I still dispute that the date is 1617. Quadra died in 1616. The "retrograde" 6's are in fact, his assayers mark stamp Q, with the date rendered IQIQ for 1616. I have never seen the "7" on this issue. It also makes more sense, as previously mentioned that Q died in 1616. Dates were NOT added randomly. Like the assayers mark, they were placed last just before the dies were put to use. I believe the date was experimental. But most importantly, this makes the first date for Potosi 1616 and not 1616 - if I am in fact correct, which I believe I am having seen this coin.

Needs to be noted this is not Rincon, but Leceta. 1593-95. Rincon coinage is ALL of the Lima style, with no H in hispan. And R is typically right. :)

This is the coin 496 illustrated in Ziegler "Münzen Kilikiens aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen" (1989), and from the so called "Silifke hoard". A undocumented hoard sold to german coin dealers in 1987/1988 and partly reconstructed by Ziegler.

Misattributed. Phanebal never holds right hand like this.

Cartagena 1810s Royalist imitation - Restrepo 108.2

This is actually a bronze with the legend COZANO versus the ROMANO legend reported here, a much rarer type and Rome's first provincial coin. See https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=371771

From the important Serooskerke hoard, discovered 1966. Ex Jacques Schulman 244 lot 232 (1966).

hades, not sarapis

Es gibt doch einen Fund mit dem Typ aus dem Konvent zum Heiligen Geist zu Riga. Es bestand aus 179 Münzen, unter denen 178 gotländisch waren. Darüber hinaus befindet sich in dem Fund ein Pfennig aus Corvey von dem hier behandelten Typ. Siehe Tatjana Berga, Der Münzfund des 13. Jh. aus dem Konvent zum Heiligen Geist, in: Sena Riga 2, Riga 2000, S. 165-172.
Ivar Leimus

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."
http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=/GRpWMzSp8E=

Not only is V-q rare in ANY denomination. This coin is the first 8 Reales i have seen for this assayer arrangement, BUT with V over q, and q over Y!! WOW!

VRTVS RO-MANORVM
RIC 2102

Good catch. Not even the extensive smoothing mentioned in the description.

Altered : scratches and corrosion have been removed on obverse
same coin before altering

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1586398

Altered : scratches and corrosion have been removed on obverse
same coin before altering

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1586398

this coin illustrated as Nr. 63 in R. Stoll "Frauen auf römischen Münzen" (1996).

this coin illustrated as Nr. 33 in R. Stoll "Frauen auf römischen Münzen" (1996).

I've always had a problem with the attribution of this coin. A. mint records for 1655 show no half reales. B. Not one of the elements of the coin match the known examples of 1655 - the lions and castles should be identical to the 1 real - or at least in the same style. But they are not. They are in the style of Jose Sanchez. Which brings me to C.My belief, is this coin is Philip V, F-S. The Castles are identical to Sanchez. The two existing examples need to be studied and the visible elements compared to those of S. These castles are a very common type found on his gold issues, but clearly much earlier. The style is even that of Bogota. I realize, Cartagena was an office of Santa fe, but the coinage was distinct enough following the initial series to tell them apart. I bet money, to the left of that monogram, is an F.....
That being said, this COULD be....José Silvestre de Soto Maldonado.....1677. Granted, this is a wild reach, as no coins for this assayer are known. But, it is possible - though highly unlikely as I do not believe any coins were minted for this assayer - which is why he is omitted from my assayers book. Only a date could confirm that.
If the 1655 Half real does exist. I hope one is found. Sadly, I do not believe this is it. More need to be found, especially with the mint mark visible - if they even had one.

Cast fake, too light weight, identical centering, flan shape + identical scratches like the diagonal one at reverse from lambda to the alpha inside the anchor.
Authentic mother can be seen here
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1178594

Cast fake, too light weight, identical centering, flan shape + identical scratches like the diagonal one at reverse from lambda to the alpha inside the anchor.
Authentic mother can be seen here
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1178594

Bulgarian fake from modern hand cutted dies, die match for sale here as forgery

https://www.etsy.com/de/listing/179026258/schwarzmeer-region-apollonia-pontika?ref=shop_home_active_258

Bulgarian fake from modern hand cutted dies, die match for sale here as forgery

https://www.etsy.com/de/listing/179026258/schwarzmeer-region-apollonia-pontika?ref=shop_home_active_258

Bulgarian fake from modern hand cutted dies, die match for sale here as forgery

https://www.etsy.com/de/listing/179026258/schwarzmeer-region-apollonia-pontika?ref=shop_home_active_258

The obverse is clearly the 1627, P with border of pellets. But the reverse, is not the 1627 border of pellets reverse. This is the reverse type that followed it, and I am sad the date can not verify this one. How great of a coin. It is likely 1628-30. The reverse is definitely later, and after they stopped using the inner borders - which seemed to be a one off for 1627 alone, as was the addition of the assayers mark. The reverse is still very early, and I would not be surprised of this was 1628-30 as it still is using the original lions and castles.
Anyone have a link to a die match for this reverse type with the Original Vellion Rico lions and castles?

I still think this is a contemporary fake. Nothing about it matches the real coins and the V is nearly non existent. The monogram is created from several punches vs one punch, which is what was used for the early monograms. The horizontal bars goes all the way across, the planchet is odd, and typical of indigenous forgeries. Castles, lions etc are all poorly made...
Has any light been shed on this piece? Is it a Colombian native made fake from the period? I would love to know.