Someone altered the date here. The coin design of this 4 Reales is 1716 onwards. Note the pillars floral decor. The large cross, lions and castles. What a Shame. It is clearly an assayer M issue, as the left leg of the M is still very visible in the upper right, and the center of the M lower left was retooled to look like a V. The date is horrible as looks nothing like the correct 93, and is clearly not struck / embossed but tooled from likely and empty field, or from a 1718, or 1723 issue 4 Reales that had a faint date.
Bummer....
Leave them as is! Adding a fake date, makes the coin loose its value! I see this often, and it really is a shame.
errataprobi
21. July 2018, 18:15
One may argue where this belongs in RIC (unlisted variant of RIC 645, in my opinion) but it is a coin of Siscia, Alföldi 18,8 (Table VII).
This coin I believe is 1729, given that the assayer is "N", and not "M" who was assayer in 1725. Also, wouldn't the 1725 read LUIS I vs Philip V? Records state that to be the case. 1725 is the only year we see LUIS I from Lima. I have never seen a coin reading Philip V for that year.
Anyway know if there are in fact 1725 issues of Philip V?
joha2000
13. July 2018, 20:46
This coin illustrated in RPC online.
Ex Gorny & Mosch 220, 11/03/2014, lot 1506.
tbardin
10. July 2018, 16:59
Probably a (very good) bimetallic fake. The copied reverse die can be distinguished in the lettering. All the original observe dies of this type have a gorgoneion, or part of it. Usually, modern fake medallions are monometallic ones. Also lighthweight for a full-preserved piece.
IdesOfMarch
6. July 2018, 17:59
There is considerable re-engraving on this coin. Just to name a few: (1) Domitian's hair on the obverse has detail that doesn't exist on the original; (2) Domitian's ear on obverse has a line that isn't in the original; (3) Emperor's torso on reverse has a "six-pack" that is not on original; (4) Emperor's dress/skirt on reverse has vertical lines that are greatly enhanced (deepened) vs. original.
As a serious collector, I would not consider a coin that exhibits this amount of tooling.
errataprobi
5. July 2018, 23:13
RIC 896, Cyzicus, p. 116. Absence of SIS in exergue, and presence of crossbeams in the chair, as well as stylistic features of the portrait firmly establish this as a coin of Cyzicus.
errataprobi
5. July 2018, 21:20
RIC 594, as the titulature is IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, not IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG = RIC 593. Page 80.
errataprobi
5. July 2018, 21:09
RIC 594, as the titulature is IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, not IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG = RIC 593. Page 80.
coinscollector
5. July 2018, 00:40
99% of elements are same. Some of "recutting tooling" might have been under old patina. After a close examination of both photos, THERE IS NO TOOLING. However there is smoothing only on reverse between 10 and 11 o'clock near emperor's staff. Smoothing is acceptable in numismatic. Other than that, you can see the same holes, cracks everywhere. Repatination is very common with bronze coins and most of the times would protect better the coin. If you like your coins raw don't clean them , simple as that. They would look dull full with dirt, but who cares.. it's your property anyway. Labeling "Riverine patina" that is my problem with this coin. For a rare coin, dealer must have done a research and should have offered more info about patina. I don't have a problem buying a coin repatinated, in this case they did a great job. I have a problem when this info is withheld from buyers.
Bummer....
Leave them as is! Adding a fake date, makes the coin loose its value! I see this often, and it really is a shame.
http://www.coinsweekly.com/en/News/Rare-ancient-coins-stolen-from-FedEx-Truck/4?&id=5499
The coin is clearly recutted !
Anyway know if there are in fact 1725 issues of Philip V?
Ex Gorny & Mosch 220, 11/03/2014, lot 1506.
As a serious collector, I would not consider a coin that exhibits this amount of tooling.