(411) The Back Page: Volume 1 Issue 4: Last Revision: 05/27/05
We stirred up some interest with our article about those tiny unlisted Culiacan ˝ Escudos a few issues ago. I believe the larger than life-sized scans of these coins led to several requests inquiring about doing the same thing for the unpublished varieties of gold 1 Pesos we have found while creating the FoxLair Reference Collections©. This article will also be a good tie into Kirk Menczer’s article in this issue’s The Collector’s Corner about the challenge of collecting gold 1 Pesos.
However, I question this article’s validity because I wonder how many people collect gold 1 Pesos by variety? Kirk seems to think there are very few (less than five) variety collectors of gold 1 Pesos and if this is true this article may not be of any value? Only time and your responses will tell. One thing that Kirk pointed out was that he felt it was less important to picture the entire coin than to show a much larger picture of the effected area of the coin. We listened and you will note that in most cases we will show only the Mintmark, Date and/or Assayer for the 1 Pesos.
Because we have found so many unlisted varieties of the gold 1 Pesos we will break this article into two parts. This first part covers the varieties from the Alamos, Chihuahua, and Culiacan mints. If you would like to see Part 2 of this article, please let us know? If we don’t get any responses positive responses, we will shelve the second part of this article until much later.
One of the truly unpublished items about the Republican gold 1 Pesos has been the lack of general knowledge about the two different styles of dies used to manufacture these coins even though their existence has been known by advanced collectors for many years.
I have named these two die styles the Style of 1869 and the Style of 1888 because of their appearance during these two time frames. All of the Republican mints don’t use both styles, so if you would like more information about the two different die styles and their diagnostics please let us know and we will include the information we have on them in Part 2 of this series.
Alamos Mint:
There appears to be some misunderstandings about the single DAM, the AS 1888 L, from this mint. This DAM is generally only listed as Rare with no prices and is normally cataloged with two varieties. Rest assured this DAM is not as rare as many other gold 1 Pesos and while those two published varieties may exist, we have verified a third variety during the creation of the FoxLair Reference Collection© for gold 1 Pesos. Diagnostic tools for variety [As-1888-1102] are the lack of a line under the superscript "s" in the Mintmark and the strong underlying bases of the two "7"s under the final two "8"s in the date.
Normal Date, Normal Assayer and Normal Mintmark
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd & 3rd 8/7 OverDate and L/M OverAssayer
As/Mo Over Mintmark, Normal Date and L/M Overassayer
Chihuahua Mint:
Most modern catalogs list a single variety for only one DAM, the CA 1888 M;
(1) Ca/Mo OverMintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
We have also heard rumors of a second DAM, CA 1889 M, existing, however this coin is currently unverified by sales records or photographs. Once again we find an Unlisted variety for a coin that is generally listed as Rare with no prices in modern catalogs, however the Chihuahua 1 Peso is many times rarer than the Alamos 1 Peso if our sales records are correct.
(2) Unlisted CA/MO Over Mintmark, 2nd 8/7-3rd 8/8/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer.
Culiacan Mint:
As you might expect, we find many unpublished varieties for the gold 1 Pesos from the Culiacan mint because of the large number of DAMs found there. This will also include a few Unlisted DAMs that are unseen in most modern catalogs.
1873: The CN 1873 P DAM potentially has two varieties:
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark- 7/7-3/? OverDate and P/P Repunched Assayer that has very noticeable clashed dies as a diagnostic tool
1875: The CN 1875 P DAM is currently listed in most modern catalogs, however it is currently unverified by sales records or photographs. Until recently most serious gold 1 Peso collectors have thought this DAM didn’t exist, but I have been contacted by an advanced gold 1 Peso collector and he informs me he has one of these coins and will be submitting it to us to be placed in the FoxLair Reference Collection©, which clearly shows the overall value of our forum for today’s collectors of Mexican coins.
1878: The CN 1878 G DAM has at least one Unlisted variety even though many collectors may consider it to be only a “minor” variety. This variety has a Normal Mintmark, 7/7 Repunched Date and a G/G Repunched Assayer.
1879: The CN 1879 D DAM potentially has three varieties:
Normal Mintmark, Assayer and Date that is found in most catalogs.
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1879/1878 OverDate and a D/G/P OverAssayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, Possible 9/8 OverDate and Normal Assayer, which has had two recorded sales, but is unverified by photographs
Below you will find scans of my only study coin that is the 2nd variety:
1880: The CN 1880 D DAM potentially exists even though it is currently Unlisted. This is one of those pesky Mexican Numismatic Anomalies! We have a verified OverDate with no known base coin. This DAM could exist; because there are verified Culiacan 1 Pesos with the 1881/0 OverDate. The “Official Mint Records” indicate there was 45,510 Pesos of gold produced in 1880 and yet to my knowledge there are no gold coins known with the date 1880 from the Culiacan Mint. What happened? Were 1880 dies produced, and no coins struck, or are there simply no survivors? I have no answer today, but you should be on the lookout for 1880 Culiacan gold 1 Pesos because there may be some lurking out there.
1881: The CN 1881 D DAM represents one of those situations where we find a verified OverDate with no known base coin! We have verified 1881/0 OverDate gold 1 Pesos, but no known 1880 coins.
1882: The CN 1882 D DAM potentially has two varieties:
Normal Mintmark, Date and Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1882/1872/1 Overdate and a D/? OverAssayer
At this time I can only confirm the 2nd variety; I have had only a single study coin for this Excessively Rare (a 7-E on the FoxLair Rarity Scale©) coin. Most of the few verified sales of this DAM have been attributed as the 1st variety, however my study coin is the 2nd variety.
1883: The CN 1883 D DAM potentially has two varieties:
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 3/? OverDate and a D/? OverAssayer
The Denomination side die used on this coin appears to be the same die that was used on the [Cn-1882-1101]. It has the same pockmarks from rust and all of the other features including the double line under the superscript “n” in the mintmark, but it is now beginning to show die cracks. The Eagle side die is not the one used on [Cn-1882-1101] because it lacks the two die cracks around the date. The “3” in the date is surely over some other numeral and it looks very much like a 3/0 to me, but I can’t be sure, therefore I’m listing it as 3/?.
1884: The CN 1884 M DAM potentially has three varieties:
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark with a Large Unusual 4 and the 2nd 8/7 OverDate and M/? OverAssayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark with a Regular Low 4 and the 2nd 8/7- OverDate and a Normal Assayer
At this time I can verify both the 2nd [Cn-1884-1102] and [Cn-1884-1103] the 3rd varieties. This DAM has at least two different Eagle side dies; one seems to use a regular “4” in the date with normal spacing while the other one has a very strange looking “4” in the date that is not only larger than the regular “4”, but is spaced very far to the right away from the last “8” in the date. We were alerted to the [Cn-1884-1103] variety because we found a different looking coin on an Internet sale, just another good example of letting the coins talk to you.
Insert Scan
1885: The CN 1885 M DAM is currently an Unpublished DAM in most reference works and catalogs, but it has been rumored to exist for many years. However until 2003 it was totally unverified by either recorded sales or photographs. Because of kindness of the Carlos Slim family of Monterey, Mexico we now know it truly exists because they elected to print a numismatic calendar for their customers and friends of some of the great rarities in the ex Lico Lagos, now current collection of the Slim family. I will try to secure permission from the Slim family to reproduce the photographs of this apparently Unique coin in the future, but until then you will have to wait to see this incredible coin.
1886: The CN 1886 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Normal Mintmark, 6/4 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/7- 6/4 OverDate and Normal Assayer
1888: The CN 1888 M DAM potentially has five varieties:
Normal Mintmark, 3rd 8/7 OverDate And Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/8/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/8/7 & 3rd 8/8 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Of the five potential varieties, only the three Unlisted varieties are currently fully verified, they are [Cn-1888-1102], [Cn-1888-1103], and [Cn-1888-1104]. The other two varieties may have simply been improperly attributed in the past, or they may truly exist, but I rather doubt it if the mintage figure of 2,586 coins is correct?
1889: The CN 1889 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
This DAM is another of those extreme rarities (rates a 8-D on the FoxLair Rarity Scale©) for which I have had a single study coin, and it is the Unlisted variety, therefore I don’t know if the other variety exists.
1890: The CN 1890 M DAM potentially exists even though it is currently Unlisted.
The reasoning behind this is that Heritage had a coin attributed as 1891/0 in their ANA’86 Mid Winter Show Sale (02/86) Lot#103, which they graded as Brilliant Uncirculated. This is currently the only sale I have recorded with this attribution.
1891: The CN 1891 M DAM potentially has four varieties:
Normal Mintmark, 91/89 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark 9/7-1/4 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1/0 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark- Normal Date & Normal Assayer
As mentioned above the Heritage ANA’86 Mid Winter Show Sale (02/86) Lot#103 was the Unlisted 1/0 OverDate, but Lot#104 was also an Unlisted Normal Date coin. The people in the Heritage foreign coin department at this time were competent catalogers, including Louis Collins, but I find it hard to believe there are four different varieties for a DAM with a reported mintage of less than 1,000 coins. I have had a single study coin for this DAM and it was the Unlisted 9/7-1/4 variety.
1892: The CN 1892 M DAM potentially has three varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 9/?-2/2 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 9/7-2/2 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Once again we have a low mintage (supposedly 780 coins) that has an unusually large number of reported varieties. I have three study coins; two were the 9/7-2/2 OverDate [Cn-1892-1102] coins and the third was the 9/?-2/2 [Cn-1892-1101] variety. If not closely examined one might make the mistake of saying all were the same, however the three study coins have been high-grade examples and all are not from the same dies.
1893: The CN 1893 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 9/7-3/? OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark- Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Another extremely low mintage coin (supposedly only 498 coins) that has a large number of survivors according to the sales records. With a single study coin I can only verify the Unlisted variety with the OverDate. I’m going to guess this is the only variety for this DAM because it seems unlikely there would be more than one set of dies unless the first set broke while this tiny mintage was being made.
1894: The CN 1894 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 9/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark- Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Again we see a set of dies made with the three-digit logotype punch used for a supposedly tiny mintage of only 493 coins. As I explained before, I personally doubt the other variety exists and it has been listed because of incomplete attribution.
FoxLair# Cn-1894-1101b
1895: The CN 1895 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 9/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark- Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Again we see a set of dies made with the three-digit logotype punch used for a supposedly mintage of only 1,143 coins. There could be a chance two varieties exist for this DAM if the coins were not all minted in a single run, but I personally doubt it.
FoxLair# Cn-1895-1101b
1896: The CN 1896 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Normal Mintmark, 6/5 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 6/?- OverDate and Normal Assayer
This Unlisted variety needs some clarification: For the first time I see no signs of the three-digit (187_) logotype to make this DAM. Therefore I have several questions about the attribution found in most catalogs! The few [Cn-1895-1101] coins that I have seen all have telltale die cracks and yet I see no sign of these die cracks on this DAM! If this is the case: How could this DAM be made from these dies? There is no doubt the “6” in the date is over some other numeral, but I can find no trace of what should be a “5” similar to those I have found on hundreds of other Mexican coins. So what is the underlying numeral? My best guess is either a “1” or a “4” because it has a straight line under the upper part of the “6” and has what looks like part of a “1” and it has what looks like the serf of a “4” sticking out from the right side of the “6”. On my one study coin I can’t make a clear determination so I’m listing it as a 6/? OverDate. Does this mean there isn’t a 6/5 OverDate? No, only that as of today, I personally have never seen one.
FoxLair# Cn-1896-1102b
1897: The CN 1897 M DAM potentially has two varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 7/6 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Again we have a DAM that supposedly has a mintage of less than 1,000 coins, yet is found quite often. I have found four recorded sales where it was attributed as the Unlisted 7/6 OverDate, plus my study coin is the [Cn-1897-1101] variety.
FoxLair# Cn-1897-1101b
1898: The CN 1898 M DAM potentially has five varieties:
CN/MO OverMintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Unlisted CN/MO OverMintmark, 9/9-2nd 8/? OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted C/C Repunched Mintmark, 9/9-2nd 8/? OverDate and Normal Assayer
This is the most commonly found Culiacan gold 1 Peso and there are reports of five different varieties. This also appears to be the first time we see the CN/MO OverMintmark coins that were made directly from a Mexico City die. It is possible that the Mexico City Mint sent not only the new hubs or master dies for the Style of 1888 dies, without the assayer and mintmark on them, and also included sample a fully punched Mexico City die or dies so that the state or branch mints would know where to add these characters. It is possible that during the manufacture of a large number (3,521 coins reported) of Culiacan 1898 1 Pesos something happened to the original Culiacan Denomination Die, so rather than make a new die to complete the run the Culiacan Mint pressed the sample Mexico City die into service. Sound plausible?
The [Cn-1898-1102] variety, Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 2nd 8/7 OverDate and Normal Assayer, has had one reported sale in the Henry Christensen Sale #32 (02/67) Lot#1198- where it was graded almost Uncirculated. Varieties [Cn-1898-1101] and [Cn-1898-1103] have had numerous reported sales, but these coins may have not been fully attributed?
At this time we have fully confirmed the following varieties with study coins:
FoxLair# Cn-1898-1104a
FoxLair# Cn-1898-1104b
FoxLair# Cn-1898-1105a
FoxLair# Cn-1898-1105b
1899: The CN 1899 Q DAM potentially has three varieties:
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1st 9/9 Repunched Date and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1899/1899 Repunched Date and Q/M OverAssayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
Today we can only verify the [Cn-1899-2101] Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1st 9/9 Repunched Date and Normal Assayer variety. There have been three recorded sales of the [Cn-1899-2102] Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 1899/1899 Repunched Date and Q/M OverAssayer variety and numerous sales of the [Cn-1899-2102] Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer variety.
FoxLair# Cn-1899-2101a
1900: The CN 1900 Q DAM potentially exists because we have recorded six sales of the 1901/0 OverDate coins. Is this another case where dies were made for a DAM, but were not used to mint coins or are there just no survivors from some small mintage?
1901: The CN 1901 Q DAM has three verified varieties:
Normal Mintmark, 1/0 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, 90/80 OverDate and Normal Assayer
Unlisted Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
I have included scans of all three Eagle side dies for your study:
FoxLair# Cn-1901-1101b
FoxLair# Cn-1901-1102b
FoxLair# Cn-1901-1103b
1902: The CN 1902 Q DAM has three potential and two verified varieties:
Unlisted CN/MO Over Mintmark, Large 1/small 1-9/8 OverDate and Q/C OverAssayer
CN/MO Over Mintmark, Normal Date and Q/C OverAssayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
We have verified the [Cn-1902-1101] Unlisted CN/MO Over Mintmark, Large 1/small 1-9/8 OverDate and Q/C OverAssayer and [Cn-1902-1103] Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer varieties, but have not yet seen the regularly cataloged CN/MO Over Mintmark, Normal Date and Q/C OverAssayer variety.
FoxLair# Cn-1902-1101a
FoxLair# Cn-1902-1101b
FoxLair# Cn-1902-1103a
FoxLair# Cn-1902-1103
1904: The CN 1904 H DAM has two listed and verified varieties except for the questionable H/? OverAssayer:
CN/MO Over Mintmark, Normal Date and H/Q OverAssayer
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and Normal Assayer
There have been at least 15 recorded sales of the [Cn-1904-1101] CN/MO Over Mintmark, Normal Date and H/Q OverAssayer variety, but on my study coin for this variety it is impossible for me to be 100% sure this is the correct attribution, therefore I list it as a H/? OverAssayer.
1905: The CN 1905 P DAM is an extreme rarity for which I have recorded only three sales and it appears to have only one variety:
Normal Mintmark, Normal Date and P/? OverAssayer
I’ve decided to scan both sides of this coin simply because it is so rare.
I hope you have enjoyed Part 1 of the Unlisted Varieties of the Mexican Republic Gold 1 Pesos and be sure to contact us MexCoinMagic@aol.com if you would like to see Part 2 because we want to give our readers what they want to see. And remember if you want more detailed information and all of the scans we have for the gold 1 Pesos you should think about buying the FoxLair Mexican Republic Gold 1 Pesos Reference Collection©.
[FoxLair Reference Collections] Go to the FoxLair Reference Collection Introduction
[401] Return to Table of Contents Volume 1 Issue 4
[Home Page] Return to Mexican Coin Magic Home Page