Why do TPG's label these wrong?

Alltheabove76

I've been a long-time collector of Spanish colonial coinage, and there's something that has been bothering me about how pillar dollars, specifically the Spanish 8 Reales coins, are labeled by third-party grading services (TPGS). Many of these services are inaccurately labeling these coins as "Mexican," and I wanted to bring this issue to light with some examples and historical context.

The Issue: Inaccurate Labeling

As you can see, these 8 reales minted in Mexico City are labeled as "Mexico." However, this is historically incorrect, and here’s why:

These are Spanish Coins, Not Mexican: The pillar dollar was minted under the Spanish Crown during the colonial period. Mexico did not exist as a sovereign state until after the Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821). These coins were issued by the Spanish government for use throughout its vast empire. Labeling them as "Mexico" implies they were issued by a Mexican government, which simply did not exist at the time.

Minting Authority: These coins were struck under the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which was a territory of the Spanish Empire. The “Mo” mintmark denotes that the coin was minted in Mexico City, but it was under Spanish colonial rule, not a Mexican state.

The Pillar Design and Inscription: These coins are known as pillar dollars or columnarios, minted between 1732 and 1773. They feature the iconic "Pillars of Hercules" surrounding two globes, with the inscription “VTRAQUE VNUM” ("Both Are One"). What’s even more telling is that on the reverse of these coins, they literally say "HISPAN," which refers to Hispania, the Latin name for Spain. This alone should make it clear that the coins were issued by the Spanish Crown, not by Mexico.

Historical Context: These coins represent the Spanish Empire’s control over its territories, including what is now modern-day Mexico. Labeling them as “Mexican” ignores the fact that they were a product of the Spanish imperial system. They circulated widely throughout Spain’s colonies and were accepted in international trade as one of the most stable currencies of the time.

Suggested Correction for TPGS

In my opinion, these coins should be labeled in a way that accurately reflects their historical context. A more appropriate label would be something like:

1759-Mo, 8R
Spanish Empire

This revised label would maintain the correct geographical information (Mexico City) while making it clear that the coin was issued under the Spanish Empire. It would avoid implying that these were coins from a country (Mexico) that didn’t exist until decades later.

John Conduitt

Presumably, it depends on what the submitter wrote down. It is a bit odd. They do it with a few colonies, like India and Australia.

But not ancients. You don't see FRANCE - CONSTANTINE I - LYON.

neildrobertson

I agree with you. I run into a similar thing as a German coin collector. Sometimes the present day country located where the coin was minted comes into the picture. The government entity that struck the coin should be what the coin is associated with.

There is also the phenomenon in European countries where the names of the states have been preserved even though the states themselves are fundamentally not the same state that made the coin 3 centuries ago. A coin in the 1500s can have been minted in France and a coin from the 1900s can have been minted by France. And you can contend they were not minted by the same country. Although this line of thinking could degrade into Theseus's Paradox in some of the less dramatic cases.

Sapyx

Fundamentally, the reason why they call it "Mexico" is because the world coin catalogues they base their coin listings off have always called it "Mexico". Which simply kicks the can further down the line to make us ask why the catalogues did that.

At one stage, the Krause world coin catalogues were filing all obsolete-country coinage under their nearest approximation of the current country-name. Russian Empire coins would be filed under "USSR", for example, and Danzig under "Poland". This of course can make it difficult to actually find your coin from an obsolete country in the catalogue without using the Index or knowing world history. They did gradually change policy to separately list some countries, but never got around to separating the pre- and post-independence Spanish colonies.

It's bothered me too that they classify these coins under their modern-name countries - Mexico City coins under Mexico, Potosi coins under Bolivia, and so forth. I'd agree they should either be all grouped together under "Spanish Colonial", or (my own preference) under the name of the Spanish Viceroyalty within which the mint-city was located - which would be "New Spain" for Mexico City, the other "Mexican" mints and Guatemala City; "New Grenada" for Popayan; and "Peru" for Lima, Cuzco and Potosi.

It hasn't yet bothered me enough to rearrange my own world coin album to put them all in their proper place.

coinkat

Seems reasonable…

SimonW

If you buy coins in Spain they list these as Spanish coins, which is correct. If you’re searching for Mexico among their databases you’ll usually find pillar coinage, which makes sense because the mint was Mexico (city.)

On the other hand if you look for Bolivia Chile or Peru, you’re not likely to find any pillar coinage, because the mints were Lima and Potosí and Santiago. Guatemala, Mexico and Columbia you’ll find named just like that, because that’s the mint that issued them.

That’s where the confusion sets in, and why people don’t distinguish between Mexico the country and Mexico the city or mint, it’s the same word.

Alltheabove76

They need to label these from the country that issued them. Its so inconsistent now, for example: ancient Greek city-states are all listed accurately as their own countries.

ELuis

Just to add something, "Mexico" is not the official name of the country, it is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos".

KiwiNumi

I noticed the same issue early into my collecting journey. I suppose they haven't changed it since they've been labeling them as Mexican coins for so long that it would look strange having old slabbed Reales labeled Mexico on the holder but under a different country in the registry.

SimonW

@ELuis said:
Just to add something, "Mexico" is not the official name of the country, it is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos".

Yeah, but....

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Federal Republic of Germany
Commonwealth of Dominica
Kingdom of Norway.

Almost all nations have much longer names, not all, but most. Nobody calls it that though. It's still Mexico...or Mejico

SimonW

Although Ireland is just Ireland, which I kinda like.

Boosibri

@SimonW said:
Although Ireland is just Ireland, which I kinda like.

Republic of Ireland, separate from Northern Ireland.

SimonW

@Boosibri said:

@SimonW said:
Although Ireland is just Ireland, which I kinda like.

Republic of Ireland, separate from Northern Ireland.

Huh, that's true. I wonder why the website I saw has it listed as simply Ireland. Websites making me look stupid again...🥴

ELuis

@SimonW said:

@ELuis said:
Just to add something, "Mexico" is not the official name of the country, it is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos".

Yeah, but....

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Federal Republic of Germany
Commonwealth of Dominica
Kingdom of Norway.

Almost all nations have much longer names, not all, but most. Nobody calls it that though. It's still Mexico...or Mejico

To be honest I only have four years since I started to send my coins to be graded and on them include some "Reales", so I do not have any idea as to why they add the "Mexico" in the label in the case when these are of the Mo or Mexico Mint. I have been familiar for years with the use of Spanish Monarchy and Borbones V - VI - III - IV the ones I normally buy, but in the past all my coins were just "raw", so I did not pay any attention and even today.

In those official country names, these include the known name on them, on Estados Unidos Mexicanos there is not the known name of Mexico on the official name.

pruebas

Slabbing a Pillar Dollar with a country name EUM would be even “more wrong” than slabbing it with the name Mexico.

I don’t know anyone, Mexicans included, who call the country Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Besides, the TPGs are using common names rather than official names for every country.

They have enough problems getting attributions right as it is.

SimonW

I think "Mexico" is about as correct as it could be. It doesn't necessarily refer to the country, but the mint in the city of the same name where it was coined.

Listing a Lima coin from the same timeframe as a Peru coin is more problematic, because Peru isn't the mint, nor did it exist. At least Mexico was a thing at the time, the city was Mexico right?

ELuis

I just mentioned the name of the country - and I agree the use of Mexico works.

pruebas

@SimonW said:
I think "Mexico" is about as correct as it could be. It doesn't necessarily refer to the country, but the mint in the city of the same name where it was coined.

Listing a Lima coin from the same timeframe as a Peru coin is more problematic, because Peru isn't the mint, nor did it exist. At least Mexico was a thing at the time, the city was Mexico right?

Yes, in Spanish colonial times, the name “Mexico” meant the city. The colony as a whole was Nueva España.