<b>ChipDehart</b> You raise some very interesting questions, perhaps I can help a bit here.
I have been aware since the middle 1960's that counterfeits struck from Do and Go dies matching the genuine mint hubs were known to exist in large numbers. I first read of them in John Riddell's book "Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad" (1845). A good friend of my Uncle owned an original copy of the book.
Since that time, I have located many other examples not shown in Riddell's book of debased counterfeit 8 R's dated from 1832 to 1842 (and all dates in between) that were all created from the genuine Do or Go hub designs. The Do and Go hubs were created in about 1830/1831 and were the first attempts by Mexican branch mints to operate using technologically up to date die making techniques developed in England and France during the first quarter of the 1800's.
Riddell in his book was uncertain about the origin of the coins but does some speculating in the narrative section of his book located between the Dollar and half dollar section.
In that section he notes both mints as instances where apparently perfect copies of Mexican 8Rs were being created which were heavily debased. The mints involved were Durango and Guanajuato. Both of these mint facilities were leased by foreign nationals who also operated mines and refineries. Operating a mint under lease from the government was a logical part of the process of exporting silver for these two entities. The Republic of Mexico could collect their taxes and rental fees as coins as opposed to raw bullion - it was a win win situation, or so it appeared.
The Durango mint was leased to M. Bras de Fer and Jose Antinio Pescador. It was Bras de Fer (Arms of Iron in French) who contracted with die makers in France to supply hubs for his coinage. The legality of using dies made outside of Mexico is a gray area, but Durango did it. The hubs were delivered and used until they were beyond worn out. They were repeatedly recut when the hubs wore down. The belief is that the French contractor had intended to make and supply new hubs as needed to Bras de Fer on an annual basis and that they had developed the tools necessary to do so. When Bras de Fer did not purchase additional hubs for 1832, the maker was left with a monetary loss. What happened after that is speculation but the two most plausable competing theories are that; (1) "Other" interests in France bought the new hubs and created their own debased coinage for use in French colonies like Haiti or (2) That to offset actual losses, the tools and punches for the Durango coinage were sold as scrap to someone who reused the materials to make debased coinage. A third but far less plausible theory (in my opinion) is that the die making firm created the debased counterfeits themselves and passed them onto the world market.
Guanajuato during this same time frame (pre-1842) was leased to an English firm Manning and Marshall who operated many mines under the name Anglo-Mexicana. They were the first to use hubs to create working dies for the 8 Reales series a year before Durango. These hubbed dies at least to my eye look more modern than any of the other Mexican mints including the mint at Mexico City. Debased coinage created using essentially perfect hub matches is known to exist in every date between 1832 and 1842. In this case, the debased coinage produced can often be identified by the dies themselves including such clues as very badly worn fields, missing details, corrosion patches, die corrections and other signs of aging dies being used. One of the best forms of identification are the edges of the coins made with badly miss mated or worn edge dies.
The theory that all of these debased coins resulted from worn dies or hubs, proves to be ultimately unsatisfactory since I also located serious debased examples struck by dies without damage caused by age. I have also read someplace that it was suspected that the hubs themselves may have been "borrowed" although I am not sure how that could happen even at a leased facility.
It is my belief that the best of the competing theories of origin is that some old dies were sold to scrap dealers and found their way to counterfeiters who made debased coins. However, at the same or perhaps at a different time hubs were made or borrowed that allowed a greater production of debased coins.
Personally, I dislike the theory advanced by many dealers and collectors that it was officials at the mint or unscrupulous workers who debased the coinage. This makes little or no sense since Manning and Marshal relied on their reputation for making "full value" coins to sell their silver on world markets. They stood to lose more than even the Mexican government if their coins became known as debased and were avoided in commerce.
So I see two different completely different origins applying to the two families of related counterfeits from Durango and Guanajuato.
To put to rest any questions of when these were made, it is my opinion that both families are Contemporary made during the period BEFORE Riddell's time.
Riddell includes several such coins in his book and in the description of the situation that I noted above.
For Durango
#365 1832 Do RM 310 fine
#370 1834 Do RM 360 fine
#371 1834 Do RM 282 fine
#373 1836 Do RM 377 fine
#374 1837 Do RM 744 fine
#379 1839 Do RM 750 fine
#381 1840 Do RM 650 fine
For Guanajuato
#324 1836 Go PJ 466 fine
#334 1838 Go PJ 457 fine
#335 1838 Go PJ 477 fine
#345 1842 Go PJ 450 fine
However, in addition to those listed by Riddell are others that based on his pictures appear to use punches that match the same hubs. Here are my additions to his list from Riddell's own book.
For Durango:
# 376 1839 Do RM - reversed D
For Guanajuato
# 302 1832 Go MJ 257 fine
# 304 1833 Go MJ 130 fine
# 309 1834 Go PJ 126 fine
# 331 1837 Go PJ 90 fine
# 343 1840 Go PJ 630 fine
In addition to both Riddell sources I have added others that I have discovered while collecting.
Based on the number I have seen and on the numerous dies that exist, this was a major counterfeiting project. Who was capable of doing this in the 1830-1845 time period is of course unknown, however, Manning and Marshall's ties to England include the die sinkers at Birmingham. Such a major effort could easily stem from that area. France was also advanced in minting techniques but there is a lack of a clear connection.
Could it have been done in the US? Perhaps but that was the Hard Times in the US and counterfeiters in the US would more likely have made much cruder looking copies. Mint and die making procedures in the US were not as advanced as either France or the UK.
To put one last composite theory forward regarding Guanajuato. For about a year I have been actively hunting for similar debased counterfeits dated 1830 and 1831. If the counterfeiting effort was based in the UK perhaps actually in the same factory where the original hubs and tools were made, it stands to reason they could have started production of fakes before 1832. That takes me to a second but allied theory.
Why from 1831 to the end of the hubbed series do certain odd marks appear on the genuine 8Rs of Guanajuato? If you look at Dunigan's book as I did early on, I was struck by the comment he makes regarding the star on cap 1835 dated coins.
Quote:
There must have been a reason for this, but so far none has come to light.
I am by training an engineer and an open question (one without an answer) begs to be answered.
Here is my reason. In 1835 the mint saw a need to mark some of the output with a star to identify them as "GOOD". This is similar to Bras de Fer who did the same secret marking thing to dies he used in the 1840's. Coincidence?
But it got me thinking more, how about the 1831 Go that is found with and without two stars after the date? Again Dunigan calls the feature "interesting" but advances no reason as to why they appeared.
Next I noticed that there is an 1832 coin with a 1 punched over in inverted 1. Dunigan indicates that
Quote:
On one die the 1 was first punched in upside down and then corrected.
Here I ran into a problem, Dunigan put a picture of an unfinished hubbed die. That unfinished die includes the first 1 in the date so all coins made from the hub had the first three digits of the date in place. So was the 1 over the inverted 1 and intentional thing meant as a secret mark for 1832?
I also noted other anomalies that exist:
In 1831 there is a small 1 under the 1.
In 1831 some coins have a re-punched 3.
In 1832 the top of the 8 opens up on most not all dies.
In 1832 some dies have a re-punched 3.
In 1833 the straight J is replace by a full J.
In 1833 the final three sometimes matches the first 3
In 1834 there are clashes - one tied to a debased coin.
In 1835 the star on cap appears.
In 1835 the dot on the left side of the cap also appears.
In 1836 the left dot stays but not on the debased issue.
In 1837 the left side dot disappears on some
In 1838 the left dot re-appears on some
In 1838 there is a reappearance of the 1/inverted 1
In 1839 there 1/1 is there at times and the dot is gone.
There are more as well. My review is incomplete and I would appreciate anyone with other variations that would also like to supply density information.
Let this digest a bit before dismissing it as impossible. There are very few collectors like myself who do routine SG/density tests so more than likely there are a substantial number of debased coins in collections AND in slabs that have never been recognized for what they actually are.
Posted 05/05/2019 8:03 pm
