Cob Found - Need ID Please

Narthoniel · Jul 1, 2011

Hello,

I am at a loss on this cob and hope someone can help. If you need more info or better photos please ask and I will see what I can do.

It weighs in at a whopping 0.9 grams.

Thank you,
Anthony

divewrecks · Jul 1, 2011

Looks to be from the Mexico mint from the cross. Probably a worn 1/2 reale. Did you make the find?

Stan

Narthoniel · Jul 1, 2011

Yes, I found the coin on land in Virginia. I figured it was a half reale, just hoping there is enough detail to narrow down the date range.
Anthony

Narthoniel · Jul 2, 2011

Been looking around online a lot for reference photos. Between that and some very gentle cleaning, i think I can see some detail on the back. Looks like the little X on the coin is part of the shield seen on many mexico mint coins. Based on the size of the details, I am starting to wonder if this was a 1 reale orrigionally that was badly butchered through it's circulated life.

foreverRich · Jul 2, 2011

Congratulations on the find. You know me, I haven't a clue about it's age, but I like it. At least the horseshoe is still working. :icon_thumright:

divewrecks · Jul 3, 2011

Narthoniel, I'm still pretty sure it is 1/2 reales and what you are seeing are features of the king's monogram on the obverse side rather than a shield.

Stan

Narthoniel · Jul 3, 2011

Divewrecks,

Thanks to your input, I did some digging and i am pretty sure I found a copy to my coin.

If this is indeed a match, what would the date range for this piece be?

Thank you,
Anthony

realeswatcher · Jul 4, 2011

Narthoniel, good job getting your bearings on the monogram alignment and finding its match. A good rule of thumb on Mexican half-reales... when you know it's a 1/2R, but what should be the monogram looks like an indecipherable mish-mosh, it's probably Charles II's monogram (depicted in full in the diagram you posted). In addition to the monogram being visually complicated, the strikes around this time basically represent the low-point of Mexican cob quality (on all of the denominations up to/including the 8R). These factors often combined to produce the type of piece you dug up...

Charles II ruled 1665-1700, and the known dates with the Mexico Charles II monogram range from 1668-97. Believe or not, they WERE all actually dated... it would appear NW of the monogram, just outside the circle which encases it.

divewrecks · Jul 4, 2011

Great job finding the monogram match Northanial! I was hoping that RW would chime in, as he is the resident expert.

You are lucky to be able to place the coin within a 30 year date range. Many times this can be very difficult with Spanish cobs.

Congratulations on the find and the successful research.

Stan

Mackaydon · Jul 4, 2011

The Charles II 1/2 real can also be 'date ranged' by the assayer's mark, when shown. The "G" assayer worked between the years 1668 and 1674; the "L" assayer worked between the years 1677 and 1697; none were minted in the intervening years ('75, and '76) nor in several years after 1677.

Narthoniel · Jul 4, 2011

Macky, Divewatcher, Rw,

Thank you for the confirmation and for the extra information. I have gained a great deal of knowledge about these cobs from this find, and I am grateful for that. While I will always wish the details were better, I am glad to have it in the condition it is in since I am able to narrow it down.

Thanks again,
Anthony

realeswatcher · Jul 4, 2011

Mackaydon said:
The Charles II 1/2 real can also be 'date ranged' by the assayer's mark, when shown. The "G" assayer worked between the years 1668 and 1674; the "L" assayer worked between the years 1677 and 1697; none were minted in the intervening years ('75, and '76) nor in several years after 1677.

That "when shown" is the problem. With the Charles II 1/2 real (AND 1R, 2R, etc. - all dated Charles II pieces go for very good money partially for this reason), the assayer often isn't even close to being on the planchet... as is the case on this piece.

As Mackaydon mentioned, there are (as shown in the standard Krause catalog) some indicated gaps in the mintage (several years apparently skipped here and there). However, b/c of the poor quality of these, there isn't complete certainty about which dates actually did (or rather did not) appear on coins. For example, the Krause "Spain, etc." catalog shows 1690, then 1694 next... no 91, 92, or 93. Despite this, a piece with enough visible date to be conclusively 1692 popped up in a major auction not long ago... It seems that perfect mint records are not available to us to confirm exactly what was made and with what dates, and with such poor strikes on so many known pieces, some "unknown" dates still continue to surface with new discoveries.