Mexico 1896 is this real.

It's about 39mm dia. not for sure battery die.

 I know it's been cleaned, I have had for some time; can't find in catalog, and something just does not look right.
  Thank you  yours daryl

Hi Daryl,
 Here is the Numista page
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7394.html
It looks right to me but you need to check the size and weight.

Thank you polisciprof - somehow I got in my head that Mexico only made peso after 1863.

It looks to me as though the date of your coin, as SCWC would list it, is: 1896Cn AM.  Of which, I can not find a listing for that date in any of the 13 mints listed in the catalog.  Therefore, I'd say there are two possibilities. 1) you have an unlisted variation  or  2) it's counterfeit

Verweis : derf...2) it's counterfeit

Unlikely a modern one due to the cud.

There were no reales in Mexico at this point, but this coin isn't 'fake' per se. It's a modified date coin.

This coin is listed in 2013 North American Coins & Prices  22ND EDITION
KM# 377.3, 8 REALES, 27.0700 g., 0.9030 Silver 0.7859 oz. ASW
Mint: Culiacan. Note: Mint mark C, Cn.
Date: 1896 AM
Mintage: 2,134,000

Nice coin! how did you get it?

To me this coin does not look so good, but I am absolutely, irrevocably not an expert.

The "cud" below "20G" looks out of place, and it seems as if it's a remnant of an electroplating apparatus to coat a cheap fake with silver (to electroplate a fake coin, it must have an electrical connection to a circuit, so there is usually a remnant of this wire or connection on a plated fake). As for the other diagnostics, I don't know nearly enough about the quality of the design or typical tip-offs to comment, but this strange off-colour area is suspicious.

If it has the right 9027 Silver on it, at least it would have a decent bullion value even if it is a counterfeit.

I have a 1896 CnAM coin in my collection. And several other CnAM years. They are listed only as 1896 AM, because the Cn was sometimes replaced by a Ci or C, so the Numista coin sheet is accurate, you just have to add yours in the comments like I did to know it is a CnAM.

Yours might be an error or counterfeit because on the "10" widely open zero and the broken die mark bellow the other zero.

So, in summary, you either have a counterfeit made of silver that would still be valuable, even for collectors that aren't willing to pay full price for the real thing (as long as you specify that it isn't the real deal), a fake made of another alloy, or a rare mint error. But above all that, the coin surface looks like it was scrubbed with a metal brush.

Later I'll look at my 1896 CnAM coin to see if there are any oddities similar to yours, as I am sure all my 8 Federation Reales are legit as I inherited them from my Great Grandfather, and he got them straight from banks back then when the 8R was being replaced by the recently created Peso (He did the opposite that most, he bought back the 8Rs with his newer Pesos, because he knew they would eventually be worth even more).

Verweis : SmartOneKgThere were no reales in Mexico at this point, but this coin isn't 'fake' per se. It's a modified date coin.

There were Federation Reales. Minted until 1897. That same year the transition was made, the same coin design and weight was turned into the Peso. There was already a Peso since 1863, the "Balance" Peso. But the real transformation took place until 1898 when the "8R" in the coins was replaced by "UN PESO", same weight, same silver. And the "8R" were finally demonetized in 1921 after the Revolution war ended and there were newer Peso coins, smaller and with less silver, so the older 27 gram coins had to be removed to keep the "Peso" (weight) logical, because a 27gr coin does not have the same "Weight" as a 16 gram newer Peso.

I know this question is 10 years old but came across it when researching mine.  Upon further inspection, I found that mine, which I also thought said 1896, actually says 1826 as the curl at the top of “2” has curled in on itself and the line at the bottom of the “2” is very faint.  Your coin probably is real if it weighs right but was simply missdated like mine, which is why there is confusion as to the fact there were no two reales made by that point in history.  

Hello and welcome to Numista!

The OP's coin is 8 Reales not 2.  Here are an 1826 and an 1896. I don't see how the curl at the top could be mistaken for 2.

 

         

Oh, I must have misread.  Well the one I have has a lot of wear around the rim so the bottom one third of the 2 is barely visible at all.  Just seeing the top two thirds of the 2 it does look like a 9 given that the curl at the top is almost connected to the stem of the 2.