Spanish 4 Real 1614 Need Mint?

Just to verify, it's definitely a full 8R (27g or so), not a 4R, correct?

Assuming it is 8... The only options by style/1610's time frame would be Seville or Toledo. Cayon and Calico only show a 1614 dated cob 8R from Seville. Around that time, my older Calico shows a 1615 for Toledo; Cayon shows a Toledo 1613 (rare) and the 1615.

I find Seville vs. Toledo in those years to be hard to differentiate, esp. with incomplete central detail as is the case here. Honestly, if I didn't know better, I'm inclined to say it looks more like my reference pics for Toledo from what I can see of the lions/castles. I'm going to do some digging (haven't studied the 1610's pieces all that much before), and you verify it's an 8, not 4. Then we go from there.

Looked at your other fantasy-type Spanish replicas... interesting pieces... have the looks of maybe mid-1900s imitative issues. Those (3) threads, and the one about the Venetian ducat, should be here in this World forum... can a Moderator maybe move them all over?

Finally got around to looking into this piece... If you remember, I said it sort of looked more like Toledo than Seville. Even with the cob being a 4R, that's interesting since a 1614 Toledo 4 Reales is unlisted in the 1988 Calico I have (a bit outdated) and the 2005 Cayon (the most recent), or secondarily, Krause. Nonetheless, Toledo 1614 4R DO exist... I found two examples of definitively dated 1614 4R with clear T° mintmarks (see pic). Goes to show the limitations of those catalogues, and also the related fact that you have to take given cob values with a grain of salt due to human error/incompleteness.

Comparing yours to those known 1614 Toledo pieces, and contrasting them against Seville and Segovia (even Valladolid) from 1614 +/- a few years, I have zero doubt that yours is Toledo. The overall shield style, particularly the arrangement of (3) fleur-de-lis in a horizontal line, is very similar to these two definite pieces. On the cross-side, the lions match, and those distinctly arched castles absolutely peg it as Toledo (neither Seville or Segovia around then are close to similar).

In terms of what it's worth, who knows. It has to at least be a somewhat scarcer date... If there were a lot of them out there, limitations of the cataloguers aside, you'd figure it WOULD have been recognized and listed. However, who knows how many pieces are out there un-/misattributed b/c collectors/dealers don't see such a beast shown in the catalog, so they call it the wrong mint or mint uncertain. This would be particularly true, I think, in cases like your piece where the date is definite but the mintmark isn't there and maybe other identifying features like lions/castles are obscured... or where the a date (i.e., the "14") is partial and people mistakely think it's a different final digit b/c "1614 Toledo" "doesn't exist".

PS - One curious feature... notice something odd in the info area to the left of the shield? You have the standard "°" above "T" for Toledo... but then below the "T" appears to be another "°" ? Either there's an "assayer O" (otherwise unknown) or, more likely I think, that bottom "°" is just stylistic and there actually is NO assayer mark... which is very odd. Assayer C appears through 1613 on the 4R, and assayer V also starts that year (1613V 4R exists)... V is then the known assayer on the 1615-1618 Toledo 4R issues, and the fairly common "P" issues begin with 1619. Note that the castles on these 1614 pieces are unlike those of C... but are very close to the castles on assayer V Toledo 4R pieces I have reference pics of (looks like same punch, subject to closer examination).

That's just some environmental crud there... not a cause for concern, overall the piece looks absolutely genuine. Like you said, could be a contact point with something else, or maybe some reaction in a spot on the coin that's a bit higher in copper? There's some crevice accretion in general... likely a well-preserved land (hoard) find.

Despite the doubling, you can see enough of that castle where the ID really is confirmed (considering how distinct to Toledo these castles seem to be)...

Regarding the mintmark area... there's really nothing there on your piece. A visual analysis note - If there was a FAINT outline of something there, you actually might be better served looking at a SMALL pic rather than an extreme closeup like you just took... kind of a "Where's Waldo?" optical effect.

Thanks for posting that... score one for up-to-date references!

Interesting that it's now listed for both assayer C and assayer V... One thing, how could the 1614 pieces be at least relatively scarce to the degree that they were used to be unknown (and finding these two examples took some searching), yet they're worth roughly the same amount as the previously accounted-for surrounding dates?

Krause... eh, it's an all-purpose guide covering EVERY country. It's inevitable that it will have its flaws/limitations... One thing that bothers me, specifically in the Spanish-devoted edition Krause published about 10 years ago... They cover 1500's Mexico/Lima/Potosi, which goes beyond their Standard Catalog's 1601- start date, but NOT 1500's Spain, skipping all of the Philip II and the hard to peg Ferdinand and Isabella style... The latter REALLY needed to be covered, too... I don't know of a comprehensive English-language resource on them, though I think there's a Spanish book on that period. I understand a lot of us Americanos care primarily about the New World issues... but to me, they really should be analyzed/collected together.

True about Calico pricing theoretically being for "strong" pieces (in terms of both wear and strike), especially as compared to Cayon, which it has now usurped as the more "standard" reference for this era... I do think some of the pricing in both can be a bit random... Also, with only a single price being given in both guides, how are we to determine how strike (incl. whether the date is bold and/or visible) and level of circulation wear affect the value for each specific series?

I could rant about other flaws in both guides... though each are useful to a certain extent. Suffice it to say, a better reference could exist for homeland Spain cobs.

I think for scarce date they just don't bother with the pricing, if they are considered as scarce as the other surrounding ones.
Calico alson don't list most over-essayers and many over-dates - for example AZ over RG on my 1821 Zacatecas is not listed.
But well, the catalog foes from 1474 till 2001, that's a lot of coins to cover (it's a huge dictionary actually)
And it's actually as nice for homeland coins than for new world ones IMHO :) I really like this book.

Regarding pricing, here are two complete examples (the coins are the ones in the catalog) :
* Toledo, undated Felipe II, essayer M, Gratia ++ at the end of the legend, Calico 261 - Listed at 500 euro, exact coin pictured bought at 340 euros
* Valladolid, undated > 1565 Felipe II, essayer A, mint mark between 3 dots , Calico 277 - Listed at 1200 euros, exact coin pictured bought at 700 euros

And to go back to your coins ... I rechecked, and I couldn't figure it out.
Do you have the description from they auction they came from ? To me, it could be another o (as in the mint mark), or a small p with a part missing (but the date don't stick to that mint mark). I also checked later dates, but the position is not correct (for Felipe IV for example).

Well, I could ask them :)
I never had answers though regarding their catalog ... (submitted them a 1/2 reales with an unlisted date - which was in Krause)
I suppose they have more work with the auction preparation - the catalog is just a side business to promote their house, and coins they sell :)