Strange 1772 Half Real/Cuff Link

[Ahab8]

I found this a few weeks ago and it looked counterfeit to me. But it was just pointed out to me that the assayer and mint mark are upside down. Very interesting indeed. I posted a pic of a legit coin to show the difference

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cross Potent]

looks good to me!

 

[pong12211]

Looks real to me too. Nice find.

 

[Ahab8]

So are they different on different denominations. It's backwards compared to the other Spanish I've found

 

[Bill D. (VA)]

Abe - here's one of my one reales from the same mint and with the same assayers. But mine is different than yours. Maybe they changed the dies yearly, or whenever it was needed, and the one used to make yours had the assayers initials flipped by mistake. But I still say that from the look of your coin that it's got a good chance to be a fake.

 

[Ahab8]

Abe - here's one of my one reales from the same mint and with the same assayers. But mine is different than yours. Maybe they changed the dies yearly, or whenever it was needed, and the one used to make yours had the assayers initials flipped by mistake. But I still say that from the look of your coin that it's got a good chance to be a fake.

View attachment 1106413

View attachment 1106414

Thanks buddy. I was starting to think I was losing my mind. Nobody else seemed to see it. All of my others are the opposite way. And the edges just don't look right to me. Glad you chimed in bud

 

[CRUSADER]

No idea on these but first impression's look right, I will watch & learn.

 

[Iron Patch]

looks good to me!

The text was just as important to add as the pic.

[h=1]Mexico 1772-Mo FM 1/2 real[/h]
from the Mountain Groan Collection






Shown is an 1772MoFM half real, one of a type struck 1772-84. The dates 1772-73 are distinguished from later issues by possessing inverted mintmark and assayers' initials on the reverse. The bust of Charles III was used until 1789 but later issues were of slightly lower fineness and are catalogued as a separate sub-type. Assayer FM is recorded for the years 1772-78. The half real, as one-sixteenth of a dollar, would have traded in the United States for 6½¢. Harris[SUP][1][/SUP] notes that the Mexico City half real is the only mint that can be called abundant for Charles III, the second mint, Potosi, is less than half as common.
Recorded mintage: unknown.

 

[Vino]

Good catch Abe..I see what ur talking about. .. Have no clue about it though?? Lol..

 

[Iron Patch]

BTW... your coin does not appear to be silver, or at least a high grade silver, so it's likely cast. The error which you thought it might be with the last three letters seeming to run the opposite way is plenty possible, but it's almost always the result of an incorrectly engraved die... so those two things did not really jive with your coin initially, but now realizing it's a cast copy of a genuine inverted mintmark half real makes total sense. Got it?

 

[Cross Potent]

The text was just as important to add as the pic.

[h=1]Mexico 1772-Mo FM 1/2 real[/h]
from the Mountain Groan Collection






Shown is an 1772MoFM half real, one of a type struck 1772-84. The dates 1772-73 are distinguished from later issues by possessing inverted mintmark and assayers' initials on the reverse. The bust of Charles III was used until 1789 but later issues were of slightly lower fineness and are catalogued as a separate sub-type. Assayer FM is recorded for the years 1772-78. The half real, as one-sixteenth of a dollar, would have traded in the United States for 6½¢. Harris[SUP][1][/SUP] notes that the Mexico City half real is the only mint that can be called abundant for Charles III, the second mint, Potosi, is less than half as common.
Recorded mintage: unknown.

Ok! lol

 

[Vino]

Ok! lol

Lol..you only know about cut silvers..

 

[Steve in PA]

Here's mine, 2 reale version.

 

[Steve in PA]

The text was just as important to add as the pic.

Mexico 1772-Mo FM 1/2 real


from the Mountain Groan Collection






Shown is an 1772MoFM half real, one of a type struck 1772-84. The dates 1772-73 are distinguished from later issues by possessing inverted mintmark and assayers' initials on the reverse. The bust of Charles III was used until 1789 but later issues were of slightly lower fineness and are catalogued as a separate sub-type. Assayer FM is recorded for the years 1772-78. The half real, as one-sixteenth of a dollar, would have traded in the United States for 6½¢. Harris[SUP][1][/SUP] notes that the Mexico City half real is the only mint that can be called abundant for Charles III, the second mint, Potosi, is less than half as common.
Recorded mintage: unknown.

Wish I getting 6.5 cents for my half reals back in the day. i would be pocketing 4 cents on the dollar!

 

[Mackaydon]

In 1772 and 1773 the 1/2R was minted with the mint mark and assayer's initials (FM) in the 'upside down' position.
Also in both 1772 and 1773 the 1/2R was minted with the mint mark and assayer's initials 'right side up'.
'Right side up', the 1772 dated coin has a FF assayer's initials while the 1773 coin had a FM assayer's initials.
Both were 18 mm and .9027 fine silver.
Don.....

 

[RobRieman]

Doubt that counterfeiters would make a mistake like that. But your coin looks silver plated and copper underneath. Unless it's a picture thing.

That's what I thought too but I know nothing about the coin and was just comparing pictures and other counterfeits. Were they made from different alloys that year?

 

[Ahab8]

Hey thanks for all of the info guys. Though some of it is a bit confusing lol. It's created some interesting feedback that I have learned from. And yes it does look like copper under the silver

 

[Ahab8]

BTW... your coin does not appear to be silver, or at least a high grade silver, so it's likely cast. The error which you thought it might be with the last three letters seeming to run the opposite way is plenty possible, but it's almost always the result of an incorrectly engraved die... so those two things did not really jive with your coin initially, but now realizing it's a cast copy of a genuine inverted mintmark half real makes total sense. Got it?

10-4 brother I got it now.

 

[Ahab8]

Here's mine, 2 reale version.

Thanks for the example bud

 

[johnnyblaze]

Could be a counterfeit Abe..I thought that when i saw your last post..If it is,it's a good one.
I think it is a counterfeit..Only salt water will really make silver look like that..Here is one i found.

~Blaze~