Miro pocas subastas patrias; la internacionalización y su trato diferencial es lo que tiene. Además, los 8 reales prefiero comprarlos en mano, ya que llevo años coleccionándolos y tengo mis «proveedores» 😉
Aún así, Ibercoin me parece honesta (casa de subastas / personal) por lo que junto con algún subastero patrio más que también sigo por su demostrado buen hacer y que aparece en este blog, hace que en alguna ocasión me permita comentar monedas de sus subastas. Por eliminación, de los que no comento es que no me gustan por alguna razón (amenazas, prohibición de pujas…) y no pierdo mi tiempo con ellos. Fácil.
CARLOS III (1759-1788). 8 Reales (Ar. 26,82g/39mm). 1773. México FM. (Cal-2019-1107). BC+.
Acuñación floja con desgaste irregular, gráfila no concluyente, arte raro a la vista, tipos (letras) deslavazados – IND R EX – leones y castillos de aquella manera, busto diluido aunque con sonrisa marcada…
CARLOS IV (1788-1808). 8 Reales. (Ar. 26,35g/39mm). 1797. Lima IJ. (Cal-2019-951). MBC-.
En la descripción no se menciona que haya sido «mermado» o limado el cospel de este 8 reales, por lo que entiendo que el cordoncillo permanece intacto y el descentrado e «irregularidad» podría ser fruto del mal hacer de la ceca limeña…o del falsario de turno, sea de época o contemporáneo; quizá Birmingham, quizá China, quizá…
FERNANDO VII (1808-1833). 8 Reales. (Ar. 26.70g/39mm). 1817. México JJ. (Cal-2019-1332).BC+/MBC-. Pátina negra.
Este duro tiene mala, mala pinta
No sigo porque este análisis no pretende ser exhaustivo y porque sin métodos analíticos mediante sólo puedo especular sin llegar a conclusión alguna. Dejo a vuestro criterio otras monedas de esta u otras subastas para su detallado análisis visual 😉
At some point in early October 2020, an American colleague called me. He asked for my opinion regarding the provenance of the Brutus aureus offered by Roma. I have to admit that I hadn’t looked into it yet. So I did, and I was deeply impressed. A provenance reaching far back into the 19th century – specific names and dates. What could be wrong with such a detailed ownership history?
Apparently, I was naive. US authorities claim that the entire provenance is falsified. Allegedly, money was paid to obtain the necessary documentation. Although the coin dealer charged with this crime has not been sentenced yet and obviously has to be considered innocent until proven guilty, I am personally shocked by these developments. I am afraid that an uninformed public might assume such behaviour to be commonplace in the coin trade. I am afraid that, once again, an entire industry will be met with universal suspicion because of an isolated case. Therefore, it’s important to speak it out: if this actually did happen, it is an exception. Anyone who intentionally falsifies a provenance commits fraud against the customer – be it a coin dealer or a collector. And the large majority of coin dealers neither defraud customers nor deliberately fail to comply with existing regulations.
We all know that there are good reasons why some collectors do not want their name to be given at the sale of their collection. In such a case, an auction house will simply omit the name or invent a pseudonym. The tradition started with the “distinguished gentleman”, who repeatedly appeared with this or similar names on cover pages of British auction catalogues in the 19th century. Be it “Kunstfreund” or “ESR”, there was always a real person behind the collection. The expert of the Manhattan District Attorney claims that “from an old Swiss collection” is coded language in the coin trade for a piece of dubious provenance – I, however, had never heard of this code before. I would expect this piece to actually come from an old Swiss collection…
moneditis real deaocho 