Mexican War Of Independence: Lva Or Avt Counterstamp

A few things I don't like about this piece, aside from the aforementioned:

-- the filled "A" letter in ZACATECAS... the first A is getting towards the weaker-struck area, but that second A is in the middle of the struck-up area and it's still filled. Not something I'm seeing on any other examples...

-- those extra triangular things jutting out of the denticles near "PRO..." - what is that?

-- (most curious) Look how broken that "D" in MONEDA is... The D on some other pieces I'm reviewing has a slight gap at the lower left... but nothing like this, where there is essentially NO bottom to the D

Bopple can cite the FVI pedigree - its identified in Krause - have not tracked it down - yes - filled in A's as a sign of casting - I could write a book on that effect - but trace lead and fairly good ring tone - this is more crude than the typical KM-190's - but we are just going in circles here - will just keep moving forward - as Max Keech said in his MNA-WOI Counterstamp talk - this series is in its infancy - and as Dunnigan told me at the NYITL - just shred the WOI in Krause - it seems so Realeswatcher- I am all alone with these others in rebuilding and rewriting this series correctly from the ground up ...

John Lorenzo
United States

Two Cents of common sense for the countermarked series. I remember chatting with Hubbard about Many of these countermarks pieces. I said: Any c/m over a good quality (say a Mo 8 Reales or a good quality bust issue from a provincial mint that is struck) is very probably bogus. He agreed. Any purpotedly royalist c/m over an insurgent issue is again almost certainly bogus. Example: A royalist mark over an LVO insurgent to revalidate it makes no sense as the royalists made a point to declare them not legal tender. If you look at the bigger picture the series falls into place. First royalist provisional mints such as Real de Catorce Oaxaca and Valladolid were forced to strike issues of provisional designs and these has to be accepted. But after ca. 1814 all royalist mints has to strike the bust type. This is Why Early Ca for exámple had to be over struck even if the cast early issues were of good quality.

I just located a THIRD retrograde that I will call LVO 1811 KM-189/190 type in a current auction. Normally I do not post something in a current auction - its BAD MANNERS <BG>. Suffice to say they exist and this Gomez piece has company. I do not plan on buying it but I will be a little ANGEL and be willing to do an XRF on this piece to see its composition <BG> on whoever wins the piece wherever the live in the World. Good luck. Keep quiet Mat!

John Lorenzo
United States

Mat & Realeswatcher -

What is also interesting gentleman the Gomez coin now in my collection is of the same obverse/reverse dies as this piece ... HMMMM ... Gomez is on the mailing list ... I wonder what he is thinking right now? ... and the cataloger did not seem compelled to indicate anything about the date and its retrograde nature ... does the State of Texas consider this piece a common occurrence not requiring any mention of this anomaly? Is it an anomaly to this cataloguer?

Texas is Angel's mailing address ... in the U.S..

Carlos, you said




...which is why the Osorno counterstamp on Colonial 1,2, and 8 Reales is such a mystery to me. There you have one counterstamp that does not make sense. Why would an Insurgent put his counterstamp on a good Mexico City Colonial mint issue - nobody would have doubted its good standing, even coming from the "enemy".

Maybe the inverted date just got overlooked in the past on what appears to be a rather crudely made batch of these LVO coins. Most type collectors (and I am talking from own experience here) would be looking for a better struck example. There is so much variety in the series that nobody really investigated them. The only variety I am aware of having been noted is the mule of the Royal shield with the earlier mountains side (which, incidentially, was sold by the same company now auctioning our inverted 1811).

Its very common and early = TIXTLA

No proof but I think the evidence is pointing to here that this stamp is almost always seen associated with the Morelos counterstamp(s). Its early also ... the dot is interesting but what does LVA match up to?

Morelos soon showed himself to be a talented strategist, and became one of the greatest revolutionary military commanders of the war. In his first nine months, he won 22 victories, annihilating the armies of three Spanish royalist leaders and dominating almost all of what is now the state of Guerrero. In December, he captured Acapulco for the first time, except for the fortress of San Diego. Spanish reinforcements forced him to raise the siege in January. By quick marches, he was able to capture most of the Spanish possessions on the Pacific coast of what are now Michoacán and Guerrero. On May 24, 1811 he occupied Chilpancingo and on May 26 he took Tixtla.