Spanish Colonial Proof Coins 8 Reales Etc

Hi Swamperbob thanks for your reply. So could a proof be struck in error example a strong detailed double struck carolus in high grade with extra sharp details could be classed as a proof but may not intentionally have been made as a proof or officially recognised as a proof. For example the coin was struck with a newly changed die or struck with more force or twice because the first impression was not strong enough making the overall appearance of the coin extra sharp and detailed? So maybe the government did not officially class them as proofs at the time but more as an error. Then later on the 1800s proofs where officially struck and deliberately struck?I've seen example some carolus portraights with very strong details indeed and looked like proof coins but have seen no reference in the books but have been partially double struck.

The "proof" Peruvian is a Pattern definitely struck with more precision on a polished planchet and the dies were of a superior grade as well. Not a business strike for sure. A proof really in the sense of a trial strike. Remember proofs were not struck for collectors back then in great numbers. VERY FEW COLLECTORS were around to warrant such a production. A proof might be made for an important person or for a mint collection. They were not commonly made.

But to call the Iterbide Proofs - "errors" is not correct either.

Your description does not result in a proof.


If the dies were normal business dies you would get a well struck or fully struck coin but not a proof. The difference would be the specially surfaced dies and specially prepared plancjets.

I do not doubt the coins described by Krause and Ponterio were SPECIAL coins which were made for Iturbide himself or another official INTENTIONALLY. But they would not be proofs by a modern standard.