Cookies must be activated for full functionality of this website.
Please follow the instructions on how to enable Cookies in your web browser.


  uru-28 13. Sept. 2019, 12:11

Bestimmung schwierig, hier falsch.
Jesse 284 hat die Jz. 1676.
  Amentia 4. Sept. 2019, 07:49

Reverse die match to a published fake that is supposed to be struck from modern hand cutted dies
IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 16 No.1 1991 Page 18 Fig 9
"Most likely Bulgarian - struck from modern dies - style is modern. Obverse tends to be concave."
  Amentia 4. Sept. 2019, 07:36

Reverse die match to a published fake that is supposed to be struck from modern hand cutted dies
IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 16 No.1 1991 Page 18 Fig 9
"Most likely Bulgarian - struck from modern dies - style is modern. Obverse tends to be concave."
  Amentia 4. Sept. 2019, 07:34

British Museum Galvano sold wrongly as Becker,
Authentic mother in British Museum in London, identical dies, flan shape, centering, wear etc.
  geronymo 1. Sept. 2019, 23:14

Further pedigree: G&M 240, (10.10.2016) 92. Leu 72, (12.5.1998) 164. M&M 68, (15.4.1986) lot 228. Gillet photofile 761 (this coin)
  montgoej 28. Aug. 2019, 05:23

This is not a victoriatus at all but a much later quinarius of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus. For a correctly identified example, see
  Bacon 24. Aug. 2019, 15:29

Ex Varesi 19.04.2017, lot 729
Ex MDC. 01.12.2017, lot 1297
Ex Nomisma 06.11.2018, lot 1708
Ex Inasta. 23.03.2019, lot 1238
To follow: Nomisma. 28.10.2019, lot 391. (continues....?)
  Anaximander 19. Aug. 2019, 17:55

Correction: HGC 2, 1307 (same obv. die).
  meulema 17. Aug. 2019, 14:32

  meulema 17. Aug. 2019, 14:23

ric 181
  meulema 17. Aug. 2019, 14:22

Ric 181
  txxxxw 10. Aug. 2019, 02:51

Pretty sure that is not Tyche but Cybele
  CaptainMyCaptain 10. Aug. 2019, 00:22

Ahh HA, I see it now. It is O/SR to the right as well, only partial and tilted. I dont see a Z however. But, this is very important as RS was also to the right of the coins as well, something typical of Rodas. :)
  CaptainMyCaptain 10. Aug. 2019, 00:09

I am greatly confused by this attribution. The O is over SR (Rodas' first assayers mark, always corrected with an O - an administration error, that was quickly corrected. Much like that of Juan de la Era of the Cartagena mint office, whos first mark was H, though not corrected). I do see what almost appears as an X, to the right below the 8. I can only assume this is either O/Z or O/SR. It is a pitty it is not clearer. But what is more of a pity is that the assayers mark O/SR is so very very rare, and it is not even mentioned here and it is without question the best example of O/SR I have ever seen. :( Sometimes it hurts to go back and look at coins from past auctions I would have dumped buckets on if I had seen the attributions....
But. I have to keep in mind, auctioneers are not Numismatists. Though I know "some" pretend to be.....
Wonderful coin Juan. You are very lucky to have had this piece and clocking in at 27.7 grams? just blown away. Glad it is here for others to see.
  CaptainMyCaptain 7. Aug. 2019, 00:01

Sorry, I meant the M is a side ways X on my 1710. at least that is what it appears to be. could be the strike. But it does look like an X on its side. :)
  CaptainMyCaptain 6. Aug. 2019, 23:59

This is identical to the 1705 L, 1 Escudo I have. The obverse die is literally exactly the same. Wow. Wish I had seen this one years ago haha. Such a hard date to get.....And this is a really nice example of one.
The issues of late J OSB issues have shorter fluers, and different type of crown by 1710 (instead of bars for the brim it has pellets) as well, the 1710 Escudo (at least the one I own) shows the X punched in sideways - the X by the way, was a mistake and never was meant to be on the coinage. Contrary to popular belief the X is not a "gold escudo" thing. But an error that went unchecked. It was corrected in 1713. And in 1732 the same mistake happens on the pillar dollar coinage. The documents were misread once again, only they were able to quickly correct it in 1732, where as it took a new die sinker to finally notice this error in 1712.
So the 1713 OSB-3 Issues show NO X, and the NNS issues that follow so no X either.
Just some info I think people find find interesting. Cool coin!!
Bummed I didn't make it to this auction back on 2012. :/ Ahh well. Hope whoever has it recognized it for what it is. Lucky whoever you are!
  natbaj 5. Aug. 2019, 19:44

Incredible work severus! How even this can be done, recreating lettering so neatly? Whole coins can be done in the same way then!
  dougsmit 5. Aug. 2019, 17:23

The hole on this coin has been repaired:
  Solachon 5. Aug. 2019, 13:36

Unbelievable - I cannot see any traces of the filling on the image, the lettering is neatly recreated. How can these be spotted, when even missed by the seller handling them?
  severus 5. Aug. 2019, 02:11

This coin has a filled hole; see .
  CaptainMyCaptain 2. Aug. 2019, 12:09

This is Q, as in 1613-16 (between 13 & 14) How you got "O" I'll never know....Look at the design....if the O/VIII does't give it away to pre 1629......those large castles of R resused, the reversed Flanders and Tirol. Those Lions that are so prominent thru the 16teens. Yowch......All the Rojas issue I have seen, including sR (even on those weird Plus Ultra half real cobs to the left) when an O is present, it has a dot. The only time it doesn't is on those issues where it is poorly punched and looks like a C, or when it is over the sR monogram of 1649. Vastly different coin designs - and I say that because while they follow the same shield type template. The coins are just as different as if you and I were to draw a cob of the shield design of Potosi......Got to pay attention to the elements. The small details matter! This guessing assayers based on partial testers marks needs to stop. Examine the whole coin....Now someone is stuck with a coin they think a Rojas when it is a very definite Q.
  CaptainMyCaptain 1. Aug. 2019, 01:04

These were struck in Santa Fe de Bogota. Cartagena only struck the Plata Baja (1/2 real). ALL the early coins (Except for the 1621 8 Reales and the Plata Baja) we think are Cartagena are actually Santa Fe. All the gold cobs are Santa Fe as well - as another fun note all those 1622 gold Sf cobs claimed to be from the Atocha are also from the Margarita....
Anyway. We greatly greatly greatly misunderstand this period and what Cartagena actually was. It was NOT a mint, but an office or "satalite mint" if you want to call it that. Spain did not allow mints in Port towns. See Santo Domingo and Sir Francis Drake for example.
As much as I respect H Blanton and his work, it is wrong. As was Proctor in that article they wrote together. Though proctor has since revised and shown the historical documentation on Turrilo and the mint of Santa Fe.
I believe that article came out this year? 2019? or was it last year? Either way, find it and read it. It is the most well researched article I have read on Colombia yet. But, as a collector, my entire collection of "Cartagena" coins of 1622 are ALL Santa Fe de Bogota. Pretty bonkers....
  CaptainMyCaptain 29. July 2019, 01:34

E is Juan de Era. :) But this is not his issue. This is the famous, first gold issue of the Americas, the 1622 Sf, 2 Escudos (which shares the same exact obverse die as the 2 Reales) struck from dies sent from Spain - which is likely why no assayers mark appears on these coins as they would not have known who that assayer was. The strike being a bit doubled, I believe the firm saw the F as an E.
I dream of owning this coin someday...such a hugely important coin. Love it. Bet this was fun to hold!!
  eukratides 25. July 2019, 19:22
  Akumar_sh 24. July 2019, 20:20

wrong attribution.. its Kumarapala coin of Pratihar kingdom