life - everyone has I would think - and it certainly leaves you with a bad feeling. I unfortunately have been too trusting in my life and continue to be, but I think I really learned from this one.
I agree with you on buying slabs. There's one right now on the bay that I was thinking of bidding on, a rather expensive 1823 Hookneck 8 Reales I like. But it has been graded by NGC and it's XF details (no argument there from me), but has reverse scratches the holder mentions. It does have scratches like someone was doing a silver plate test on it with a nail or sharp object, too bad. And a bad planchet flaw that's not even mentioned on the label. And when I look at the only place I know of to get values for these 8 Reales, it lists it at way less than what the seller has for an opening bid. So I'm passing. Yes, you nailed it on the minting methods and contemporary counterfeits running amuck during those turbulent times for Mexico. I still enjoy the series and will continue to collect them. Funny how some people's passions change over time. I used to collect only US material, now it's pretty much nothing but these 8 Reales!

Thanks again to all. I'll update on what the counterfeits look like. If my scope had picture taking ability it would be so much better, but at least it's a very good tool I have now. Wish I'd had it when I had the 1866!

20021sc I understood what you meant by 17%. That is actually a bit higher than the highest percentage estimate for the Hard Times Period (which is 10%).

The Hard Times in the US seemed to bring out the counterfeiting presses more than at any time before 1890. John Riddell estimated that 10% of circulating specie (coins) were at times counterfeit. This was the impetus for his decision to produce a book showing illustrations of the counterfeit dollars circulating in New Orleans after 1839. His book covers a sample collected from mint receipts between 1839 and 1844.

I believe the depression in the US was likely a bit higher percentage wise in some locations based on the extremely common nature of cast half dollars that remain to this date.

Does your 1832 Durango Sheffield Plate 8 Reales look like either of these:



This is the Riddell # 365 which in my opinion is the easiest of the Riddell coins to locate. The obverse is easily identified by the die chips between the Rays on the left side of the cap (viewer's perspective). Note the position of ray between 10 and Ds. This ray position also identifies a second virtually identical die which lacks the die chips in the Rays. Riddell numbers the version without the chips as # 371. The number 371 is also normally mated with a die on which the eagle's head is crested.



This coin is a mule of the # 365 cap design with the #371 eagle.

There are 4 coins in this sequence:

365 with 365 Chips and no crest
371 with 371 No Chips with crest
365 with 371 Chips with crest
371 with 365 No Chips with no crest

My numbering is based on Riddell who referred to the Cap side as obverse and Eagle as reverse.

In addition to these 4 there are other working dies directly linked to these 2 pairs. I believe the series was hubbed. Riddell attributed the coins to France and he believed the dies were cloned. I tend to support a second theory that the French company that made the original hubs for Durango either sold the die making tools to counterfeiters or may have sold dies to counterfeiters because the makers were never compensated properly.

I favor this theory because many working dies have different punching locations. The position of the ray between the 10 and Ds is the most common. There are other positions as well including in the correct position but those are all VERY scarce.

There is an 1836 Do version using the same die designs and two examples that use rotated D's (both one and two D's).

I view the family as very large. I have no final count on related die versions. I am still working on the family. I need more high grade versions.

I would like to see pictures of your counterfeits.