The only other mint to use a curled base 9 in 1819 was the Royalist mint at Zacatecas (no 1819 half reales minted at either Colombia mint were viewed. More study is needed on the pieces of Nuevo Reino and Popayan mints). While no examples were viewed of the armored bust variety, the various examples of the draped bust variety all use a curled base 9. There were two distinct 9 punches used; a standard 9 punch that is identical to the curled punch used at Guatemala and what is likely a local punch that is thicker than standard numeral punches.
It is not clear why the different 9 punch usage began, and why it ceased to be used at some mints and was consistently used at others. The most likely reason for the consistent use at Guatemala from 1790 through 1819 was the longevity of the assayer at that mint. Manuel Eusebio Sanchez served from 1785 through 1822, and he worked alone. It makes sense that he used one punch consistently through his time at the mint. At Potosi, there were four different assayers at work at various times during the period of 1790 to 1819 and therefore it makes sense that there was some inconsistency in usage, and the mint reverted back to the standard 9 in 1809 and again in 1819. But how to explain the two examples of the curled 9 usage in Mexico? There were no changes of assayer in 1790 or 1797, so there must be some other reason. It could simply have been colonial workers using whatever tools were available to them.
And how did the curled punch never appear at Santiago or Lima? The absence at Santiago could perhaps be explained by the proximity of the mint; it is the most remote compared to the other mints. The new punch may never have been available to the workers there. But Lima is more difficult to explain. It is in relative close proximity to the Bolivian and Colombian viceroyalties, so examples of different coinage were surely in circulation and materials would have been available to the mint-masters. It could simply have been a decision at Lima to not use a new punch for the 9 and stay consistent with the use of the standard 9. The most puzzling thing is when the use of the new 9 punch began in 1790, on some obverses, but not others. It is my guess that edicts from the new government of Charles IV along with examples of the new bust punches could have included a curled base 9 punch. Examples of the punches to be used and design aspects usually came from Spain to the colonial mints, and it makes sense that these changes occurred in 1790, the first full year the new king was in power. Additional research could uncover more details and could perhaps prove this theory.
As one can see, varied use of distinctly different 9s created some interesting varieties, and by tracing their usage at different mints, could possibly illuminate the specific practices of certain assayers and also how closely the mints worked together. More examples need to be viewed, including those of the other denominations, to fill in the gaps in this study.
previous page read more articles... |
