1690 Pieces of Eight
23Vasquez23
Posts: 114 ✭✭
Would anyone have any information regarding the actual coin like this? 
0
23Vasquez23
Posts: 114 ✭✭
Answers
The design is standard for 8 reales coins struck in Potosi in 1690. Specifically, the "Royal" presentation pieces, which are much scarcer than the "cob" types struck in bulk.
Numista entry.
NGC database entry.
The genuine coins were struck from .931 silver, not .999.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Yes understand what you’re saying but the coin I posted is counterfeit which I realize but was looking for information on a real coin. Have looked everywhere and can’t find a match to this coin.
A coin like this would probably be extremely rare I would say because iv researched everywhere and found nothing other than 2 companies that make copies like this.
Since your saying this coins are standard, can you post up an authentic match with possibly details like this coin?
The detail design isn’t the average cob. Might be wrong but I don’t think it can easily be found unless you go to a museum or something like that because this seems to be an extremely rare coin and most would never know this coin existed.
They are not so rare as you have assumed. You can find examples in auction listings.
https://auction.sedwickcoins.com/item.aspx?i=44823508&mobile=0
Show me a cob identical to this coin then because I don’t think you’ll find it honestly.
Only information I came across was that the only coin like this is located at Fitz Williams Museum and was an Experimental coin. No major Auction Houses recognizes this cob either.
If the only cob known like this in a museum and no one has ever seen or known of a coin like this to even exist then I would assume it would be worth probably in the millions or close to it.
Well, it's a "reproduction", not a "counterfeit". Both are fake, but have different intents. Reproductions generally aren't made to deceive (though they can be deceptive, depending on the quality).
Being a reproduction, they may not be directly copying a specific coin, but copying general design elements from various coins to make a "fantasy" design that never appeared on a genuine coin at all. For example, if that image at bottom right is the reverse of this piece, then the very "squared off" shape of the cross on the reverse seems to much more closely match Potosi coins from the 1650s, rather than 1690. The mintmaster's marks are wrong for 1690, they should be "P VR". And the crown at the top of the obverse has straight vertical sides, rather than the curved overhanging edges of the Spanish crown seen on virtually all other Spanish colonial coins; it's possible the coin they were copying from had the crown mostly missing (as is the case on the 1653 coin I linked earlier), so the people making the reproduction just "added a crown" artistically, without reference to what the Spanish crown normally looked like.
My conclusion would be the reproduction-makers were copying a coin actually from the 1650s, and decided - for whatever reason of their own - to give their reproduction a fictitious "1690" date.
The only way to know for sure is to find the people who made the reproduction, and ask them what coin or coins they used to model the design.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Yes it’s a reproduction but a counterfeit, I apologize. So as far as the coin, iv tried reaching out to them but no response, well not yet anyways. So your saying this coin doesn’t exist is what your saying?
If the coin existed you think it’d be a really valuable coin maybe since it’d be the one cob of this kind that exist?
It can't exist. The mintmarks and overall design are wrong for 1690. It would be like finding a Mercury dime with a "1990" date.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Lol
But if it did do think it’d be a really valuable cob?
So if was like a mercury dime with a 1990 date then I guess what your saying is that it would be extremely valuable but even more because of the 1690 date right?
No, it wouldn’t be a valuable cob, because it would be fake. Even if it wasn’t, everyone would believe it to be fake, so the point would be moot. These weren’t produced at the time, hadn’t been for decades. Besides, it’s a mix of coins. It’s like if a unicorn, armadillo and a spider had a baby. Any value is arbitrary and nonsensical.
Unless it WAS made of silver, in which case I would be worth the value of the silver.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
If they weren’t made then why do I have one?
Philips 1111
Actually says Philivs 1111
Happen to come across other coin like mine yesterday but this is what it says
I guess I have the most rarest coin ever and it’s obvious it’s not a Reproduction coin either. Taken coin to a few coin shows and everyone confirms to be authentic coin but no one is able to provide information being that no one has ever seen a coin like this.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Let this topic fade away as it should.
I guess I have a mercury unicorn.
Will probably get send off for grading and see what it comes back at.
What you have is an exact die match for that replica. That means what you have is indeed one of those replicas, which someone has hacked a few pieces off to make it look more cob-like, then put in a rock tumbler or some other artificial aging process.
It is absolutely 100% not a genuine coin. Feel free to send it off for grading, but it almost certainly will not be graded.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
So you’re making these, gotcha.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
lol, like I mentioned earlier, few coin shows and everyone confirmed being real but just couldn’t identify
This is the only cob iv ever found that is exactly like mine but of course in way much better condition.
This coin is not reproduction, 100% authentic. This coin was auctioned off from police auction last year sometime but not much accurate information details provided since they probably didn’t know much about either.
Well this coins are obviously out there unless it’s only that coin and mine that exist but neither have been ever recorded.
Only information I keep pulling up about it is that it’s a “First New Dollar Of The New World “ and that would be very valuable.
I believe there’s like 9 of the First New Dollar Of The New World and the most valuable is around 200k-300k I think so the 1690 cob would be maybe around that area I would assume but don’t know till after it’s certified.
It is worth bullion, as a replica.
You do realise Philip IV died in 1665, so a coin in his name dated 1690 is impossible?
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
I see what your saying and understand the more I keep searching about this coins but I guess what I’m saying is that the coin I have there’s nothing indicating being a reproduction coin or neither does the last photos I posted up. Maybe it’s worth a lot or maybe it’s worth very little I wouldn’t know, all I’m saying is that the coin I currently have is authentic and wasn’t made as a copy but if it was then it was made then not now.
All in all, over 50 coin experts have done in person inspection on this coin and all confirmed being authentic but no other information besides that. Few have offered between 2k-3k for it but no one has provided value of it.
Please name 3 experts you claim to have showed .
I want to call them 😉
Actiually you heard from experts on this thread . 😄
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
But there is in indication: an exact die match to a known replica, by the pictures in this very thread. That is what is known in the trade as "damning evidence". Any examples of this coin you might find out there are are all replicas, even if the seller/owner mistakenly believes them to be genuine.
That's not how it works. I don't know any coin expert who would "authenticate" a coin without being able to "identify" it. First step is always identification, then authentication, because if you don't know what it is, then it's impossible to say whether it's real or not. In this case, the correct identification is "modern fantasy with incorrect date".
And if someone offers $2000 for it, that's your valuation right there. Though they would be mistaken in their valuation, because it's a reproduction and not worth that much.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Would a reproduction coin lolikd
this around rim?
Yes. The rim of a reproduction could look like anything, if it's been in a rock tumbler.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
Honestly i really don’t know much about this coins but just from what Iv read from research Iv done and what Iv heard lately.
.
Except your coin is not Charles II, it's Philip IV. Which is, of course, impossible for a coin dated 1690.
Except your coin is not from assayer Pedro de Villar, because if it was, it would have the "VR" assayist initials, and the assayer's initials on your coin are "E" for Antonio de Erqueta, assayist from 1651 to 1679. Which is, of course, impossible for a coin dated 1690.
The weight is three grams overweight. Not just a tiny bit overweight, but nearly four whole grams. The weight is actually more or less in line with what I would expect if a one-ounce (31.1 grams) .999 silver replica of a Potosi dollar went through a rock tumbler and lost some weight.
The more information you're posting, the more it confirms that this cannot possibly be genuine. Sorry.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
I mean I really can’t say much on it because I don’t know much about this kind of coins other than what iv searched up recently but I guess I might just send it to get it certified and see where it goes from there.