| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 672 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
I am still working on my book, admittedly very slowly since my heath has been poor for the last year or so.
I have located and listed all of my collection on an excel spreadsheet.
Some early statistics.
Riddell counterfeits and varieties 1,052
Contemporary Counterfeits of other types 2,476
Numismatic Forgeries 156
Genuine coins 981
First count of Riddell's located 176 out of 292 w/o sub-varieties.
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Hope you are feeling better real soon. Good luck with your book. John1  ( I'm no pro, it's just my humble opinion )
Searched 6.5 +/- Million Cents Since 1971
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2682 Posts |
Wonderful news that you are pushing forward and making substantial progress.
Best wishes for good health and success.
|
|
Moderator
United States
157664 Posts |
Fantastic!  Take care of yourself.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
117 Posts |
Great news! Glad you are making progress, it sounds like quite the undertaking.
Edited by threefifty
07/23/2024 5:05 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
64151 Posts |
Nice to hear both things - the book progress and your health improvement.. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5361 Posts |
Thanks for the kind thoughts.
One stat that I forgot to mention was that I have discovered counterfeits which use Fantasy mint marks - 37 different fantasy mint marks. These were dated primarily in the first Republic era. A total of 31 different years are involved. I own a total of 358 of these fantasy mint issues.
Today I have spent the entire day working just on the 1826 Durango issues. It began with 17 different copies of the Riddell # 350 and 351. In Riddell's book he assigned two numbers to an identical pair of dies. These dies are notable because the upper rays are oblique as opposed to radial. So, I had listed these as simply 17 versions of the same type.
Then I compared the coins little closer and notice a die chip on the side of one of the rays shown in Riddell's book. Then I noted that the second example did not have the small chip. So, I had a die (cap side) with a sub-variety. I decided to see how many of each type. That is when I noted that the rays on the cap were not always in exactly the same place. This means different dies were made using ONE punch set to manufacture the dies.
This resulted in my realization that in 1826 at Durango the correct number of rays is 32 rays unlike 1825 that has numbers that vary both above and below 32. Unlike 1825 the 1826 Durango coins (event the counterfeits have 32 rays.) So, I developed a counting method for the rays which I use as a shorthand form of identification.
The ray closest to the top of the Cap is Number 1. That is usually a long ray. Long rays normally have a shorter ray between each pair. Counting clockwise the 5th ray is located just before the final superscript s of the assayer statement or Gs. The #10 ray fell exactly at the corner of the cap. But not always with the Riddell 350/351 type.
So, to ID a coin in shorthand form the key ray locations must be noted. In this way, I discovered that it is the 23rd ray which has the die chip. But on one coin there is a different chip on the 24th ray.
All 17 coins have 32 rays but there are several slightly different locations where they join the cap.
I remember back when I first started collecting counterfeits someone advised me that there was no need to buy more than one example of each type. I should just concentrate on the best-preserved example of each type. After 65 years of collecting, I am glad I never took that advise. I now am aware that many of the most common of the Riddell varieties were actually made from mass produced dies many of which have identifiable die varieties. Some dies use the same punch collection to make each working die - each die is different. Others use the same punch collection to make multiple hubs that are then used to make the working dies.
As in many other cases, the counterfeiters employed state of the art methods to make their copies. The 1832, 1834 and 1836 Durango counterfeits illustrate this principle.
The project of numbering the rays I now view as indispensable as it is time consuming.
|
|
Moderator
United States
157664 Posts |
Your patience and persistence is impressive. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
I certainly believe at this point, that dwelling only on the Riddell listed dies would be a huge mistake. Riddell # 350/351 proves that.
The two Riddell numbers 350 and 351 were created using the same pair of dies. However, the coins shown in his book are late die state. They have die chips. Riddell did not locate the original version of 350/351. There are coins struck from an identical die pair that lacks two specific die markers which indicate a later state. All of the later style represented by 350/351 have a die chip on the lower side of the 23 Ray. The length of this chip increases - but on the later state die it is always there. One other thing is the second dot after the Do mint mark. The double dot after the mint mark is clear in Riddell's book. The stop started with a partial small lump but on more than one example it is an absolutely round stop placed to the right of the original stop. I am wondering if it was a correction by the die sinker who sank the stop slightly too far to the right and repaired it. Just like the overdate dies the "repairs" sometimes fall out exposing the under number. I believe that happened in this case.
I am still working on the other counterfeits related to the 1826 Do RL. So far, I have located a large number of 1827 Do RL versions of the 350/351. Plus, there is a note in Riddell itself that indicates he knew of an 1838 version which he does not illustrate.
I already have discovered that there are multiple dates of the 1832 Zs OM, the 1832 Do, the 1834 Do, the 1842 Zs and several others.
A book on the topic of Cap and Ray 8R counterfeits that does not link these other clearly related varieties is a waste of time to both write and to read. I mention this because I was asked to join in an effort to do that, but I rejected that idea as being unnecessary.
I am going to work on this until I die. If that happens too soon, I hope someone comes forward to complete the work. But I am not ready to drop dead today so if you might be interested let me know.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1932 Posts |
Your knowledge base on these (and the sheer volume you've actually collected) is unparalleled - and probably always will be. Perhaps more importantly, there are extremely few experts in particular fields, like you are with these, who are as devoted and thorough as you are in your research... AND actually willing to take to time to write such detailed posts on here over the years. Most people don't have the time/energy/devotion... and/or are simply unwilling to do all the research and then provide people the Cliffs Notes version for free. ANYTHING you put out there, even if rough notes, is better than nothing... and I think it would really kickstart the collector market for these, which has been steadily gaining as is. Aside from Riddell, there is so little published on these. The alternative is one day (hopefully in the distant future!), all your work gets thrown in at the back of the auction(s) of your collection, where it then probably goes to a specialist collector who more likely than not will just sit on it. As far as a partner/new torchbearer... a logical choice would be among of the several ebay buyers that I know (I used to watch EVERYTHING in terms of who was bidding on/buying what in all aspects of Spanish Colonial/postcol.) have been your main competitors on ebay over the years. Two user IDs come to mind, CdH and longhorn (sort of coded those a bit to protect the innocent, obviously you know they are). Also, do you have any contacts in Mexico who are heavily into these? That might be a valuable tool in terms of information where some may have originated from, source info about counterfeiting rings, etc. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
I know several of my competitors. It is a small world when it comes to collectors like myself. Only one resides in the US. But when I last checked I have the third largest individual collection of Mexican counterfeits in the world.
Today I completed all of my 1826 Durango coins. There were only twelve left, but I had to take my wife shopping which took up most of the day. I started by tentatively divided them into three primary types (non-Riddells). Nine of the twelve appeared to use the same Cap die with several different eagles. However, when I studied the ray locations closely everyone was slightly different. I didn't expect this because the rays were arranged according to one matrix pattern.
When I reviewed the point of attachment to the Cap all twelve were about identical. The legend began and ended at the same Rays number 25 and 5 in every case. There were 32 rays in every case. The rays alternated long and short - the angles of the long rays were all close to radial. I had actually wasted several hours creating a matrix of end points for each ray and checking all of them individually. When I completed hours later only two coins were actually made from the same die pair.
Now what I am looking for is a thin transparent protractor that I can use to spot deviations from radial positions quickly.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5361 Posts |
I have also started a numbering system that mimics Davignon's expansion of Riddell. I think it will work well and still be simple. The notes will have to include references to redated dies of die pairs that show evidence of hubs being involved. Riddell numbers will be retained as a reference and all Riddell examples will be listed first.
The earliest published work on counterfeit Cap and Ray 8 Reales is Riddell's 1845 "Monograph of the Silver Dollar, Good and Bad." I have numbered all of the Riddell coins using numbers for Cap dies and Letters for Eagle dies. I chose to follow the US system when referring to Obverse and Reverse. The Cap is the Obverse and the Eagle is the Reverse.
Riddell lists no counterfeit types for 1823 except for the Iturbide series which I included in the Portrait book (2014). HoH includes one Numismatic Forgery NF for 1823 and 3 for 1824. These will be listed along with CCC types as a distinctly numbered set for each date and Mint. Assayer differences will be noted for each coin but the assayers will not be grouped.
In 1824 Mexico City produced two types of 8 Reales - the short lived Hookneck type and a facing eagle type. I believe these should be numbered in two groups by type to reduce confusion.
In Riddell's book the list was intermixed as follows:
1824 Mo 187 facing eagle
1824 Mo 188 hookneck eagle
1824 Mo 189 facing
1824 Mo 190 facing
1824 Mo 191 hookneck
1824 Mo 192 hookneck
1824 Mo 193 hookneck
Riddell lists 4 Hooknecks and 3 facing eagle coins. Two of the facing eagles use the same dies and therefore have only two numbers. To define each type I used H for hookneck and F for facing eagle set in between the die number and letter.
1824 Mo 1HA
1824 Mo 2HB All four die pairs are all different.
1824 Mo 3HC
1824 Mo 4HD
1824 Mo 1FA The 187 and 190 use identical dies.
1824 Mo 2FB There are three Riddell numbers but only 2 #s
There is only one published work on Mexican Cap and Ray 8Rs which includes genuine and counterfeit listings "Hooknecks" by Hubbard and O'Harrow (HoH). In the Supplement to the book, they illustrate 8 counterfeit varieties which is an expansion of the three shown in the original book itself. They also have 2 examples of Numismatic Forgeries not numbered. The counterfeit die pairs are designated by letters. A,B,C,D,E,F and G. F and G are a single die pair (according to HoH) which are distinguished by different edge designs.
I do not plan to give a completely different number to coins with different edges. I will cover the edges in the notes accompanying the pictures. I will however use a small letter after a die number for a small variety that otherwise matches and a small number after the letter for an Eagle with a Minor difference. Significant differences will cause a new number. Die fills or worn any details will be ignored whenever possible to avoid adding extra die number for no visible reason. Noted items will go in the verbal description.
After adding the HOH dies to the Riddell's I added my own collection of 8 counterfeit hooknecks and 3 counterfeits with facing eagles. Placing the lists together in order of development it looks like the following (which remains preliminary):
Hookneck Types
1824 Mo R# 188 1HA
1824 Mo R# 191 2HB
1824 Mo R# 192 3HC
1824 M0 R# 193 4HD
1824 Mo HoH A 5HE
1824 Mo HoH B 6HF
1824 Mo HoH C 7HF
1824 Mo HoH D 8HG
1824 Mo HoH E 2HB R# 191
1824 Mo HoH F 9HH HoH believed F & G matched -Caps do not
1824 Mo HoH G 10HH Caps F & G do not but Eagles do
1824 Mo RG 3 6HF
1824 Mo RG 9 4HD match R# 193
1824 Mo RG 12 4HD
1824 Mo RG 13 11HB uses R#191 eagle
1824 Mo RG 14 6HF matches HoH B eagle Certified by NGC
1824 Mo RG 15 5HE matches HoH A higher grade
1824 Mo RG 21 2HB Riddell # 191 but a cast made from dies.
1824 Mo RG 22 12HI A second R# 191 style die pair (but DIFF)
Facing Eagle Types
1824 Mo R# 187 1FA
1824 Mo R# 189 2FB
1824 Mo R# 190 1FA
1824 Mo RG 20 2aFB Close to matching 2FB - 3 rays spaced
1824 Mo RG 23 3FC Cap & Eagle similar to 2FB
1824 Mo RG 24 1FA Dies both match 187 and 190
I wish to accompany each variety with Obverse, Reverse and edge photographs.
As I noted I did uncover a mistake in HoH which indicates coins F and G are identical. The Cap dies are actually significantly different. More than what I would call a minor re-cut. It has to do with the spacing and angles of the rays.
I started this project by numbering all of riddell's coins to indicate a ray count. I start with the high point of the cap and number the Long Ray nearset the top of the Cap number 1. I count clockwise and number the die nearest the Gs. Usually that is ray 5 but sometimes 6 or 7. The right corner of the cap I number the corner ray (or pair if neither is on the corner (usually 9, 10 or 11). I number the long lower ray 2 away from the left corner (usually 15 and often placed at or near center of the cap opening.) The next ray numbered is the left corner or pair bracketing the corner. Then the long ray after the star in front of the 8R. This is usually 25 seldom different. The total ray count is 32 which is the matrix standard and that is rarely a different number.
This numbering applies to HoH and RG listed coins as well and it quickly allows me to spot tiny spacing differences in rays or angles. The case in the list of the 2aFB coin 3 of the small rays 19, 20 and 21 viewed together show that ray 20 is slightly different on the two examples. One ray at a different angle but it means a difference in the die. This is how I spotted the HoH revision also in the rays.
So far from a simple straight forward set of die pairs, there is die sharing that occurs and some distinctive die styles that are shared on different die pairs.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1932 Posts |
A few quick random thoughts:
-- dash between Obv and Rev?
-- Are you going to use the "f" for facing prefix on later years as well or just 1824 and 1825Go?
-- Somewhat depending on the answer to that, I might consider making the "H" and "F" lowercase to differentiate that prefix and minimize it vs. the main point, which is what letter die it is
**EDIT - LOL, I realize as an engineer, putting a lowercase letter before an uppercase might make the numbering look maddeningly like scientific measurements!!
-- In regards to reverses, what will you do for reverse dies found paired with several different date obverses? Duplicate number linked to the specific year and then just note it matches such-and-such?
-- You should repeat Iturbides in this new work as it is specifically Mexican-focused.
-- For this 1824 hybrid-year example, hookneck types vs. standard eagle, it's a little awkward to denote only the reverses with a qualifying H or F and not the Cap Rays side. So you have:
Hookneck:
1824 Mo 1-HA
Normal Eagle:
1824 Mo 1-FA
Since you differentiate the Hookneck style reverse, not differentiating the obverses of those coins sort of implies they have the same type obverse and it's the same Obv Die #1.
Edited by realeswatcher
07/31/2024 4:46 pm
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 672 |
|
Posted 07/23/2024 05:55 am
