DELETE

Early_Milled_Latin_America

.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

Was it due to the change in Kings?

Sapyx

Basically, yes.

The current coat of arms of Spain has two different crowns atop the two pillars. The one on the left has the crown of the Holy Roman Empire; King Charles I of Spain was also Emperor Charles V. The pillar on the right has the Spanish royal crown.

I suppose portraying the Imperial Crown depended on how much each monarch wished to emphasise his part of their heritage.

The crown-less pillars are a simplified form of the arms.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

So when both crowns were the same the King was also King of the Holy empire and once it became 2 types of crowns they are were different people? And no crowns means what exactly?

Early_Milled_Latin_America

The types with no crowns does that signify a reduction in power or just trying to hide their power? Or something else?

Sapyx

For the kings after Charles I, using the Imperial crown was more a boast about what their ancestors/predecessors had done, rather than any kind of ambit claim.

The crown-less pillars are from the simpler Lesser Arms. It's use doesn't really signify anything other than "this coat of arms is too complex and messy to put on a mass-produced colonial coin, so let's use a design that's easier to engrave".

Of course, during Spain's Republican periods (1868-1874 and 1931-1937), the pillars had no crowns as they had deposed the monarch, but that was long after the issue of pillar dollar coinage.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

Thanks for clearing all this up appreciate it.