1677 8-Reale

S

scube

Tenderfoot
Oct 27, 2007
9
0
While in Honduras in the early 1980's I picked up a handful of cobs and coins. On the way out of Honduras via Panama I had the opportunity to try and look up this 1677 coin in "Compendio de las Piezas de Ocho Reales", which I believe, at the time, was a leading authority on the early coins. My notes, which don't make a whole lot of sense to me some 25 years later state: Calbeto #1048 or 1049 (657 and/or 6577), rrr (extremely rare) or e (scare). I believe that we found a number of matches in the ID, but didn't find 100% of a match.

1677 8-Reale front.jpg 1677 8-Reale back.jpg​

Does anyone have an idea on this reale and if so, what does it tell you? I was also wondering if I could be pointed in a direction for determining the market value?

I will post a few more pic's of some of the other coins I picked up at the same time.

Thanks for the help!

Pete
New Smyrna Beach, FL
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!
I don't really know. It does not match a 1677. From what I can tell it doesn't match the 1657 exactly either.
 

The more I look at it the more the "1677" I read along the edge looks more like an "I" (Roman letter "I") followed by 677. Under a loop the middle "number" along the edge has somewhat of a similar vertical slant as the following very clear "7", but it also has some irregularities. It looks to be "177" between the pillars.

However, my eyes are as old as the rest of me.....

Pete
 

If the date range is between 1652 and 1678 and if the mint is Potosi, then the assayer's initial in both the upper right and lower left quadrants of the 'tic-tac-toe' should be "E"--though it doesn't appear to be; especially, in the upper right quadrant.
And yes, what sometimes appears as a "7" is, in fact, a 'lightning bolt' image of a '5'.
Don...
 



URL=http://img710.imageshack.us/i/p1010507r.jpg/]
p1010507r.jpg
[/URL]

You can see the seperation between the P and the pillar top on this 1677, and the clear round outline of the pillar decoration. The hole tops on the pillar on your coin look tooled in by a square bit point.

On the back you can see the "77" for the date is offset, with one 7 higher than the other. The castle tower tops are also more like smokestacks. The bendets also have a different turn at the ends.

I think this one was off the Isla De Muerto wreck in Equador, or an unknown wreck.
 

It looks like I found some coins on the 'net that look almost exactly like mine. I found them at a website called "Sunken Treasure.com" and I have posted a link to the Heritage Coin Auction page at this web site that shows 8 Reale that are, again, almost exactly what I have. http://sunkentreasure.com/haroyal.htm

The main difference I can see is mine shows a 3-digit "date" between the pillars while these are showing 2-digit dates. Which is more common -- the 2 or 3-digit dates...and why would there be a difference? Another oddity is that mine shows the "lightening bolt" style 5 on the 3-digit date between the pillars but to my eye show a more classical '7' digit on the date along the edge (the first photo example on this link show the lightening bolt style 5 for both the between-the-pillars date and the along the edge date). So would mine be a 1657 or a 1677? The shape and pattern of the waves are very slightly different also.

There may be other differences as I continue to study the other photos since the wear pattern is a bit worse on mine in areas that are clearer on the Hertiage auction photos. But, all-in-all, these look pretty close.

What do you all think? Am I in the ball park?

Pete
 

I'm 99% certain this is a cast reproduction. It has no hard (hammered features) and that is not due to wear or corrosion necessarily, but is inherent in the casting process. There are also numerous pores, which aren't from corrosion or striking. The only cobs that were this perfectly round were royal presentation pieces. This i'm afraid, is not one.

Stan
 

DiveWrecks said:
I'm 99% certain this is a cast reproduction. It has no hard (hammered features) and that is not due to wear or corrosion necessarily, but is inherent in the casting process. There are also numerous pores, which aren't from corrosion or striking. The only cobs that were this perfectly round were royal presentation pieces. This i'm afraid, is not one.

Stan
Click to expand...

To clarify (Stan knows this, he just didn't spell it out), it's actually a cast replica/fake OF a "Royal" Potosi round, 8 Reales (as in royal presentation piece). Frankly, the quality of this replica (lack thereof) is such that there shouldn't even be a discussion about it. In addition to (as mentioned) the numerous, obvious casting pores and the extreme "softness" in the detail, the design elements are crude such that it does not even appear to have been cast from an authentic specimen. This might make sense, of course... how many people who have authentic "Royals" are going about getting them cast? Probably not many.

The date, by the way, is clearly intended to be 1657, not 1677... the digits themselves between the pillars (657) and their STYLE should be quite certain to someone who is familiar with these. Also, the legend date, when the pic is rotated, clearly shows the "5" in "1657". Aside from that... um... "PHILIP...", clear as day in the legend.

On the topic of whether the dates between the pillars and under the cross appear in 2-digit or 3-digit form (speaking strictly about Potosi pieces here, though to my knowledge, most Lima issues follow the same pattern)... Firstly, on both regular-strike cobs and royals of all dates, the date in the legend is always given in four digit-form... so that's not an issue.

"Between pillars" date: Generally, on regular strike cobs, most were given as two digits during the 1600s, and as 3 digits ("7xx") during the 1700s. Some pillar dates in the early 1700s were still given as "two-digits", however most were now given using THREE digits... Anything you see from 1720 and up, however, will have always have 3. I can't think of any 1600s "Royal" pieces that aren't two-digit, either... While it is possible 1600s royals with 3 digits "could" have been produced, that would certainly be out of the ordinary.

"Under cross" date: On both regular-strike cobs and the royals that I've seen, from 1652 through much of the the 1660s, the date was often given as three digits "6xx". I've seen some with only 2 digits in these years... but more often than not, it's 3. From the 1670s through the 1690s, I can only recall ever seeing 2 digits... But then, at the turn of that century through the rest of the 1700s, the cross date was again given as three digits pretty much without exception.
 

Mackaydon said:
To further clarify (or confuse), --not all well-struck round issues from Lima and Potosi were Royals or intended as presentation pieces, though they still command a premium.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, well-centered, round (or roundish) pieces bring much better money than off-centered strikes on unevenly thick planchets... Not what (unholed) Royals bring, but still much more than avg. pieces.

I would say that aside from perhaps some of the regular-issue 1650s pillars and waves Potosi pieces, some of which were quite "Royal-like" (maybe assayer E was worried about being the next one on the chopping block, so he wanted to make a good impression??)... you can usually tell a Royal immediately. The surface area that gets struck is almost perfectly level, the die detailing is very sharp, and the legends show evenly and are often full or nearly so.

That website that the original poster pointed out (www.sunkentreasure.com/royal.htm) is a great compilation resource... He also makes a point of showing some of those pieces which could be considered "Royal-like".
 

"Between pillars" date: Generally, on regular strike cobs, most were given as two digits during the 1600s, and as 3 digits ("7xx") during the 1700s. Some pillar dates in the early 1700s were still given as "two-digits", however most were now given using THREE digits... Anything you see from 1720 and up, however, will have always have 3. I can't think of any 1600s "Royal" pieces that aren't two-digit, either... While it is possible 1600s royals with 3 digits "could" have been produced, that would certainly be out of the ordinary.
[/quote]

This discussion and thread has really enlightened me as to the complexity of identifying these coins. The "Sunken Treasure" web site I referred to earlier shows photos of royals that somewhat contradict the helpful edicts that have been posted here. As an example, regarding the three-digit date between the pillars, here is one that auctioned in 2009 with a three-digit 1600's date between the pillars. Where it gets even more puzzling to me is that mine has the three-digit date between the pillars but only a two-digit date under the cross, while this pictured one has three-digits in both locations.

There were a number of other photos of royals that went to auction that can counter the softness and wear of this piece that was discussed. Having previously been cleaned certainly reduces the amount the stamping that shows up in my photos. While I did find one or two with porosity on that auction page, I didn't find any that had as much as this one. But why wouldn't this be an effect of salt water immersion?

I appreciate all the discussion and am learning more then I thought I ever would. Bye the way, the coin weighs 26.9 grams (sorry it took so long to provide that answer).

I guess all of this discussion leads me to the question of who would I be able to send this coin to that would be able to identify it and validate as a replica or a "real" coin?

Thanks again to all......

Pete
 

Attachments

  • royal with 3 digit date.jpg
    royal with 3 digit date.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 849
You must log in or register to reply here.

Looking for any info on this cob I found

⬅️ Previous Thread

Other cobs and coins from Honduras

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top