Quote:
Look at the position of the castles and lions. They seem reversed from all I have seen of the 2 real pieces and the lions are seen facing in the proper direction so not a transposition. Possibly a Felipe II style from one of the Spanish mints?
I assume the idea of pre-1597 (when they introduced the OMNIVM style and added the Portugal escutcheon) mainland Spain mint derives from there being no Portugal? Like I said, by style, it's definitely not any of those pre-OMNIVM types.
Regarding the lions/castles... one note: Cob people generally DO call the cross side "transposed" lions/castles by rule... Whether that's perfectly linguistically correct... eh. Nonetheless, that is what "they" call it, not a reversal (which I believe would be reserved for a mirroring error - which would be bizarre since it would involve a backwards-made punch).
But, yeah, the lions and castles switched places here... The most prevalent examples of this effect are Potosi cobs of the early 1620s. On those, the cross side can be transposed, the lions/castles within the upper left quadrant of the SHIELD can be switched... the shield's whole upper left quadrant can be switched with the whole upper RIGHT quadrant... This is mostly seen on the 8R and 4R, but I'm sure I've seen a few 2R showing this effect.
Aside from those, there isn't any other mint/date range where you'd say transposed detail is commonly seen in any way... EXCEPT for 1620s-40s Bogota. Of course, most people aren't familiar with this because Nuevo Reino macuquinas are SO scarce in general that most people don't even know they exist.
I showed this piece to Herman Blanton, noted collector of/expert on the Colombian cob issues (see his website primarily devoted to this topic, macuquina.com). He confirms:
Quote:
There is no doubt about it being Santa Fe.
2R, I feel it is assayer P 1627.
But it could range 1627-29. But then there is an assayer A that might match in which case 1632-42.
So there is no doubt it is Santa Fe and a little mystery about the assayer and date, but I could argue it is precisely 1627.
Very nice example of the type... And again, as I assume this was picked up just as a generic 2R with no attribution... great accidental cherrypick!!