Will someone please help identify this cob?

Thanks,
The coin is a Real, assayer "B." I need to confirm the country and ruler.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't hold me to it... but I think I found it.

1596-1621 - 8 Reales from Bolivia - KM# 10. Ruler - Felipe III

 

Yes, I answered this on the PCGS forum for you with full explanation.

 

@Bill in Burl

I'm not completely satisfied yet. I also think it is Bolivia, Potasi 1 Real. I need to make sure it is Philip III 1596-1605.

 

Here is the answer that I gave you on the PCGS forum:

With the P mintmark, it is Potasi, Bolivia, but the P could also stand for Peru, since Potasi was part of the viceroyalty of Peru. The assay mark (B) was Juan Ballesteros (1577-1587). All the shield cobs before 1617 are undated. I am not a cob expert, but knew that I had the book "The Practical Book of Cobs, 1990" so I looked at the book. I could be wrong, but that's what you get having a cob rookie look things up. My expertise is Canadian Vicky Large Cents.

The assayer Juan Ballesteros (assay mark "B") returned to the job and worked on and off from 1591-1615 with other assayers. Your coin is a 1 real and could be from either Felipe II(1556-1598) or Felipe III (1598-1621). Someone else looked it up and found this for you: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces61946.html
However, the "B" assayer worked mostly earlier than Felipe III. Your coin is too worn on the right side of the Mint/Assay side to see which ruler. Other Potasi coins had the Monarch on that same side.

 

Ah nice, I'm the other "cob rookie that likes to look things up" from the PCGS forum thread Small world.

 

Thanks to both of you for your effort. I had already done an extensive Internet search and one from my library using Juan Cayon's reference and auction catalogues. I already knew everything revealed in your answers EXCEPT: "All the shield cobs before 1617 are undated." Thanks for that!

Anyway, I got frustrated and was spending too much time with this little piece. I incorrectly figured that someone other than "a cob rookie" such as myself would be able to attribute it immediately. So far, I've had no luck hearing from a "professional" cob expert on two forums.

I think this comment may have "killed" my chances for ADDITIONAL info from OTHERS here on this one: "Here is the answer that I gave you on the PCGS forum:"

 

Thank You, I'm pretty sure it is also. Unfortunately, "pretty sure" is...

 

How much does it weight?

 

Any time I need to find a foreign coin, I just go to http://en.numista.com

Really, you can find most anything there, even if you have to search through 60 pages of coins to look for a similar picture.

I'm very much into Foreign Coins (have 1000's), but don't have that many that are Undated - only a few. Those are the ones that are always a pain to find.

My Identification wasn't nearly as in-depth as Bill's, but I try!!! - plus, I LIKE looking up coins!

 

Why? Was it part of your treasure Thatch?

It is a genuine 1 Real cob with a hole? 3.2 grams is that helpful? Anyway, thanks for your interest.

 

I lay claim to all that is mine...

 

It's best to include as much as you already know in your initial post when you ask things like this. Otherwise it ends up being a snub.

"Hey, need to confirm some info"

"Thanks, I already knew that"

 

The information that I posted came from the book "The Practical Book of Cobs, 2nd edition" by Frank Sedwick. The information on the Potasi mint is on p11-12. They made silver cobs there from 1574-1773, the longest run of cobs from any Spanish-American mint, but no gold cobs through its entire history. The mintmark is always P, meaning either Potasi or Peru. p12 lists all the assayer marks for the entire time that shield types were made, up until about 1650. Then most of the mints went to the "pillar and wave" types through to the mid to later 1700's ending about 1770 for the Potasi mint. There is a large annotation that covers all the shield types that says "All shield types were undated until 1617." All the pillar and wave types ARE dated.

 

Numismat, posted: "It's best to include as much as you already know in your initial post when you ask things like this. Otherwise it ends up being a snub.
"Hey, need to confirm some info." "Thanks, I already knew that."

While I can understand your comment if I really stretch...

imho, THANKS, but NO THANKS! Now, I'll tell you why.

If I hand someone a coin and ask for an opinion on its grade, authenticity, or ATTRIBUTION, I am looking for THEIR OPINON and NOT just A CONFIRMATION OF MINE! Furthermore, by not giving any information, I can judge the knowledge of the person answering my question.

I already THANKED both posters for their effort. One has continued to add information and is probably educating many of us INCLUDING ME.

So, thanks again for your concern ; but apparently, @Bill in Burl did not feel snubbed. I can only add that I wish you would have been able to ID the Ruler and the date range when this cob was struck.

 

As per my previous posts, unless you can decipher more of what's written in the legend on the right, you have no way of knowing if it was Phillip II or III. Phillip II was from 1556-1598 and Felipe III from 1598-1623. Since all those cobs have no dates before 1617, it could be II or III .. Only by examining more of the legend where it's worn heavily, you'll never know which one it came during. The B assayer was from 1577-1586 and again from 1591-1615, the chances are better that it's Felipe II. It is definitely the Potasi mint. I don't understand the "snubbed" reference.

 

I AGREE! Thanks, you've been a BIG help.

 

Except that you're not asking for a subjective opinion on a grade, you're asking for an identification which is a matter of fact and not opinion. And when someone helps with the identification you tell them thanks, but I knew that and you're not helpful. You really can't see why that is a messed up way to respond to people's good intentions? Especially since you did not disclose that you already knew basically what it was and were looking for a specific detail.