(1017) Let’s Talk About Minors: Volume 2 Issue 10: Last Revision: 12/10/07
By David Busse
Author’s Note: As some of you may know, I am in the process of writing a book covering the silver Real Minors produced by the Republic of Mexico. This introduction is a somewhat amended version of the General Analysis Section for the Medio Real. FYI, the above scan is actual size, the rest of the reproductions used in this article are enlarged for better detail.
The medio real (½ Real) has long been a popular coin and researched by several different scholars in the field of Mexican Numismatics. The outstanding works by Clyde Hubbard and David O’Harrow, Hookneck El Aguila de Perfiĺ and the supplement Hookneck II are essential to any serious collector of that series and important to the ½ Real collector even though there is only one known issue of the Hookneck ½ Real, the MO 1824 JM.
A total of twelve different mints (listed below) produced the ½ Real between 1824 and 1870. However, one of the intriguing aspects of the Republic ½ Real Series is that despite the fact that small coins were essential to everyday commerce in 19th Century Mexico only about half of those mints struck them in large numbers and/or with regularity. For those of you not familiar with the ½ Real even a cursory study of any catalog listing the ½ Real will show that Alamos and Estado de Mexico produced the coin in only one year and the Chihuahua Mint produced them in only two years. The single reported ½ Real from Alamos is dated 1862 and some controversy surrounds its authenticity (see further details below). Estado de Mexico struck the coin in 1829 even though it produced 8 Reales in 1828, 1829 and 1830. Chihuahua struck the ½ Real for only two years, 1844 and 1845 despite producing 8 Reales from 1831 through 1895. Many researchers reason that the Chihuahua 8 Reales was struck, in the main, for export; and therefore the minors were not a priority. Another mint, Hermosillo has only three reported dates – 1839 (not officially open then and there is some question as to its authenticity), 1862 and 1867. As far as we know; neither Catorce nor Oaxaca struck the ½ Real.
The above reproduction is the only ½ Real HO 1839 PP I have seen. Note the broken star and the retrograde И in MEXICAИA. The owner was kind enough to send a scan, but we have not been able to actually examine the piece and therefore make no claims as to whether or not it is genuine.
The standard Republic ½ Real is 16 mm in diameter and has a Fineness of 90.027% silver with a base metal of copper. The edge design is referred to as ornamental. Fineness is expressed as “10 DS 20 GS” (with the DS and GS being abbreviations for Dineros and Granos) and found as part of the legend on the Cap side of the coin. Twelve Dineros is pure silver and each Dinero can be divided into 24 Granos. Thus 10 DS 20 GS is 10 of a possible 12 Dineros plus 20/24 of another Dinero (when added together it comes to nearly 11/12) and calculates (260 ÷ 288) to be 0.9027% silver in a decimal system. The Obverse features the ancient Aztec symbol of victory; an eagle grasping a water snake* in its beak and its left claw from the observer’s point of view while using the other leg to stand on a cactus that is rising out of Lake Texcoco. Below and to the right are laurel branches, leaves and berries, to the left are oak branches with leaves and acorns. The legend around the top half of the outer perimeter reads REPUBLICA MEXICANA. Sometimes there is a dot after MEXICANA and sometimes there is not. The Reverse features a Phrygian Cap with the word LIBERTAD (Liberty) in block letters across its base. Extending out from behind the Cap are Rays. Thus, the design signifies the dawning of liberty (freedom from Spanish rule) in Mexico. The Reverse legend reads “ê ½R• MM • date • assayer initials • fineness•” for example a Guanajuato ½ Real minted in 1828 would read: ê ½R• GO • 1828• J• M• 10 DS· 20 GS·. Note that this is the same format used by all denominations in the Cap and Rays Series – this one as well as the 1R, 2R, 4R, and 8R. You should also be aware that there were several variances from mint to mint and even year to year within an individual mint such as no star, a six, seven or even eight pointed star instead of the normal 5 pointed one, irregular spacing in the legends, missing or improperly placed dots, reversed superscript “S” and even missing superscript “S“. In addition, there were over-dates, over-assayers, and re-punched stars, dots, mintmarks, dates, assayer initials, fineness numbers and letters which many collectors of the series find fascinating. Depending on how much detail one chooses to include in his/her collecting criteria, varieties can be almost endless as every separate set of dies, even at a specific mint, was at least slightly different from those preceding and following. An interesting one is the number of Berries and Acorns in the Wreath below the Eagle. I have seen as many as six and as few as two. Some collectors use the term “Incomplete Wreath” to describe such a variety.
* The snake on Mexican coinage was not depicted as a rattlesnake until 1970.
Mexico City is the only mint that struck a Hookneck ½ Real and it did so in the single year of 1824. It has always been a popular coin because of the Profile Eagle Design and the fact that the Style was used in only one year. The Facing Eagle Style ½ Real specifications – diameter, weight, and fineness – remained the same as those of the Hookneck. Struck at either eleven or twelve different mints between 1825 and 1869 the ½ Real is one of the most popular coins for collectors specializing in the Republic of Mexico. The reason for not being specific as to the number of mints is that some notable numismatists believe the Alamos – ½R A 1862 P.G. – was never actually minted and that the one known example is not genuine. For example Superior Stamp & Coin Company, in the Miguel Muñoz Sale II in June 1979, claimed that the 2 Reales was the only minor minted at Alamos. Regardless of one’s position as to the authenticity of the coin, it is most unlikely that a collector will ever have the chance to own it, as it is thought to be a unique specimen. Thus, if you consider it genuine, you have to go into the medio real series knowing that in all likelihood you will not ever complete either a Type (by mint) or a DAM Set. As with the other denominations the ½ Real can usually be found in circulated condition rather easily and often for a pittance. However, you probably also know that there are some extremely rare mint date assayer combinations and aside from the more common (Mexico City, Culiacán, Guadalajara, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas Mints, all have at least a few years where large numbers were produced) and/or hoard coins, Uncirculated specimens are difficult to locate. I am convinced that the reason for this is that the ½ Real was essential to everyday commerce among the populace and therefore entered circulation quickly. The list below shows the mints and the years they struck the ½ Real.
Alamos 1862 (note some controversy surrounds the one reported specimen)
Chihuahua 1844-45
Culiacàn 1846, 1848-49, 1852-54, 1856-58, 60-63, 1867, 1869
Durango 1832-34, 1837, 184143, 184546, 1848-62, 1864, 1869
Estado de Mexico (Tlalpan) 1829
Guadalajara 1825-26, 1828-32, 1834-35, 1837-62
Guadalupe y Calvo 1844-51
Guanajuato 1826-62, 1867-68, 1870
Hermosillo 1839, 1862, & 1867
Mexico City 1824 (Hookneck),1836, 1838-63
San Luis Potosí 1831, 1841-63
Zacatecas 1826-63, 1869
At this time, as far as we know, neither Catorce nor Oaxaca struck the ½ Real.
Variety Collectors can enjoy the ½ Real series as long as they choose to continue collecting. Three mints – Mexico City, Guanajuato and Zacatecas – produced an abundance of varieties and a high percentage of them were undoubtedly unintentional. That is not to say that some of the other mints did not also produce varieties, it is just that those three seem to have the most. That can probably be explained by the fact that those three struck the largest numbers of the ½ Real. There are some well-known and popular varieties including several over dates, over assayers, and errors. One of the first of what I consider to be a major Error Variety occurred at Guanajuato in 1828. That year there is an over date, 1828/7, plain date 1828. Assayer Initials MJ and MR. However, what is really interesting is that there is a combination Denomination Error 2/1 instead of ½ and Mintmark Error “G” only instead of a small “o” inside the opening of the G. Later we find a regular denomination but the “G” only remains even with the MR Assayer. I have studied both the inverted denomination and the assayer MR with the “G” only and found traces of something inside the opening of the G, but cannot state definitively that it is the elusive missing “o” in either one. Unfortunately, I have never seen a High Grade (Extra Fine or better) of either variety, so my conclusions remain somewhat speculative. If anyone out there has a nice example of either, we would be willing to pay shipping fees both ways for the opportunity to study and make high quality scans of one or both. Moreover, we will credit you or keep your identity anonymous – whichever way you desire - if you will send it to us so that the scan can be included in the book.
« 2/1R• G. 1828•M•J•
Close up of Inverted Denomination and G Only Mintmark
Another interesting variety from the Mexico City Mint (it has been overlooked/unreported by standard references including Clyde Hubbard and Theodore Buttrey’s, A Guidebook of Mexican Coins 1822 To Date, as well as the latest 2008 North American Coins &Prices A Guide to U. S., Canadian and Mexican Coins, 17th Edition from Krause Publications) is the MO 1841 ML which has two stars (« «) in the Cap Side Legend.
O
« « ½R• M•1841• M•L•
Two Stars Variety
Yet another unmentioned one from Zacatecas is the ½ Real Z 1833 OM. First in the Cap Side Legend we have a six-pointed star - ¬ - next we have a 2/1 that has been corrected to a ½, and lastly we have a large Assayer Initial M when compared to the Assayer Initial O and the rest of the legend. Keep in mind that the ½R mintmark for Zacatecas is a Z only through 1856.
¬ ½R• Z. 1833• O•M• (Note Large M Assayer Initial)
Close up of ½ over 2/1 Loop of 2 plainly visible as it was not fully removed
We also think there is one from Hermosillo that is worthy of discussing, namely what is usually referred to as the overdate 67, 6/ inverted 6 and 7/1. While I agree that the 6 is over an inverted 6, the properly oriented 6 is more weakly struck than the inverted 6 to the point that some even think it is an inverted 6 over a normal 6. While that is interesting, what is even more so is the claim of 7/1. An even cursory study shows that it is much more likely that the 7 is over a 2 rather than a 1. Compare the numeral that the 7 is punched over to the 1 that starts the date. That one does not have a base on the “1” while the numeral under the 7 – if it is a 1 – has a wide base causing one to logically opine that it is a 7/2 rather than a 7/1. A further argument that it is a 7/2 is that Hermosillo did not strike a ½ Real in 1861 while it did produce an 1862. All examples of the 1862 that I know of are a plain date 1862. Interestingly, there is no argument that the Assayer Initials P and R are over the Assayer Initials FM and the 1862 issue does have the Assayer Initials FM. Therefore, I would argue that the correct attribution should be 1867, 6/ inverted 6, 7/2 and PR/FM. Again, if anyone has a High Grade specimen and would allows us to study it, the same offer as made for the inverted denomination and “G” only Guanajuato ½R’s discussed above applies.
O
½R H 1867 PR 10 DS 20 GS “6 over inverted 6, 7/2, PR/FM”
Cap Side enlarged to better show detail
Note incomplete Legend, no Star and close study shows no Dots (those appearing to flank the date are not actually Dots. Legend is crude; the superscript O of the mintmark is not complete nor is it centered above the uprights of the H. The attempt at removing the inverted 6 was so poorly done that it appears to be over the properly oriented 6 which is high compared to the rest of the Date; the numeral under the 7 more closely resembles a 2 than a 1 in fact there seems to be a slight roundness at the top of the 7 as well as ball shaped piece under the left side of the horizontal part of the 7 resembling that on the 2 of 20 GS; thus the assertions that it is a 7/2. The PR/FM is weak but discernable. The indentation appearance above the 7 is from Clashed Dies.
« 1/1R• C.1861.P.V.
Here is a popular Error Variety struck at Culiacán (appears in more than one year)
Note the denomination of 1/1R instead of a ½R and Very Low Micro Star
The die styles within the basic Type are fascinating to those of us bitten by the Mexican Coin Bug. One of the first issues to be addressed is that most catalogs and references refer to the Hookneck as a specific Type. I would argue that it is a Style rather than a Type. Obviously, whether one chooses to designate it a Type or a Style has no effect on the popularity or value of the Hookneck Die Style. The argument for calling it a Die Style is that it has the same basic design elements as any of the Facing Eagle Style. For example it has the Eagle Grasping a Snake in one talon and its beak while perched on a cactus that is rising out of Lake Texcoco. The lower half of the perimeter has Oak Branches, Leaves and Acorns to the left and Laurel Branches, Leaves and Berries to the right. The upper half of the perimeter has the legend REPUBLICA MEXICANA. On the Cap Side it has the Liberty Cap with the word LIBERTAD across it with rays extending out from behind it. The Cap Side Legend reads – « ½R• MO• 1824• J•M• – so other than the fact that the Eagle is facing on one and profile on the other and that there are some style differences in the Cap I believe both the Hookneck and the Facing Eagle should be considered different Styles of the same Type.
Any of the mints that have fairly long production runs show a number of different die styles over time, and occasionally in the same year. Below are two examples:
Eagle of 1827 Eagle of 1828/7
The first is a Mexico City 1827, while the second is Mexico City 1828/7. A simple examination reveals obvious differences including but not limited to:
Obviously, most serious collectors can find additional differences, but our point is that one can see the difficulty that the die sinker had engraving/punching the dies by hand. Obviously, whenever a Mint had to change dies because of wear, damage or some other reason, the new set of dies would be at least slightly different.
Interestingly, we can see that with rarer examples the die style does not always change. Compare the two Chihuahua ½ Real pieces below. I have studied the both extensively “in the flesh” and as far as I can determine, the Eagle Side and the Cap Side dies are the same for both coins except the date was changed for the 1845 though I found no trace of an overdate. Due to the toning, some details were not picked up on the reproductions of the coins. By the way, those are the only two High Grade Chihuahua ½R’s of which I am aware.
Note that several of the Rays on the 1845 are not quite as sharp as those on the 1844, whether that was due to wear on the dies, the strength of the strike or a combination of both has not yet been determined. The same applies to the wings on the Eagle side.
We hope this introduction has been helpful and perhaps piqued your interest in the Republic of Mexico ½ Real Series.
Dave Busse, Numismatist[Home Page] Return to Mexican Coin Magic Home Page