Interesting Lima 1756 Half Real

Coinlover101

I'm thinking that this could be a L05-56d as there is no pellet between VI and D. The mintmark is not dotted and there seems to be MA ligature.

I don't think that it's a L05-56b as the 6 looks normal. Always a little difficult to tell with fairly worn coins.

SimonW

With the pellet you’re talking about, it’s a pretty weak pellet to begin with, then it’s really small. I could see a situation where it got filled with gunk and didn’t strike up quite right, or it wore flat.

That being said, the obverse die (non-date side) is a distinct die, it’s different from the ones listed, so you may be correct. The reverse (date side) is the same by my reckoning, as the L05-56

It’s not extremely rare to find new varieties, yours may be one. Here’s one I found a few years back, same date:

Hard to see, but it doesn’t have a ligature. All the others do.

SimonW

Also, this is totally random, but I’m on a quest to fix the spelling people use for the singular of “reales.” The singular is Real. It doesn’t ever end with an “e.”

In Spanish if a noun ends with a consonant they add an “es” to pluralize it. It’s either said “Real” or “Reales” never “Reale.”

I assume this was an oversight that caught on very early in the history of time, possibly because they just didn’t understand Spanish in an English speaking world, so they anglicized it without understanding the strangeness of leaving the “e” on the end. If a Spanish speaker tried to say “reale” they would say “ray-al-eh” where the correct pronunciation is “Ray-al” meaning “Royal.”

The other possibility is that they did it intentionally to differentiate it from the English word “real “ that has a very different meaning.

One case of support in the modern world is the soccer team Real Madrid, or the little sister team Real Salt Lake. Both are said correctly with the correct spelling.

Using the word “reale” just needs to stop 😂.

Apologies for my rant. It’s a very common mistake, but I thought the world would want to know. 🥴

Coinlover101

Yes, in the book it states that the no pellet could, in fact, be a very light pellet.

You're coin is really unreale Simon

I'd love to see a die study btw that would really open the series up.

ELuis

I have seen at least two with the no dot between VI & D, here is one:

And that DOT for the letter I for the word LIMA, have seen a lot of 1/2R and most of them simply do not include that dot:

My 0.2cts

Coinlover101

@ELuis said:
I have seen at least two with the no dot between VI & D, here is one:

Ant that DOT for the letter I for the word LIMA, have seen a lot of 1/2R and most of them simple do not include that dot.

My 0.2cts

Is that a 56 at the top ELuis?

Also do you have the Yonaka book? It's details the pellets above the mintmarks.

ELuis

@Coinlover101 Yes. No, I do not have the book, no idea if one of these days will end up buying one, I am not for the series, but I like these coins for sure.

SimonW

So, I'm torn a little. I don't think I've ever seen a high grade example of a Peru 1/2R that was missing the dot between VI and D. I have seen very weak ones, for sure, and those would have possibly disappeared with wear, but from what I've noticed, the ones missing the dot are usually low grade and fairly abused.

I have seen dots missing in other places, however.

On the other point, most Peruvian reales don't have the dot above the mintmark. I think they tried for the first couple years, but it caused spacing problems, so if it worked out to include it, they did sometimes, but generally it was a hassle and the spacing wouldn't allow for it. I would say the majority of the time it's missing.

ELuis

I am looking at another 1757 1/2R

If one just look the coin, the dot is not visible et-al:

Then with zoom in:

On your coin: