Best Of

@Alltheabove76 said:

Why not? PCGS does it. Except the marks on my coin are not even visible to the naked eye.

I agree. This is what TPGs should do. A grade is a measure of wear. It should not incorporate an opinion on anything else. Chopmarks should be mentioned on the label (as above) but not given as a fault. That is a matter of opinion.

Chopmarks are made through using the coin for what it was intended. They are not at all like someone drilling it. If you call chopmarks 'damage' then wear is also 'damage' and all coins should be rejected.

I've been a long-time collector of Spanish colonial coinage, and there's something that has been bothering me about how pillar dollars, specifically the Spanish 8 Reales coins, are labeled by third-party grading services (TPGS). Many of these services are inaccurately labeling these coins as "Mexican," and I wanted to bring this issue to light with some examples and historical context.

The Issue: Inaccurate Labeling

As you can see, these 8 reales minted in Mexico City are labeled as "Mexico." However, this is historically incorrect, and here’s why:

These are Spanish Coins, Not Mexican: The pillar dollar was minted under the Spanish Crown during the colonial period. Mexico did not exist as a sovereign state until after the Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821). These coins were issued by the Spanish government for use throughout its vast empire. Labeling them as "Mexico" implies they were issued by a Mexican government, which simply did not exist at the time.

Minting Authority: These coins were struck under the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which was a territory of the Spanish Empire. The “Mo” mintmark denotes that the coin was minted in Mexico City, but it was under Spanish colonial rule, not a Mexican state.

The Pillar Design and Inscription: These coins are known as pillar dollars or columnarios, minted between 1732 and 1773. They feature the iconic "Pillars of Hercules" surrounding two globes, with the inscription “VTRAQUE VNUM” ("Both Are One"). What’s even more telling is that on the reverse of these coins, they literally say "HISPAN," which refers to Hispania, the Latin name for Spain. This alone should make it clear that the coins were issued by the Spanish Crown, not by Mexico.

Historical Context: These coins represent the Spanish Empire’s control over its territories, including what is now modern-day Mexico. Labeling them as “Mexican” ignores the fact that they were a product of the Spanish imperial system. They circulated widely throughout Spain’s colonies and were accepted in international trade as one of the most stable currencies of the time.

Suggested Correction for TPGS

In my opinion, these coins should be labeled in a way that accurately reflects their historical context. A more appropriate label would be something like:

1759-Mo, 8R
Spanish Empire

This revised label would maintain the correct geographical information (Mexico City) while making it clear that the coin was issued under the Spanish Empire. It would avoid implying that these were coins from a country (Mexico) that didn’t exist until decades later.