Is it me or is something wrong with this?

[azda 979]

I don't know why, but i think something is wrong with this. The counterstamp for a start looks shite for a coin that is supposed to be graded as UNC. The 9 in date also looks wrong somehow. Anyone else

[azda 979]

Here's one i had

Edited August 19, 2012 by azda

[ski 1]

to me the nine looks okay but have to agree the counterstamp looks poor, i believe the counterstamps are graded different to the host coin so i guess its possible to have a poor counterstamp on a good coin.

are you thinking that the coin has been counterstamped (poorly) to make it something it isnt?

[bagerap 706]

I had thought that only Spanish colonial coins were counterstamped as this one.

[azda 979]

Maybe its a fake counterstamp. Its possible that a counterstamp was used in modern times to stamp a colonial coin, dunno, maybe its just me.

[Peckris 579]

to me the nine looks okay but have to agree the counterstamp looks poor, i believe the counterstamps are graded different to the host coin so i guess its possible to have a poor counterstamp on a good coin.

are you thinking that the coin has been counterstamped (poorly) to make it something it isnt?

Yes, that's absolutely right. There can be a great discrepancy either way between the counterstamp and the host coin, which is why they are graded separately. My understanding is that a good counterstamp trumps a good host?

Maybe its a fake counterstamp. Its possible that a counterstamp was used in modern times to stamp a colonial coin, dunno, maybe its just me.

I think that's entirely possible. The raised bits on the reverse where the counterstamp has pushed the design out, looks kind of 'fresh', as if done comparatively recently and the metal hasn't had time to tone back.

[bagerap 706]

This is the date from a Seville 8R:

Counterstamp from same coin:

Until now I'd not realised that mainland Spanish coins had been stamped.