Central American Republic 8 reales - tin die trial?

Euclid

I’ve recently acquired an interesting piece I am hoping to learn more about. It is a uniface, unedged, and weighs just over 15 grams. It is very slightly bent and the planchet is uneven in thickness. It was described by the auction house as a tin die trial and that is part of what I am looking to confirm. I can find no record of any similar pieces in any books or past sales. If anyone could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.

Background
Prior to 1835, CAR 8 reales were struck in medal rotation. After 1835, they were struck in coin rotation. Pieces dated 1835 can be found in both rotations. There are three distinct reverse dies used in 1835, one which appears only in medal rotation, one which appears only in coin rotation, and one which appears on both.

The tin piece is a match to the reverse that can be found on both. This is quickly confirmed by several die chips, one after the E in Libre, one to the left of the tree's foliage, one above the tree's foliage, and a large one underneath the E in Fecundo.

I have no way to confirm this presently, but my working theory is that the tin piece was produced in 1835 while there was experimentation at the mint as a result of switching rotations. While it appears old and naturally worn to my eyes, it is of course possible it was made much later via a transfer die. My hope is to uncover any information that could conclusively date it to 1835.

One thing I can't explain are the presence of three dots in the assayer's initial M and another in the O in Fecundo. If my theory is correct and it was made in between strikings of different rotations, then these could not be die chips as they don't appear on the coin rotation pieces, unless they were repaired while the other chips were ignored.

Top: Tin trial. Left: 1835 Coin rotation. Right: 1835 Medal rotation.

Boosibri

Carlos Jara recently gave a presentation outlining the reason for the switch to medal rotation and the omission of 1838 dated coins.

To summarize, two Brits, Skinner and Klee, took over operation of the mint, switching the orientation to what would be consistent with British coinage. In 1837/1838, their lease expired and the facility was in disrepair, requiring rehabilitation in 1838.

Then tin example would have been produced by Skinner/Klee likely.

As an aside, there is a famous Guatemalan politician Jorge Skinner-Klee who was a coin collector. Elizondo acquired his Guatemalan collection which is plated in his second edition. The families must have intermarried.

Euclid

Interesting, thanks for that info that's a good lead for me. I don't suppose there is a transcript or video of that talk available anywhere?

CarlosJ

That’s interesting. There is also a uniface trial strike in silver. That piece had lathe like lines on the blank obverse and was thus deemed a later strike/fantasy because it was thought that no steam powered machinery had existed in Guatemala at the time. Based on the new discoveries I presented, it is also probably a correct piece for the period. If allowed, I could include a die progression analysis in my upcoming booklet on the topic, which is an extension of my presentation.

MrEureka

From the pics, I would guess that the piece is cast, so not authentic in any way. I'd have to see it in hand to be more certain of that.

Euclid

Hmm, that would be unfortunate but the large dot on the assayer's initial could be a casting bubble now that you mention it, along with some smaller dots in the legend, especially since they would not fit with the die progression I initially thought of. I guess it will sit in my tray until I can bring it to a show and get confirmation.

7Jaguars

Could be my eyes however I do not see field or device evidence of casting on close inspection. I do see many marks that not unreasonably could be attributed to the soft metal vulnerability to marking and it certainly is possible that a bloc itself could be cast and then struck.