| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,965 |
|
|
New Member
Indonesia
33 Posts |
 What might this be? I can't find it under Spanish coins in NGC/Krause.
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2518 Posts |
|
|
New Member
 Indonesia
33 Posts |
I looked it up but I can't find anything with the ME Mintmark.:-(
|
|
New Member
Indonesia
33 Posts |
In Numista it says Mexico,maybe because of the Mintmark Mo.
In my coin the Mintmark says ME.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2518 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
It's neither Spain nor Mexico but Peru.
In my edition, KM#76 includes 1775 MJ.
And @ 'SlurExe97', most of Latin America at that time were Spanish colonies (apart from Brasil which was Portuguese).
Edited by Medieval
12/14/2014 04:47 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Quote:
In my coin the Mintmark says ME. The mintmark is 'LIMAE' in monogram form. |
|
New Member
Indonesia
33 Posts |
I certainly and very much agree with 'SlurExe97',this Spanish
coins are pretty confusing .........and I have a whole bunch of them.
I might be back at this Forum soon with more Spanish ID troubles I guess. :-)
For now I understood that ME stands for (Spanish)Peru. Then MJ are the Assayer Initials...?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Quote:
Then MJ are the Assayer Initials...? Yes, indeed. |
|
New Member
Indonesia
33 Posts |
I'm note really sure,if this is the correct Forum to bring this up
but regarding those 'Spaniards' and how they registered.
Since they all are actually Spanish coins they should be referred
as Spanish-Peru or Spanish-Colonial and so on....
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16817 Posts |
The Krause catalogues, rather confusingly, file them under the name of the modern successor country. Thus, Spanish colonial coins minted in Santiago are filed under "Chile", even though no such country as Chile existed before 1810. Under Spanish rule, it was administratively part of the Viceroyalty of Peru.
Personally, I would much prefer to see Spanish colonials field under either "Spanish colonials" or under the actual names of the Viceroyalties that actually existed at the time. But, since we have to work with that which exists, rather than that which might be nice to have, it's likely that Spanish colonials will continue to be referred to by coin collectors as "Mexico", "Colombia", "Chile", etc, however anachronistic this may be.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
New Member
Indonesia
33 Posts |
To me it is not only anachronistic but also most unfortunate since it is
historically and ethically incorrect because they are very correctly 'Spanish
Colonials' but as you say,it's very likely that nothing will change and for
people like me,well...we always can ask for help in this great forum :-)
|
|
Valued Member
United States
220 Posts |
I have also struggled with these Spanish colonials. Usually a Google search using the year, the two initials, and the denomination "1775 MJ 2 reales" will show results showing you it is from Peru.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3772 Posts |
Quote:
The Krause catalogues, rather confusingly, file them under the name of the modern successor country. While true, the colonial mintmarks are noted at the beginning of the article on Spain. |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,965 |
|
Posted 12/14/2014 04:27 am
