EDIT: The 4 Reales (Silver) like the 4 Maravedis of X, show a small x on the cross side of the coins inside the tressures alternating with a round pellet. The x's within the barb / brackets }} with the pellets in the arches )).
Sorry, I deleted part of the original sentence and it lost the bit about the x's (which show up all around the tressures of the 4M issues. :)

This coin is a 4 Maravedis, from Santo Domingo MINT, struck under that house not Segovia. The mint mark in this period is a monogram oSD. The S over the left vertical bar of the D. o above. The assayer is Xpoval (Cristóbal) Medina. These coins were struck in 1578 only. All are rare. Especially so the silver coinage. One of the things that Cristobal did with the Maravedis and the half real is add the Pomegranate below either the Monogram, or the Castle. Now, if these coins were "shipped" to Santo Domingo, why would they have an assayers mark of an assayer of Santo Domingo? They don't. You are confusing the early Ferdinand and Isabella issues that were shipped to Santo Domingo but were in fact minted in Spain. These coins here, are a very different type.
These "Castile and Leon" type Maravedis follow suit with the late issues of Francisco Rodriguez who, following the death of Johanna issued a new type of Maravedis following the Pillars type that were of the Castle and Lion variety. The coins were struck with CARLOS THE FITH in latin on both sides and show S-P left and right of the castle with the assayers mark F either below the lion, or to the right. The tressures with ringlets vs X's as with Cristobal. The issues of F are in my opinion highly important as they are the only coins from any mint to represent Carlos V (aka Carlos I) as king following the death of Johanna. The assayers mark appear on all the Santo Domingo struck coinage because, unlike those of Mexico (or Spain), the coins are actually technically "Billon", though I prefer the term Silver Enriched Copper, as the amount was very low. But, that silver, no matter if it was 1% meant that, the assayers initial had to appear on the coins to guarantee that silver as was the law. Mexico struck Maravedis in pure copper and is why we do not see a "G" for Gutierrez on the issues of Mexico. So for these issues of X, documents show they were only struck in one year. 1578. It seems that production was mainly in Maravedi, as the silver coinage is very very VERY rare, and among some of the rarest from any mint!
The 4 reales, like these Maravedi also show up on the cross side of the coins, alternating with a round pellet. The pellets just so happen to be in the arches )) where the cross terminates, giving the cross the look of a Mexican style Florenzada cross, while the X's appear in the barbs or "brackets" }}. Technically all a tressure is on the coins of the shield type silver coinage is what is called a Barbed Quatrafoil. But Tressure is the term most often used, so calling it either or is fine. And for the Castle and Lion type Maravedis of Santo Domingo, this is the distinguishing design element between the two denominations. The 4M with tressures, the 2M without - only a border of pellets -for either assayer.
Anyway. I had to comment as I have seen these coins mistaken as coins from Spain before and that is just NOT the case. Perhaps the dies were prepared in Spain and shipped to the city mint, but I do not know of a document that states this. Point being, this coin is far more important than what it was listed as, which is somewhat sad as coins of Santo Domingo have been greatly under appreciated.
As a side note. A good amount of the Maravedis have survived thanks to two things. They were accepted in Hispaniola (whereas they were literally tossed in the gutters, rivers and lakes in Mexico as junk and lost) partly due to the coins having enough silver alloy to give them value (why Mexico didn't also do this as they exploited the mineral wealth of the new world resources, I do not know..) and it also helped prevent total decay over the centuries as copper is a very oxidizing metal. Anyway. If you come across one again.I hope this finds you and helps. Or, to whoever may own one of these.
Happy collecting!!

RIC 157, p. 35.

Legend 6 = IMP PROBVS AVG (RIC 157)

Legend 7 = PROBVS PF AVG (RIC 158)

The only Spanish Colonial issues struck with Carlos V! Which had to have been struck 1548, or 49 onto 1563 following Johannas death. Always found this particular issue to be of high importance. Especially since Carlos was rendered as Carlos the Fifth on the coins vs Carolvs I, or just Carolvs. Very important coin indeed. Yet it seems to be overlooked by many collectors.
Note that the Q is always backwards in "QVINTVS", even on the issues with an O and what appears to be a punch for a cross, or base put together to render a Q, it is still a backwards Q. Just such a neat issue.

Forgery IBSCC 2220

Forgery IBSCC 2220

Erreur sur le commentaire précédent, à détruire

Danach Gerhard Hirsch Nachf., Auktion 334, 21./22. September 2017, Los Nr. 3518.

Ex. davor Otto Helbing Nachf., Auktion 87, 25. November 1942, Los Nr. 3884.

Forgery -IBSCC 2220

The coin has been deleted from the results on CNG´s website. What could be reason? A cast fake?

All fine, humans can make mistake, money will be rufunded.

If you have a die match beware that the dies are legit and coin could be authentic

This coin is not from Christodoulos, it can not be!
It is a galvono of the authentic specimen in British Museum which, entered museum collection before Christodoulos was born "Acquisition date1824 ".

1. Not same dies as Christodoulos 480, added picture of plate with Christodoulos 480

http://snible.org/coins/christodoulos/o.html

2. Identical authentic mother (same centering, wear, flan shape, scratch, nick etc.) in Brithish Museum there listed as authentic

https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=379334001&objectId=1257936&partId=1

And identical BM electrotype but this time by RR was sold by same auction house as Rober Ready electrotype
CNG Auction 229, Lot: 532
BRITISH MUSEUM. Electrotype. Copying Rhodos, Rhodes. AR Tetradrachm (24mm, 13.89 g, 12h). Head of Helios facing slightly right / Rose, bud to right; to left, sphinx seated left. Good VF. Edge stamped RR (for Robert Ready, electrotypist at the British Museum).

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=160379

And my identical galvano twin was sold as Christodoulos

Electronic Auction 435 Lot: 633

Dies by Constantine Christodoulos, circa 1900-1914. Head of Helios facing slightly right / Rose in profile, with bud to right; to left, sphinx seated left; all within incuse square. Svoronos, Christodoulos 480.
https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=373972

There can not be 2 opinions !

Want my money back!

Mistaken pictures?

Nice, but why the mayor part of the auctioners do not say the mm? And the 3th side of the coin? The cant? In this case is absurd because is hammered, but in a 8 reales from spain 1700 is important

This coin was withdrawn from the sale as a fake.

Dated CY 208 (AD 206) Obv: AV (Autokratos) KAI (Kaisar) M (Marcus) AV (Aurelius) ANTΩNЄINOC (Antoninus). Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: ΔΡ CЄY ANT AMACIAC (Amasia) MHT NЄΠP ΠON ЄT CH(Date: C = 200 + H = 8), Athena holding shield and spear

Dated CY 209 (AD 207). Obv: AV (Autokratos) KAI (Kaisar) M (Marcus) AYP (Aurelius) ANTΩNЄINOC (Antoninus). Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: AΔP CЄY ANT AMACIAC (Amasia) ΜΗΝΕ ΠP Π / ЄT CΘ (C = 200 + Θ = 9) Caracalla and Geta standing facing one another, clasping hands and holding scrolls; star between. Cf. SNG von Aulock 6708 (rev. legend); cf. BMC 19 (same).

Dated CY 209 (AD 207) Obv: AV (Autokratos) KAI (Kaisaros) M (Marcus) AV (Aurelius) ANTΩNЄINOC (Antoninus). Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right. Rev: ΑΔΡ CЄY ANT AMACIAC (Amasia) MHT NЄΠP ΠON ЄT CΘ (C = 200 + Θ = 9). Tyche standing left, holding rudder and cornucopia. SNG Copenhagen 114 var. (rev. legend); BMC 28 var. (same).

I forgot to change Cilicia with Pontus.

Actually 'modern' counterfeit but still interesting Fourrée good for a study. As i know and believe all other specimens are made with normal silver planchets.

MAXIMINUS THRAX (235-238) Ez nem inkább SESTERTIUS?

The NGC assessment of smoothing is incorrect. The left field reverse has a different surface texture (smooth) due to the erasure of the anchor from the die and the effective resurfacing of this field of the die. This has imparted a smoother surface on the left field reverse on the strike compared to the rest of the reverse where die wear, sustained prior to the anchor erasure, has imparted a rougher surface on the strike.

This coin is also from the collection of Charles Gillet photofile 467 (this coin).

NO Crawford 516/4 but 516/5