Click the "<<" link next to the Lot Number above; those take you backward/forward within that particular auction.

1620. Without a doubt. Oddly enough, this variety has a number of interesting tells, so even without a date, it is easy to attribute to the date. Also the obverse and reverse are always the same. Pretty fun one to study. :)

want to note this is a 1629/8 "D", Diego de Godoy. Philip IV.

om-F not P. Philip III (Ordinal is actually visible as is the assayers mark). Clearly 1613 or later based on die elements. I would peg this to 1613 or 14. Or 14/3. Just my opinion. But I am noting the elements here for the type. Round dots vs long dots. The fact the lion in the small shield is still present vs two birds etc.
Shame that final digit is lost. Great coin.
Thoughts?

The coin shown here is a clear omD 1619. I do see what could be an 8 under the 9 as well. Beautiful specimen. Shame I was not aware of it.

Would love to see the so called 1629 you believe is an F. Can you drop the link in comments so I can directly visit the lot? Would appreciate it. Thanks.

1196 - 1218 AD

1696 or 98. Carlos II, Mo L.
NO! "Clear MX-O" mint mark left, its a clear oM-L.
Note HAPSBURG Shield. Note the "7" is not a seven, but part of the crown. Last digit is 6 or 8. Would guess 8 as the cross does not appear to be Jeweled, though it is of that variety.

This coin has extensive filing on the edge, attempting to obscure cast marks. What I thought was slight pitting at 3 o'clock on the reverse are probably casting bubbles. CNG have acknowledged this as a cast fake and removed it from Auction 406's 'Prices Realized'.

Falsches Bild oder falsche Beschreibung zur Münze.

This is actually Crawford 500/3(listed as 500/5 above). 500/3 is the bare-headed version, 500/5 the veiled one

This is actually Crawford 500/3(listed as 500/5 above). 500/3 is the bare-headed version, 500/5 the veiled one

This is actually Crawford 500/3(listed as 500/5 above). 500/3 is the bare-headed version, 500/5 the veiled one

This is Crawford 500/5 as opposed to 500/3. The 500/3 variety has a bare-headed Libertas whereas this one, 500/5, has a veil.

This is actually a Crawford 107/1 "C" series denarius from Etruria, rather than crescent series

FAKE! Same fake I have seen elsewhere with an "O" under the "8" and it is also the wrong assayer! The assayer should be "H"! BEware of this fake as it is still out there appearing in other auctions. It is a horrible fake and looks NOTHING like a 1698 should!

This is a known modern forgery of wrong style.

Actually, it serves a purpose. The listing notes "Withdrawn", which should tip off any intelligent buyer/collector that something may be strange about the piece... and maybe that leads the person to do further research.

Falsa, fake, es un clon muy conocido. y creo que la misma casa de subasta la retiró, no debería aparecer en esta web pues genera confusión. como otras que he denunciado y que no han quitado todavía.

This coin is from Antiochia in Pisidia, not Antiochia ad Maeandrum.

Ferdinand VI. Ordnial visible at 7 oclock, let of date under cross.
Final year of Philip and First for Ferdinand. Tricky with these issues, but the VI is always in the same location for this issue of FVI - more or less. With DG at 9 oclock vs 7.
Stunning coin.

1705-06 J Variety. Tail pointing right. This is a tough variety of the J series. Very few of this particular variety exist. Tilted bar over center shield attribute the type. Wow.

This aureus is not from the Recamier sale, Bourgey 1925.

The fact that this fooled the auction cataloger tells you exactly why...

"_ _ _ 1 with assayer not visible but by style it has to be 1607-1611 so since there is a last digit 1 visible it has to be 1611" is a tough sell to the only collectors devoted and expert enough to actually recognize/believe that. Those people probably will hold out for a more definably-dated piece...

So, instead, reengrave (most of) a date to fool a sucker... Amusing, too, b/c apparently the surgeon himself didn't even recognize it was 1611 rather than 1641... otherwise he probably would have just done that instead (actually a bit easier).

Retooled date. Not sure why anyone would want to do this to a 1611 omF.....the date was perfectly fine as it was. Adding the 4?? Weird....

description says "... head of Augustus to right" - actually the head is "to left"