Sancho Garcés I era Rey de Navarra en el mismo tiempo que Fortún Garcés era Rey de Pamplona. Tras la conquista de Pamplona por parte de Sancho Garcés I en el año de 905, fue el primer Rey en intitularse "Rey de pamploneses y navarros". Antes del 905 Pamplona y Navarra eran comarcas diferentes.

fake, no doubt, but struck or cast?
http://www.imperio-numismatico.com/t34113p25-muestrario-de-replicas-de-remoneda

Assayers Name is: Francisco de Yllaña.
Discovered by Jorge Proctor through historical documents. The name of this assayer is now, 100% confirmed and is, without doubt, Francisco de Yllaña as monogramed "YA" 1732-1733. RARE!

Assayers Name is: Francisco de Yllaña.
Discovered by Jorge Proctor through historical documents. The name of this assayer is now, 100% confirmed and is, without doubt, Francisco de Yllaña as monogramed "YA" 1732-1733. RARE!

Assayers Name is: Francisco de Yllaña.
Discovered by Jorge Proctor through historical documents. The name of this assayer is now, 100% confirmed and is, without doubt, Francisco de Yllaña as monogramed "YA" 1732-1733. RARE!

Assayers Name is: Francisco de Yllaña.
Discovered by Jorge Proctor through historical documents. The name of this assayer is now, 100% confirmed and is, without doubt, Francisco de Yllaña as monogramed "YA" 1732-1733. RARE!

Assayers Name is: Francisco de Yllaña.
Discovered by Jorge Proctor through historical documents. The name of this assayer is now, 100% confirmed and is, without doubt, Francisco de Yllaña as monogramed "YA" 1732-1733. RARE!

Thank you for the post. Informative, as usual.

I am sure reputable auction houses would never purposefully sell fakes. The reputational damage would be too high. However, the expertise of different auction houses does vary substantially. Attribution errors are common, at least in areas of my collecting interest. Although coins of disputable authenticity occasionally occur even with top auctioneers, their proportion seems to be very small. Moreover, good sellers are receptive to comments on fake coins in their listings and withdraw them before sale.

I have never come across such a situation, but would a seller inform the buyer if they later found out they sold a fake? Does anyone have such experience?

Counterfeit. Fake. Possibly of Native origin of the period. Remains unknown. However, it SHOULD be noted that this coin is fake. Simply compare to known examples.
Lets start.
NO DATE OF "QE".
The die elements, the punches used to create the dies that struck this particular coin, Match NO known design elements. Nor would they. they are poorly made.
They are incorrect in their design. Again, NO date exists of "QE". The border dots are to large, completely wrong and placed sloppy with no underlying line from the compass to map out the placement of the design ( the die sinker under Pedro de Villar was at the top of his craft for this period 1680-1697 (79 does not really count as it was assayer C coinage over struck with V) The monogram for the assayer, "VR" Pedro de Villar does not appear as V one side and VR the other on coins dated this late. Only in 1684 did this occur on some coinage during the transition from V to VR.
Note auction # 3562 - Subasta 86 from Martí Hervera & Soler y Llach here on this website.
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2443701
The motto lettering is wrong, and the lions and castles are completely incorrect. 1 Reales in this period, under VR feature a distinct style castle, that was commonly used and in later years ( 1693 included) shows a chipped missing left foot due to the master punch breaking. The same punch on both the 1 and 2 Reales. The lions are far more intricate and small.
Example of authentic 1 Real, 1693 here https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=424565
The cross lines should match the pillar lines, as they were the exact same punch. I I for pillars, then crossed to create the base of the cross +.
I could go on.

I have great respect for Juan and Cayon Subastas. However, with many coins coming in for auctions, some are overlooked and identified incorrectly. In this case. This coin, was one of such.

It should be noted here, so that any collector that may come across it for purchase, including consignments to other auction firms, that wish to reference the lot # 1287 from this 2007 auction my see this note here.

I have 30 years experience collecting Spanish Colonial cobs and specialize in die study. I know a fake when I see one as I have spent more hours studying die elements and the practice than perhaps anyone else. I state this not for ego. But to lend my experience for safer buying.
Final note. The date does not appear as QE, it is, literally, QE.

Esemplare Siculo - Punico . Impropobabile attribuzione alla zecca di Palermo

Non ritengo che la moneta possa essere attribuita alla zecca di Palermo . Trattasi di tipico conio siculo punico , per quanto di stile particolarmente fine

1732 "YA" not "M". Monogramed YA bottom left reverse, and right of cross obverse.
RARE!! Undersold.

qlvs vltra variety motto. Q instead of P.

Based on the bust style, the date can be narrowed to 1815-17.

As noted in the Cayon auction entry, this piece’s date has been altered. The bust design seen is from 1817-18.

The date on this auction record is in error. This bust type was not in use until 1817-18.

Probably a forgery struck from modern dies. See:

Molinari, Nicholas; Sisci, Nicola (2016). Potamikon: Sinews of Acheloios. A Comprehensive Catalog of the Bronze Coinage of the Man-Faced Bull, with Essays on Origin and Identity. Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 122.

Agyrion, not Abakainon.

Probably a forgery struck from modern dies. See :

Molinari, Nicholas; Sisci, Nicola (2016). Potamikon: Sinews of Acheloios. A Comprehensive Catalog of the Bronze Coinage of the Man-Faced Bull, with Essays on Origin and Identity. Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 122.

Probably a forgery struck from modern dies, the obverse of which was later tooled. See :

Molinari, Nicholas; Sisci, Nicola (2016). Potamikon: Sinews of Acheloios. A Comprehensive Catalog of the Bronze Coinage of the Man-Faced Bull, with Essays on Origin and Identity. Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 122 for discussion.

Probably from Thyrreion, Akarnania, and not a Sicilian issue.

From Abakainon, not Alontion. The obverse is either slightly tooled (you can see the remnants of B below L) or just weird corrosion that gives the impression of Greek lambda.

Badly tooled.

Tooled obverse.

Странно, что в описании не указано, что монета реставрирована.