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.
I received one, and like to get some information about it.
thanks
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.