For your consideration: A fine example of a, um, well, uh, I'm not certain. Outside of my knowledge, but discovered in the miscellany I've been excavating in my house. Soooo... I humbly present it here for kind and friendly opinions and expertise. My thanks! (Note: "Coin" flipped horizontally)
Yes, it's a maravedis denomination, almost certainly 17th century (i.e., 1600s), but I don't know how many maravedis, or have an exact attribution for you. These are essentially "copper cobs" as @Numismat said, though if I recall correctly, they were made in homeland Spain rather than at the colonial mints in the Americas. They're often found with really nice, sandy patina. A detecting buddy of mine dug one from the 1600s here in Brunswick, Georgia, when they were doing road work downtown on the waterfront! The first settler in our city had a house very near where he found that, in the 1730s, though the city wasn't really laid out until the 1770s. But we are situated quite near Florida, which was Spanish in those days. I dug up a 1658 4-maravedis piece myself, but it's a different type than yours. Mine was found at an old mission site on the northern end of St. Simons Island. Look at VCoins and eBay. You'll see 'em. They're pretty affordable.
@Numismat & @lordmarcovan thank you for responding! Following your tutelage, I looked further. Cobs with a shield around both the rampant lion and the tower seem to be 8 maravedis. (?) Other than that, I'm not sure there is enough detail to allow any more identification. More kind education is always welcome however.
An 8-maravedis piece would be pretty large, I think (at least they were later, in the 1800s milled coins). My 1658 4-maravedis is about the size of a US nickel 5-cent piece (or maybe a pound or Euro coin, I guess - very approximately - to give you some idea if you're in the UK as I suspect from your username). Chances are, it's a 2- or a 4-maravedis, I'm guessing. Some headscratching over Krause and other sources might enable me to pin your piece down, but alas, I lack the time presently.
Size does matter I guess... If your 4 maravedis is the size of a nickle and this is the size of a quarter, I'm extrapolating that the entire design on this one would be half-dollar(+) sized. <shrug> Krause is a bit lacking in photos in that section. Alas. Not in the UK, although university was Oxford and London. I'll buy you a pint and bore you with my tales.
That pretty much is the entire design. This is the whole coin, cobs are just essentially hunks of metal crudely stamped with whatever amount of design will stick. I was thinking 4 maravedis as well, but can easily be an 8 maravedis. Size and weight might be useful, but there is enough overlap to where it may not be definitive.
Thank you @Numismat. For what it's worth... weight 6.22g, size ~25mm. To the right of the rampant lion, I think I can see the roundness of the bottom of a "6", a flat-bottomed numeral, and then a "9". Of course, I have a notorious imagination. (Ah... it's all for fun anyway.)
Based on the measurements and some further digging, it is most likely an 8 maravedis of Philip IV (1621-1665), seems like probably dated 1629 based on your description. The mint mark is not visible in the photo though. Many of these were later revalued and countermarked, this one is a very nice example
@Numismat... You are amazing. Feel free to punch anyone in the nose who says anything differently for a few days. Is there a Krause number associated with that?
Should be KM #10, subtypes based on mint. I guess it's probably not 1629 though, maybe 1625 as this type would be in the 1620's.
All hail @Numismat! When I hear "8-maravedis", I think of the big, chunky, half-dollar-sized milled copper ones of Isabella II in the mid-1800s. It seems strange that an 8-maravedis piece of more than 200 years earlier would be smaller, but I suppose this is the case sometimes. (Obviously it is.) Edit: I now recall that these are often counterstamped and sometimes "retariffed", so perhaps it was an inflationary situation. That would explain how a copper 8-maravedis piece could be smallish in the 1600s yet much larger in the mid-1800s. Edit #2: of course, at ~25 mm, your coin there is not exactly tiny, and is likely larger than the 17th century Spanish coppers I've been accustomed to seeing.
Ah, the big KM#10 section with no photos. It sounds like the beast. Take a peek at this closer shot. If (a big if since Spanish cobs are not my comfort zone) that third digit is a "9" might that not slide it to a KM#9.x? And... thank you both for the friendly interaction.
Perhaps I jumped the gun. I found a 1625 example with the droopy "5." Looks rather nine-esque when just viewing the tail.
