What should be in a Mexico City Mint Milled 2 Reales Type Set?

Clio

So I am looking to put together the guidelines for a type set and thought I would reach out for some community feedback. Deciding what constitutes an additional type is difficult for me especially in a time where errors in production are common.

Here's my current list I am planning on. It consists of 13 coins.

So a few of these feel pretty clear to me. There's a design change in 1742 which shifts the reverse up and reduces the length of the legend.

Borrowing some PCGS images to illustrate.

Following this we have a new ruler with Ferdinand VI which I think is a fairly significant event so an easy inclusion.

Then Charles III

Charles III is the problem child in this set. First we have a pillar type then a portrait which is easy enough to see the need to include one of each. But we have a slight issue in 1773 with an inverted assayer and mintmark.

This is something I don't believe should be included but if we look at PCGS's 8R set they do include it as an additional type. I've chosen to leave it off.

In addition to this there's also a very slight purity change that happens in his reign. .903 to .896. I haven't included this as an additional type since there's no design change and adds little to the set in my opinion.

Carrying on with Charles III I mean Charles IV we have issues with Charles III's portrait as a stand in for Charles IV. This happens briefly in 1789-1790. Again it's a new monarch so I feel like it should be a new type but then we have an issue of Charles IV vs Charles IIII which both exist for 1790 still with Charles III's portrait.

now I am unsure because while the inverted assay/mm feels like a mistake. This one feels more intentional. Especially since they didn't simply add on an extra numeral to the Charles III. IV came before IIII. I am unsure the reasoning by this but feel free to give me your input. I've got it as a type until one of you convinces me otherwise.

This one is a clean cut totally new portrait.

Followed by a new monarch with reasonably distinct portrait types.

and

Following this we break out of the colonial period and jump back in with Agustín de Iturbide.

then the Hookneck

& finally the Cap n Rays as the final type.

Anyways would love all of your input on it and let me know what should or shouldn't be included. I do intend to ask PCGS to make it a set on the registry in the next few weeks once I am confident I have the issues outlined correctly.

thanks!

pruebas

In my mind, a proper type set needs to include all the mints for which a coin was struck for circulation.

Clio

@pruebas said:
In my mind, a proper type set needs to include all the mints for which a coin was struck for circulation.

This is specific to Mexico City. I do not have the means to or attention span to assemble a set like that. It also opens a significantly more difficult can of worms in identifying what counts and what does not for mints like Durango which have distinct designs despite not intending to.

WCC

It's your set but I wouldn't consider minor design variations necessary for "completion". One of each for the pillars and portraits suffices.

JohnnyCache

@WCC said:
It's your set but I wouldn't consider minor design variations necessary for "completion". One of each for the pillars and portraits suffices.

I agree, also there are slim pickings around the '89 / '90 portrait of Charles III with the legend of Charles IV /IIII, why drive yourself crazy.

SimonW

I like it! With regards to the pillars, I would get a thirties piece as the first style, then get both of the 1760 versions, one for Ferdinand the other for Carlos. I don't think it's necessary to have both shield styles for Phillip, you hit the style change with the new kings.

Boosibri

I like your set as defined. Within the wrote up the one question you pose is the transitional Charles III to Charles IV type. It’s a separate KM and I think worthy of inclusion.

There are actually two types… the 1789/1790 with Charles IV and a 1790 with Charles IIII. If it were me I would deem them substantive enough to find both types.

Clio

@WCC said:
It's your set but I wouldn't consider minor design variations necessary for "completion". One of each for the pillars and portraits suffices.

I am certainly tempted by this. I am just trying to act in the best interest of the registry. Often once a set has been created people will want to go back and add or remove coins from it that don't fit properly. For reference here is the 8R set.

https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mexico/mexican-type-sets/mexico-city-mint-milled-8-reales-type-set-circulation-strikes-1732-1897/2078

I can't help but not agree with the inverted assayer here but have tried to mimic it otherwise.

@SimonW said:
I like it! With regards to the pillars, I would get a thirties piece as the first style, then get both of the 1760 versions, one for Ferdinand the other for Carlos. I don't think it's necessary to have both shield styles for Phillip, you hit the style change with the new kings.

I like having the style change. I'm curious if it follows the "new hub" rule a lot of US type sets follow which is if the master die gets re-engraved it constitutes an additional type. I am aware these are several pieces assembled as opposed to a single design and date punch. Anyone here with more understanding on this feel free to tell me otherwise.

@Boosibri said:
I like your set as defined. Within the wrote up the one question you pose is the transitional Charles III to Charles IV type. It’s a separate KM and I think worthy of inclusion.

There are actually two types… the 1789/1790 with Charles IV and a 1790 with Charles IIII. If it were me I would deem them substantive enough to find both types.

If I am understanding you correctly. I do already have both shown in my set unless I've missed something.

Boosibri

Oops, yes you do. I read one of your comments but did t look at the detailed set.