What Do You Think - Is This Durango 8 Reales An 1815 Or 1813

One could argue (?) it's a slanting "5" experiencing the same shadowing (trailing left) that's seen on the digits next to it... creating something that could be construed as a "3".

Wow, what is wrong with that coin design, not to insult your coin. The portrait looks like a 5 year-old did it and the coat of arms too. The lettering looks scribbled... but still I wouldn't mind owning one

realeswatcher, I'm leaning towards this being an 1815 and the last digit of the date looking the way it does due to the metal flow during striking.

10xloupe, these were struck during Mexico's War of Independence when provisional mints like Durango had to be created due to the safety concerns of transporting silver ore from the mines to the mint in Mexico City. These were struck under emergency conditions with sub-par equipment, lacking proper royal dies, and often with great variation in weight and purity (especially in Durango). The coin you see is a result of all those factors. But that's what makes it pretty cool and an interesting area of numismatics.

jfransch, I'm doing the same thing at work right now.

P.S. The initials on the coin are MZ (Z barely visible due to strike weakness) and 1813 had both MZ and RM, from what I remember.

Here are some more 1815 pieces, and a few 1813 to compare (mad props to Mr. Ponterio, Mr. Sedwick, and Mr. Heritage for the pics). Note the third and fourth 1815 shown have a "5" similar to the final digit on yours ... Actually, if you compare closely, I think the fourth 1815 came from the same observe die as yours... Looking quickly, I see several distinctive matching markers (under the 5, VII ordinal, the last "A" in GRATIA).

All told, quite likely 1815... Whatever the date, a REALLY nice piece considering the pics below represent what's is appearing at auctions.

realeswatcher, that last 1813 is gorgeous! Do you remember which auction house sold that one?

Kopeiki, an 1813 would of course be better... but the more I look at the other example coins, it really has to be 1815, doesn't it? When they're all viewed together, the multiple matching die markers I think speak for themselves...

It drives me nuts when the grading companies do this... You see a basic errors on cobs, for example... But geez, in this case, they sent the coin out to a field-specific "expert". I'd love to hear the rationale for what he came up with...

As far as grade... There's no debating it's a gorgeous piece with little wear. Wouldn't have been shocking (to me at least) to see it make 50, depending on what it looks like in hand.

the date questionable digit looks more like a 5 than a 3. The 3 of that period is more "bulbous" or fat bottomed, and this coin's digit doesn't look it or has that characteristic. The digit is a very crude recut or carved 5.

I'm curious about the background of this particular coin since it looks so incredible. I can't recall seeing a crude strike this nice. Where has this one been hiding?