Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bardolph, post: 24610193, member: 96174&quot;]There are four puzzling aspects to this coin:&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>1. The letters RRN (or possibly VRRN) on the reverse.&nbsp; As far as I am aware, there is no legend on any Spanish coin of the period where there are two letter Rs together.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>2. The arms of Castille and Leon are, quarterly, 1st and 4th, a triple turreted castle, 2nd and 3rd, a lion rampant.&nbsp; That these positions are reversed is extremely surprising, to put it mildly.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>3. The third possible anomaly is the mintmark itself. The letter P for Potosi is a straightforward, plain letter P without the flourishes seen on this coin. I must admit however that I have a vague memory in the back of my mind that I may have seen this sort of embellished P once before&nbsp; - but if so, I cannot find it on the net. I have also checked Lima, which used a single plain P as its mintmark on the left hand side of the obverse in 1572-73, and then a P in the same position but with a small star on the right hand side, above the assayer&#039;s initial, from circa 1573 to 1592. I also checked La Plata (or Sucre) which used a plain P mintmark from 1573. </p><p><br /></p><p>4. Finally, in spite of these strange differences, I have to admit that this coin somehow manages to look genuine. </p><p><br /></p><p>How can this be? I think the answer may be that it is a Rochuna. </p><p><br /></p><p>OK, so first a little history. The Potosi mint began to cause serious problems even before celebrating the 50th anniversary of its foundation, somewhere between 1573 and 1575. The viceroy, Diego Fernandez de Cordoba (1622-29) wrote to Felipe IV reminding him of the problems in the&nbsp; mint during the reign of Felipe III and wrote “continua la mala administracion [de la ceca] de Potosi.” The Casa de Concentracion in Sevilla also noted that silver coins from Potosi did not meet the legal requirement of 0,930 fineness. The assayers were replaced. </p><p><br /></p><p>The next viceroy was Luis Jeronimo Fernandez de Cabrera (1629-39). His family were the perpetual treasurers of the Segovia mint and as such his father was the prime mover in the establishment of the new mint in Segovia in 1583 (for milled coins) and Luis Jeronimo himself is known to have often visited the two Segovia mints. As viceroy, he was involved in a long, losing struggle, to impose his authority on the Potosi mint. Towards the end of his period of service, he began periodical inspections and sent critical reports to Madrid. </p><p><br /></p><p>The following viceroy, Pedro de Alvarez de Toledo (1639 -48) arrived in Lima in December 1639 and was promptly informed of all manners of irregularities - but rather than put an end to them decided to join in with the culprits and take a share of their profits. But if he did nothing, other officials did. A report of 1646 consisting of 36 chapters detailed all manners of fraud and deceit, and the full participation of Pedro de Alvarez in the scam. He was recalled home and the new viceroy, the Conde de Salvatierra, put an end to more than 20 years of corruption. </p><p><br /></p><p>In this period, the most famous scandal was what was known as the Accidente de la Plata. On March 20th1641, Francisco Gomez de la Rocha, a Potosi based industrialist and dealer in silver, decided to mint his own coins using his own silver, in the Potosi mint, with the totally willing help of everybody – smelters, die makers, assayers, the mint master, the viceroy, etc. These coins are known as “rochunas” and their production went on until 1643, but the fraud was not discovered in Spain until mid-1644, when a consignment of 8 Potosi reales sent to Italy from Spain was rejected as being debased – the coins were so lacking in silver that the real value was 5 reales. This was the Accidente de Plata which caused Europe-wide, indeed world-wide damage to the reputation of Spanish coinage at the time was still the most widely used currency international trade&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>An investigation in Spain (carried out by the Mint master of the Segovia mint) lasted until early 1645. The civil governor (corregidor) of Potosi was ordered in 1646 to carry out a detailed investigation in the mint, but he so delayed the investigation and invented excuses for his inaction that in 1648 Felipe IV ordered a final and definitive investigation.&nbsp; 119 people were found guilty, and de la Rocha and the Corregidor, among others, were hanged. </p><p><br /></p><p>Most of this information comes from Dr Glen Murray’s Cecas de Potosi y Lima, (published, Segovia 201). As he points out, there are, for obvious reasons, very few contemporary records or documents written by the criminals of Potosi, and the Spanish authorities had no interest in publicising the affair. Their main aim at the time was to round up and melt down all the rochunas and any other suspect coin from Potosi. For this reason, I have not been able to locate a coin similar to this one. </p><p><br /></p><p>A final consideration: counterfeiters have often tried to excuse themselves by claiming that they cannot be found guilty of counterfeiting as their “coins” are not identical to the real thing. My guess is that this coin was made the way it is -&nbsp; in the royal mint of Potosi - with the obvious differences noted above,&nbsp; in order to escape the gallows -&nbsp; hopefully, but in vain[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in