Another Fake cob on Ebay???

[TNBob]

http://cgi.ebay.com/GENUINE-1700-GO...|66:4|65:12|39:1|240:1318|301:0|293:1|294:200

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Bookaroo]

Seller states that it is genuine and offers a lifetime (his, yours or the coin's?) guarantee.

Why do you think this might be a fake?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaneer

 

[utah hunter]

Looks good to me, and an exceptional piece. I would love to have it...

 

[Michigan Badger]

It has the looks of genuine to me. But to know for sure one would need to have it in hand.

 

[TNBob]

First of all the coin does not look right for a 1700 Lima. The edge looks modified and there is a line around it that could be a mold line or the coin has been hammered lightly to modify the edge.

 

[divewrecks]

I don't think it looks quite right either. All of the features of the strike look so rounded. Of course it is possible that it was struck with worn dies or has become that way through underwater erosion (tumbling sand). The rim lip spoken of is also a question. My guess is that it is a cast replica and that is why there is not a cert or other provenance mentioned. If someone is interested they could start by comparing it to 1700 issue in the Florida collection if it is depicted in Alan Craig's book. Before making a bid I would get an opinion from Frank Sedwick Coins. Stan

 

[TNBob]

Stan: I concur with you on this. I think it is a cast replica probably in gold due to the edges. Dan just had a 1700 Lima E in his last auction, I was outbid on it, and it does not match this coin. The most obvious mistake is that the size of the 00 in the date are too small and worn. While many of the fleet coins dont have certificates, it would be nice to have one to prove its providence. The other possibility is that the edges have been mutilated to make it round for jewelry. Bob

 

[utah hunter]

The description says it was previously used in jewelry, which would account for some idiot rounding the edge to make it fit in something. I still lean toward authentic but altered by a dufus and having that look of worn in jewelry.

 

[divewrecks]

Perhaps the camera he is using makes things look a little funky. The angled edge picture that comes last makes the strike and edges look a little better. If I were selling it I would definitely have gone to great effort with my pictures. It would certainly make a big difference on the price realized.

Being from jewelry could lend even more credence to it being a modern reproduction. I know that there have been quite a few standard and custom copies through the years to offer jewelry shoppers the treasure hunter look at closer to bullion pricing. If I was interested in purchasing it I would make final payment negotiations based on a third party (Sedwick) appraisal. At the time I would also pay them to issue a generic (provenance unknown) certificate of authenticity. Stan

 

[cuzcosquirrel]

The only 1700 Lima 8 E I have a picture of does not use this 2 pip die. It is a no pip die with some weakness and doubling. A lot of the potential problems with this coin have already been identified.

It is pretty much impossible to accurately identify the palm tree pillar tops and the lion type because of the weakness. The lions do appear to be late 1690's style, but appear a little big.

I would add that the holes in all the letters and numbers appear too small, and that the P in PLVS VLTRA looks too thick (I located the same P used on a 1699 8 E today.) The crown is also too boldly struck, especially on the bottom. This is similar to the 1700 I have a picture of, but there is a great deal of detail loss, kind of unusual on this one.

If the coin was that boldly struck, there would not have been so much design loss around the edges, and we pretty much know that at this time (1700), Lima struck their gold escudos on pre-weighed planchets that were filed or rolled to an almost uniform flatness. So you are looking at a die that hit straight on, but for some reason was unable to compress the thicker center area and make a flat strike, and was somehow not struck as a double, where the die moved and struck on only one side of the coin planchet, creating a double, or a facet.

If it was that boldly struck, there would be large holes in all the numbers and letters, and more of an overall good finish with a lot of detain from the small engraving, going on out to the outside. And if not, at least it would have ghosted a little cleaner. This one looks like there was never anything there to begin with.

It might have also picked up on the flat background where the punches were stuck to the die, and excess depressions in the die made where the extra steel behind the design or number ended up getting punched onto the smooth surface of die, and was then transferred to the coin face as a small raised area behind the lions and castles.

I did see these when I looked at the larger pictures again, but they appear kind of large and hug the sides of the cross in a way that is unnatural, especially taking into account that the lower left lion appears to have been struck at about a 5 degree from a dead center angle, but the punch outline is almost still parallel to the edge of the cross, and it is a flat continuous line, which I think is kind of different from the lions punched on other 1699-1701 coins, where the ghost outline is curved.

These dies were both punched with harder steel punches, and partially engraved, but the tendency is for minters at Lima to reuse whole dies, or the die punches from year to year until they wore out, or got too badly chipped.

It does appear a small 0 might have been used for the 1700 dates, as the 1700 coin I have a picture of uses a small 0 or o for one of the 0's in the date, perhaps picked up from the 4 or 2 escudos punches and substituted, or made quickly, shaped by hand in the shop from a broken punch tip. The 8 is pretty different from any other 8's I have seen. The legend is a little off on the outside too, in that the letters appear off from their usual position, but I don't think this is uncommon in any of these coins.

This could still be real; but man, it has a lot of unusual wear and some unexplained weirdness to it.