Regarding the cob I recently found .....

[Bill D. (VA)]

Some of you had asked for a weight, and I just purchased a nice set of scales that I was wanting anyway. Turns out the cob weighed in at 3.22 grams. Not sure if that changes the ID at all, but please let me know if you think it does. Thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Diver_Down]

The weight would indicate a 1 reale denomination (3.3 grams).

 

[Mackaydon]

If the coin found at this post http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/spanish-cobs/388940-cob-recovered-today.html weighs 3.22 grams, then the original coin may have been a 4R if, restate: IF, what we see is only 1/4th the original coin.
Don........

 

[Bill D. (VA)]

If the coin found at this post http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/spanish-cobs/388940-cob-recovered-today.html weighs 3.22 grams, then the original coin may have been a 4R if, restate: IF, what we see is only 1/4th the original coin.
Don........

Thanks Don. Yes, you are referring to the correct post. But I guess we'll never be able to determine if this was a piece of a larger 4R coin or a near complete 1R unless there's something significant about the markings that would ID it as one or the other.

 

[Diver_Down]

Thanks Don. Yes, you are referring to the correct post. But I guess we'll never be able to determine if this was a piece of a larger 4R coin or a near complete 1R unless there's something significant about the markings that would ID it as one or the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Don, but the theory that this is a cut piece is due to the partial shield? My theory is that it is a 1R evidenced by the full strike/well-centered cross. The shield die is out of proportion for a 1R, but seeing as that the time period is one of transition, I suspect that a larger denomination shield die was used with the appropriate 1R cross die. The mint workers tended to use the dies until they were inadequate and they didn't waste anything.

I have a Potosi piece that was minted years after the last known royal was produced from Potosi. It was minted with royal-like attributes. It has a 30 year pedigree from major auction houses with this attribution. The nearest explanation is that the mint workers were just using existing dies instead of creating new ones. This was in the twilight of the production of cobs at Potosi.

 

[Mackaydon]

Diver_Down,
Could just the opposite also be true. It's a cob of higher denomination than a 1R but the 1R 'cross' die was used on this higher denomination coin?
Smarter minds than mine can make definitive statements, I just offer my personal opinion--without authority. Your theory is quite possible, yes.
Don....

 

[Diver_Down]

Diver_Down,
Could just the opposite also be true. It's a cob of higher denomination than a 1R but the 1R 'cross' die was used on this higher denomination coin?
Smarter minds than mine can make definitive statements, I just offer my personal opinion--without authority. Your theory is quite possible, yes.
Don....

As is your theory. The out-of-proportion shield is my only question with Bill's piece.

 

[GatorBoy]

They're very rare but I have seen examples of escuto dyes of higher denomination used on smaller silver cobs as well.

 

[Mackaydon]

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill........." It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."
Don....

 

[GatorBoy]

Either of the possibilities mentioned could be true but I would lean towards a 1 reale

 

[GatorBoy]

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill........." It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."
Don....

Well said

 

[GatorBoy]

 

[realeswatcher]

Catching up on here, actually saw the thread looking at the "Finds" forum... we mean this piece, yes?:
www.treasurenet.com/forums/today-s-finds/388931-nice-spanish-cob-recovered-today.html

Mexico mint, 173_ date (last digit uncertain), 1 Real denomination. You can tell it's 1R just from looking at the size (unless Bill has huge hands :-> ), but the weight of course confirms it. Absolutely not cut down from a larger denomination... it's 1R as made, typical in strike/shape/proportion.

It is a very solid piece detail-wise, good imprinting of detail... Note, though, that this is rather typical for the late 1720s-early 1730s Mexican output. The planchets were usually fairly level in these years, allowing for good strikes and a near fully detailed planchet surface (no big unstruck areas). For this period, it is fairly common for much of the shield to show with perhaps part/most of the date, or at least mm/assayer, also visible. Additionally, there seem to be a decent quantity of pieces produced in these years as well (all denominations).

Looking more closely... it's definitely "173_"... can only be 1730, 31, 32 (Krause shows 32 as the last cob 1R, but let's consider 1733 as a possibility just in case). The assayer, which is partially visible, can be R, G, or F if 1730, and only F for 1731, 32, 33. You have to something to consider with that visible left side of the 4th digit and its positioning relative to the 3rd digit "3"... but more convincing is what can be seen of the assayer. Fairly confident you have a 1730G...

Keep in mind, the pieces below both have clear/bold dates (though yours obviously has better shield presentation)... the last one is a 2R shown for comparison:
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 1 real, 1730G.
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 1 real, 1730G/R, rare.
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 1 real, 1730, assayer uncertain.
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 2 reales, 1730G/R, rare.

 

[Bill D. (VA)]

Catching up on here, actually saw the thread looking at the "Finds" forum... we mean this piece, yes?:
www.treasurenet.com/forums/today-s-finds/388931-nice-spanish-cob-recovered-today.html

Mexico mint, 173_ date (last digit uncertain), 1 Real denomination. You can tell it's 1R just from looking at the size (unless Bill has huge hands :-> ), but the weight of course confirms it. Absolutely not cut down from a larger denomination... it's 1R as made, typical in strike/shape/proportion.

It is a very solid piece detail-wise, good imprinting of detail... Note, though, that this is rather typical for the late 1720s-early 1730s Mexican output. The planchets were usually fairly level in these years, allowing for good strikes and a near fully detailed planchet surface (no big unstruck areas). For this period, it is fairly common for much of the shield to show with perhaps part/most of the date, or at least mm/assayer, also visible. Additionally, there seem to be a decent quantity of pieces produced in these years as well (all denominations).

Looking more closely... it's definitely "173_"... can only be 1730, 31, 32 (Krause shows 32 as the last cob 1R, but let's consider 1733 as a possibility just in case). The assayer, which is partially visible, can be R, G, or F if 1730, and only F for 1731, 32, 33. You have to something to consider with that visible left side of the 4th digit and its positioning relative to the 3rd digit "3"... but more convincing is what can be seen of the assayer. Fairly confident you have a 1730G...

Keep in mind, the pieces below both have clear/bold dates (though yours obviously has better shield presentation)... the last one is a 2R shown for comparison:
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 1 real, 1730G.
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 1 real, 1730G/R, rare.
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 1 real, 1730, assayer uncertain.
Mexico City, Mexico, cob 2 reales, 1730G/R, rare.

For some reason I'm just seeing your very detailed and informative reply. Thanks for taking the time to put together such a nice write-up. I'm going with 1730-G as you confidently suggested.