Lima 1 Real 1753/2 overdate

Eddi

I am curious about this Lima real which I picked up many years ago. An undertype is clearly visible under the "3" in the date which looks like a "2", possibly a result of a 1752 die being re-used in 1753.

Gilboy does list an 1753/2 variety, so I think this is it. The variety is listed in Gilboy as a R4, quite scarce, but obviously he had seen examples. However, I have never seen it offered at auction nor have I located records of any sales. This, in contrast with the Lima 1/2 real 1753/2 for which a number of auction records exist.

Therefore, my question: has anybody seen the 1 real overdate? Maybe have one in your collections?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

SimonW

I have seen the overdate before, never one as nice as yours, which I would assume is why there’s not a lot of auction records for the variety, they tend to be dreck. The last one I recall seeing has a hole. It was in Spain, about a year ago. I think it was a Barcelona dealer.

There’s a lot of DATES from the Peruvian series that don’t have many auction records, let alone the varieties. It’s very uncommon, but not impossible, in my opinion. At the grade you have though, maybe it’s the only one, very possible, but probably there are a couple locked away in advanced collections in Spain.

This is my only coin for the year/denomination, not the overdate. Now resides in an XF holder.

WCC

I had an opportunity to buy the PCGS MS-63 in 2017 but passed. It's a very nice coin.

I own three of the date but haven't checked if any are the 3/2.

Eddi

@SimonW said:
I have seen the overdate before, never one as nice as yours, which I would assume is why there’s not a lot of auction records for the variety, they tend to be dreck. The last one I recall seeing has a hole. It was in Spain, about a year ago. I think it was a Barcelona dealer.

There’s a lot of DATES from the Peruvian series that don’t have many auction records, let alone the varieties. It’s very uncommon, but not impossible, in my opinion. At the grade you have though, maybe it’s the only one, very possible, but probably there are a couple locked away in advanced collections in Spain.

This is my only coin for the year/denomination, not the overdate. Now resides in an XF holder.

Thank you for your comments, Simon, and for sharing your example of the date.
As you mention, Spain is a likely place to find Spanish Colonial coins.
I have found many interesting pieces over the last 30 years or so from Aureo, Cayon and others.

This particular example came from a coin show in Germany.

JohnnyCache

@Eddi

@Eddi said:
I am curious about this Lima real which I picked up many years ago. An undertype is clearly visible under the "3" in the date which looks like a "2", possibly a result of a 1752 die being re-used in 1753.

...my question: has anybody seen the 1 real overdate? Maybe have one in your collections?

Your coin shows the overdate clearly.
PCGS graded this coin as an overdate but honestly I can't see it like I can with yours.

WCC

Above coin is the one I had a chance to buy but agree, overdate isn't evident.

realeswatcher

On the 63, they're calling that line, die mark, whatever running from the lower left portion of the 3 upward an erased 2... but it doesn't really look to be a 2.

I find one other clear 3 over 2 as seen on Eddi's piece:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5681828

Eddi

@JohnnyCache said:
@Eddi

@Eddi said:
I am curious about this Lima real which I picked up many years ago. An undertype is clearly visible under the "3" in the date which looks like a "2", possibly a result of a 1752 die being re-used in 1753.

...my question: has anybody seen the 1 real overdate? Maybe have one in your collections?

>

Your coin shows the overdate clearly.
PCGS graded this coin as an overdate but honestly I can't see it like I can with yours.

Thank you for sharing those pictures, @JohnnyCache . That is a fantastic coin.
However, much as I strain my eyes I cannot see traces of a (convincing) undertype.

Eddi

@realeswatcher said:
On the 63, they're calling that line, die mark, whatever running from the lower left portion of the 3 upward an erased 2... but it doesn't really look to be a 2.

I find one other clear 3 over 2 as seen on Eddi's piece:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5681828

!realeswatcher, now that example does show a clear undertype. Thank you for sharing that link!

I thought I had carried out a thorough search - obviously not through enough.....