Spanish Colonial 8 Reales Pillars and Portraits Set Active

Boosibri

Very cool Portrait and Pillar type set is now active in the PCGS Registry. Thanks to BJ and team for help in creating this!



Spanish Colonial 8 Reales

MilkmanDan

Very cool Boosibri. While you have BJ's attention, you could have them add this type:



MEXICAN CHARLES IV (BUST OF CHARLES III) 8 REALES, CIRCULATION STRIKES (1789-1790)



As it stands now this type is missing, although maybe this want intentional? Seems like an important transitional type to me, but not everyone may agree.

TwoKopeiki

Nevermind, you mean adding the transitional variety to the abovementioned post.

Boosibri

I excluded this as a transitional variety vs a distinct separate type but I thought about it.



If the group wants it added I'll make the request.

Boosibri

Ive made the request

Boosibri

BJ said she will get it updated today. It actually was in my original listing. Again awesome.

MilkmanDan

Originally posted by: Boosibri

I excluded this as a transitional variety vs a distinct separate type but I thought about it.



If the group wants it added I'll make the request.

Hm, good point. Maybe you're right. What stuck out as odd to me is that if you exclude it, you have a gap in the series.

MilkmanDan

Also, it appears that none of the Ferd VII Imaginary bust coins from Mexico (1808-1811) are showing up as available for the set.



You wanna let BJ know or should I? Once that's fixed I'll be at 100%



Edit: Oops maybe I'm wrong. What's he difference between "Imaginary Military" bust from 1808-1811 and "Armored Bust" from 1808-1811. Weren't all of these crude renditions of the portrait?

Boosibri

Originally posted by: OriginalDan

Originally posted by: Boosibri

I excluded this as a transitional variety vs a distinct separate type but I thought about it.



If the group wants it added I'll make the request.

Hm, good point. Maybe you're right. What stuck out as odd to me is that if you exclude it, you have a gap in the series.

I thought the same which is now upon reflection why I opted to add it. The argument against is that it is not a distinct portrait and makes the set a bit more esoteric.

Boosibri

Originally posted by: OriginalDan

Also, it appears that none of the Ferd VII Imaginary bust coins from Mexico (1808-1811) are showing up as available for the set.



You wanna let BJ know or should I? Once that's fixed I'll be at 100%



Edit: Oops maybe I'm wrong. What's he difference between "Imaginary Military" bust from 1808-1811 and "Armored Bust" from 1808-1811. Weren't all of these crude renditions of the portrait?

Armoured Bust:





Imaginary Bust

Boosibri

The Charles IV transitional is now live

TwoKopeiki

Both were technically "imaginary" as the proper hubs did not arrive from Spain until 1811/12

MilkmanDan

Originally posted by: TwoKopeiki

Both were technically "imaginary" as the proper hubs did not arrive from Spain until 1811/12

This is my understanding as well.

Boosibri

Technically one is called the armored bust and the other the laurel bust, both as you say are "imaginary".

MilkmanDan

It is my opinion that these two categories should be merged to one:



Ferdinand VII, Armored Bust (1808-1811)

Ferdinand VII, Imaginary Military Bust (1808-1811)



As far as I can tell they are the same. For some countries PCGS calls them one (such as Mexico), for other countries PCGS calls them the other (for example Peru).



There are certainly Imaginary Bust examples within the Armored Bust set for Mexico, and likely other countries as well.

Boosibri

I don't think I agree OD, they are distinctly different design types

TwoKopeiki

There were a number of "busto imaginario" issues. One more major type is the 1810-1811 8 Reales from Santiago. And then there are the busts used by Royalist Mints during the War of Independence in Mexico (Zacatecas, Guadalajara, Durango. If you're including "transitional bust" series where the legend mismatches the bust, you should include 1808-1810 Guatemala (Bust Carlos IV, legend Ferdinand VII) and 1810-1820 Popayan.

TwoKopeiki

Also, you should probably update the set name to reflect the fact you're only looking at "milled" issues. That date / ruler range also encompasses cobs.

2ltdjorn

well thats cool. I could see that as a cool set to work on.

Boosibri

TK, you are right about the Santiago issue, crap

TwoKopeiki

Here are the examples i'm talking about:



Santiago:





Guatemala transitional:





Popayan:





Durango:





Guadalajara:





Chihuahua:





Zacatecas:

TwoKopeiki

Funny - just realized all of these were from the same auction.

Boosibri

Im tempted to ask for the transitional Charles IIU bust to be dropped and keep this as a major design type set

MilkmanDan

Originally posted by: Boosibri

I don't think I agree OD, they are distinctly different design types

Well, you either go nuts or you keep it simple. As the set is defined now it doesn't really make sense.



The armored bust of Ferdin. VII from 1808-1811 are a type. As stated earlier the proper hubs didn't arrive until years later, so the mints each made up their own rendition (some better than others!) If you really want to do every type, you'd want to do a type for each mint since their renditions were all different.



My point is this, they're all Armored bust of Ferdin. VII. Some were hand crafted while others were made with proper Spanish hubs. My opinion is - it's better to keep it simple as a single type, otherwise it gets too confusing to try and cover each sub-type or each individual mint location. It's a high level type set not a comprehensive set.



Just an opinion though...

dizzlecc

awesome, my focus has been primarily Mexico but this will help shift to more of a Latin America type set.

1Bustcollector

Very informative on the different (shall I say) types and sub types with the Kings, dates and the respective Mints. I've picked up a few pointers. Much appreciated!

Boosibri

I'm thinking of asking BJ to remove the transitional Charles III type from the set. Anyone want to make a case for or against?



It is a step deeper than a high level set should cover and as Dan notes it opens up many other issues which have equal merit. As to the various imaginary issues I think the clear portrait variations are warranting a separate entry. Should we include the Chilean design as well? Tough coin!

MilkmanDan

Originally posted by: Boosibri

I'm thinking of asking BJ to remove the transitional Charles III type from the set. Anyone want to make a case for or against?



It is a step deeper than a high level set should cover and as Dan notes it opens up many other issues which have equal merit. As to the various imaginary issues I think the clear portrait variations are warranting a separate entry. Should we include the Chilean design as well? Tough coin!

I personally would keep the transitional CIII. It seems like an easily distinguishable type.



On the other hand, I'm not sure how you would even distinguish between the imaginary vs. proper portraits in the set registry. PCGS doesn't always use different coin numbers for them. As the set currently exists, "Ferdinand VII, Armored Bust (1808-1811)" includes a bunch of imaginary portraits from Mexico. Do you see what I mean? Too messy and impossible for PCGS to clearly differentiate. I agree that it would be nice to separate them out, but there's not clean way to do that for all the different mints.

jgenn

I vote (not that this is a democracy) for keeping the transitional Charles IV bust of Charles III (and add 1791 to the date range for the Peru issue) and collapsing Ferdinand VII into one category. How did Potosi get the draped portrait before the other mints?

Boosibri

I'm against changing the Ferdinand with at least four completely distinct portraits (Chile missing from the current set) which seem McGee more interesting to me than a transitional variety with really an incompatible legend and portrait combination. Logistically I get that the Ferdinand VII is tough to manage within the PCGS set-up.



Glad to see the set for whatever it is has gained interest.



Note, Charles III denomination set (incorrectly titled a type set) was added last night.