New 1824 Mo Hookneck ½ Real Eagle Die Reported

by David Hughes

The first coins of the Mexican Republic were the attractive “Hookneck”, or profile eagle coins, struck by the mints at Mexico City (Mo), Durango (Do) and Guanajuato (Go). They were somewhat inconsistently issued from 1823 to 1825 (i.e., whereas the Go mint was striking the Hookneck in 1825, the Mo mint had switched to the facing eagle in 1824{footnote}T.V. Buttrey and Clyde Hubbard, A Guide Book of Mexican Coins, 1822 to Date, sixth edition, Krause Publications, Iola, WI, 1992{/footnote}: poor internal communication within the new republic is the probable reason). The ½ real (Mo), 1 real (Do, rare), 2 reales (Do, Mo) and 8 realrs (Do, Go, Mo) were struck in silver, and the 8 escudo (Mo) was struck in gold. In general, the coins from the Mo mint are the more available of the series.

In my (probably ultimately futile and certainly slow moving) attempt to assemble a Republica type set, I acquired an 1824 Mo hookneck ½ real at a local coin show that put the ug in ugly. It is so ugly I have not even typed it in the excellent reference book Hookneck{footnote}Clyde Hubbard and David O’Harrow, Hookneck, privately published, 1997:/footnote}. I figured something better would come along, and sure enough, a nice looking VF appeared on eBay, and I obtained it without too much struggle or grief.

When the piece arrived, I happily plunged into Hookneck to type it. However, the longer I looked at it, the more I felt it wasn’t described in either Hookneck or the Supplement to Hookneck{footnote}Clyde Hubbard and David O’Harrow, A Supplement to Hookneck, privately published, 2001{/footnote}Hubbard and O’Harrow, 2001).

KM-369 ½ real 1824 Mo JM

The Liberty cap die is a Type 4 (p.58/59 in Hookneck). All the die markers are there, including the small tool mark to the right of the 1 in 1/2. This side is slightly double struck in the 10 Ds 20 Gs area and along the bottom rim, perhaps explaining why LIBERTAD is so weak on an otherwise nice VF coin.

The Eagle side, though, is obviously not a Type 4. It is closest to, but different from, the Type 2 die. This makes me think it was produced toward the middle or end of the die production, and is a sibling to the Type 2 die, cut when the engravers at the mint were used to making the die and had achieved some amount of similarity between the dies.

The differences with Type 2 are:

• P of REPUBLICA set higher than the E or B and slightly rotated clockwise relative to Type 2
• If you connect the tops of P and B in REPUBLICA, the U is lower than Type 2
• L of REPUBLICA is also slightly rotated clockwise relative to Type 2
• M of MEXICANA is set even with the E, not higher as in Type 2 (as far as I can tell from the plate in the book)
• The eagle left wing tip is more centered under the I of MEXICANA
• The first A in MEXICANA is set more even with the C and N, not raised like the Type 2
• The final A in MEXICANA might be repunched, or there are tool marks under the A. There also appears to be a tool mark to the left of the N in MEXICANA
• There are fewer water lines under the cactus than the Type 2
• The left center cactus pad has short spines, not the long spines on Type 2
• On the right cactus pad, the upper spines point to the right, not the left as on the Type 2
• The snake head terminates under the center of the letter E upright, unlike the Type 2 that terminates on the left side of the letter E upright in REPUBLICA

Finally, probably the biggest difference is that there is a die break through the B in REPUBLICA, from the rim through the B to the eagle wing, and along the top of the right wing to the left wing. It looks like it originated along the upright of the B, hence to the rim, and subsequently to the eagle wing.

Other details on the Eagle die seem fresh (the detail is not mushy, there are no clash marks or die chips, and there are no apparent flow lines or ridges, the appearance of which would indicate a worn die). This suggests to me the Eagle die cracked and failed relatively early in the striking, and they subsequently pulled it off and replaced it with the Type 4 Eagle die.

After email exchanges of descriptions and photographs with David O’Harrow, he agrees this is a new, previously unreported Eagle die. Due to the apparent early die failure, this also appears to be a rare variety, being the first time it has come to his attention in the 14 years since Hookneck was published. Continuing the numbering in the Supplement to Hookneck, this would be Eagle die Type 6 (new) matched with Cap die Type 4, making the sixth variety of the 1824 Mo Hookneck ½ real reported.

The Errors in the Minting of 8 Reales of 1824 in the Mint of Durango

by Lic. José Antonio Juárez Muñoz

In the history of the Durango mint we have found many facets of interesting issues for there is a rich variety in the coins that were minted in its 84 years of existence, both for their designs, legends and variety of metals. We have found varieties that are not recorded in the different catalogs that have been published by great national and international numismatists.

On this occasion we refer to some truly fascinating, extremely collectible and valuable coins, namely the 8 reales of the year 1824 with the Breast Profile or Hookneck Eagle. Thanks to the records that are kept in the Archivo General de la Nación (AGN), we have been able to solve many unknowns and are thus able to disseminate this information for all those interested in this issue of the coins produced by the Durango mint.

On 9 April 1823, the Congress agreed how the nation’s coat of arms should look:
1.- That the national shield is the Mexican eagle standing on its left foot, on a cactus arising from a rock between the waters of the lagoon, and grabbing with its right a snake in the act of tearing it apart with its beak, and that this coat of arms has as a border two branches, one of laurel and another of holm oak, according to the design used by the government of the first defenders of independence.
2.- That as for the national flag, it is the one adopted up to now, with the only difference of placing the eagle without a crown, the same thing that should be done on the shield.

On 14 April 1823 the sovereign Constituent Mexican Congress decreed:
1.- The government will order that new matrices be produced, as soon as possible and by the best engravers, to replace those that until now serve for minting currency.
2.- The gold, silver and copper coins will have a common obverse, stamping on them the coat of arms of the Mexican nation with on the circumference the inscription REPUBLICA MEXICANA (MEXICAN REPUBLIC).
3.- On the obverse of the silver coins will be placed a cap on which is diagonally written LIBERTAD (FREEDOM), from whose center several bursts of light will emanate. They will also express their respective value, the place and year of their manufacture, the initials of the names of the assayers and their fineness.
4.- On the reverse of the gold coins will be a hand with a rod, at the upper end of which the cap of liberty will be placed, resting everything on an open book, with the inscription on the circumference LIBERTAD EN LA LEY (FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW), with the marks or signs that in the previous article are designated for the silver coins.
5.- On the obverse of the copper coins palms will be placed to form a border, and in the center (except for the fineness and the names of the assayers) the marks laid out in the preceding articles.
6.- The government will take care, at the time of publishing this decree, to make known to the public, that the fineness of gold and silver coins is the same as those of the Spanish government for the past forty years.

The designer was José Mariano Torreblanca. Therefore, we realize why there were problems with the designs of the coins minted in 1824 in Durango.

What I will transcribe below is from a file of that same year in which six pieces minted in Durango were sent to Mexico City for examination, since there was an office called Gravado (of Engraving), which was responsible for giving approval for pieces to the foreign mints that existed since the time of the War of Independence. A very important one was the provisional mint in Durango that was opened in 1811.

The file, consisting of several pieces of correspondence, reads as follows:

CARTERA 8, CUADERNO 45, NACIONAL CASA DE MONEDA DE MEJICO.AÑO DE 1824, N° 922.
DEPOSITS THAT ARE MADE IN THE TREASURY OF THIS MINT BY THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS THIS YEAR.

I send to you six coins of eight reales produced in the mint of Durango so that you can weigh, test and assess their fineness, giving me an account of the results to put to the consideration of the supreme executive power.
God keep you for many years, Mexico City. 22 March 1824. Frallaga, Superintendent of the Mint.

Mexico City Mint, 22 March 1824 - For the punctual fulfillment of this higher request, immediately send the six eight reales coins that accompany it to the chief engraver, judge of weights (juez de balanza) and assayers (ensayadores) so that each one proceeds with all the superiority attached to recognize their stamp, weight and fineness reporting what happens after the aforementioned examination. … Lardizábal – (to) José de la Santa Cruz.

Dear Superintendent –To take charge of what you ordered in your previous order about evaluating the coins that you said regarding the engraving, it is seen that they are chiseled, and not in the manner that the order says it is to be done, having so acted to the detriment of the public. This consideration can be proved if you think it worthy of being brought to the knowledge of his serene highness, the supreme executive power. – God guard your excellency for many years,
Mexico City, 27 March 1824. Rafael Lardizábal. (to the) Most excellent Minister of State of Finance.

I attach an original that is sent to the intendant with the coins for forwarding to the supreme government, and is by command of the same superintendent and presented on sheets of official paper, stamped with the current dues, 27 March 1824. José de la Santa Cruz.

The report by Francisco Gordillo, from the engraving office, states:

Without the quality of making several dies it is not possible to get the same results both with the eagle and with the sunburst (Resplandores). They are not made with punches. As regards the design the eagle is imperfect, the right leg, if it extends, will be longer than the left, the left foot that sits appears on the ground should be on the cactus, the stalks of the cactus appear out of center, the olive branches seem better as an ornament of laurel, the oak cannot give that symmetry as a bouquet of two leaves and two acorns. The posture of the eagle is loaded to the left, not in the center, on the letter is uneven because its talons are not arranged, and there are still some engraved with a chisel, not engraved with a punch, the posture of these do not acknowledge the circle because they fall in different directions This is what I can tell you about the matter. ---- Office of Engraving. Mexico City, 24 March 1824. - Francisco Gordillo.

The report by Miguel Gaitan Villasenor on the coins’ weight was:

Report.-Dear Superintendent. In accordance with what you instructed in the decree, I proceeded to assess the weight of the six coins of Durango and the result is as follows.

	WEAK (i.e. Shortage)	STRONG (i.e. Excess)
No. 1	3 gs (granos)
No. 2	2 gs
No. 3		2 %
No. 4		7½ %
No. 5		3 %
No. 6	5 gs

I have found all the six coins defective, because although number two is (only) two granos short, this is outside the permitted limits. If they were all like this, there would be a mark with sixteen granos, which should not have more than eight and a half. So I have to point out to you that the six coins are completely defective in terms of their weight – Office of the Mexico City Mint, 24 March 1824. Gaitan.

Finally, the report of the three assayers on their fineness states:

Dear Superintendent.-The six silver coins of the Durango mint under test have resulted in the following fineness:

	FINENESS
No. 1	18%
No. 2	18%
No. 3	19%
No. 4	18¾%
No. 5	17½%
No. 6	18%

Assayers of Mexico City mint, 26 March 1824. - García Felada, - Cuevas, - Reyes.

So the summary was:

Your Excellency, to give punctual fulfillment to what you suggested in your letter of 22 March for the six eight reales coins produced in the provisional mint of Durango that were sent to the mint officials, the chief engraver, the judge of weights and the assayers in order that each should consider and examine them as to type, weight and fineness, and having evaluated these operations I attach to the original the file on this matter with the six coins numbered from one to six, in which is the information of the defects that each of these ministers has noticed in them. The first, the engraver Francisco Gordillo, notes what he wrote in his reports of 23 March, according to the regulations of his art. - The second, Miguel Gaitán Villaseñor the judge of weights, notes defects to be considered, such that if all the coins produced in Durango were like them they could not be issued to the public, because the coins numbered one, two and six have shortages in their weight that are greater than that permitted: the first of three granos, the second of two granos, and the third of five. The coins numbered three, four and five are found to be overweight, the first by two granos, the second by seven and a half and the third by three, as account of the note of the same Villaseñor, all being defective as explained in my report of 24 March. The assayers José García, Manuel Felada and José María Cuevas, in their report of 26 March, set out in detail the considerable defects of fineness of these coins, that does not allow the ordinary dispersal to the public in these two matters, particularly in that of fineness. Coin number one is 1½ granos short, number two two, number three one, number four one and a half, number five two and a half and number six two, defects so serious that before they are allowed in public each coin must be given a new increase, retested as to fineness, so that considered and examined by each one they might report what happened to them as to type, weight and fineness.

So far we have transcribed what this file tells us and we realize that not only these pieces of 8 reales had all the errors but also all those one and two reales of that same year that were also of the eagle in profile design. This is why in 1825 new designs in dies were sent from Mexico City to mint the new pieces and the earlier pieces that we have been studying were retired from circulation. This helps us to know why these pieces came out in only a single year, as we see today that they were disapproved of by the experts of the Mint and the design office.

It should be noted that the assayer of these coins was Ramón Luelmo who worked that year, and that in the proclamation number 38 of 11 August 1824 published in Mexico City by the Minister of Finance José Ignacio Esteva, the public were informed of the change in the designs of the national shield in relation to the position of the eagle. The first coinages showed the eagle in profile: from then on they showed it from the front.

The mint of Durango began its Republican issue in 1824, the year after the proclamation of the Republic, along with those of Guanajuato and Mexico City, but with different eagles and sunbursts and we have already seen the consequences of not having the appropriate designs or the weight or fineness so that in the studies that were carried out the determination was made to suggest that they no longer be produced or distributed to the public.

Republican cuartilla (quarter real)

by Dave Busse

The actual standard diameter of the cuartilla (¼R) is 12mm and it has a weight of 0.846 grams.

The ¼R departed from the basic Cap & Rays design found on the ½R, 1R, 2R, 4R and 8R of the Republic. The obverse features a bust of the Goddess of Liberty along with the Mintmark and the Assayer Initials. The reverse features the denomination centered on the coin and surrounded by a legend showing the Date (at the bottom) and REPUBLICA MEXICANA around the rest of the perimeter.

Most issues use the initials L. R.  Luciano Rovira, a student of Gordillo, was the die sinker at the Mexico City mint who created the dies either in 1841 or early in 1842. Rovira was also responsible for a 1841 pattern for a one centavo coin and various medals, including an 1836 medal of Michael de Santa María (Grove 77a), an 1842 medal honouring Santa Anna as 'BENEMERITO DE LA PATRIA, CAUDILLO DE LA INDEPENDENCIA Y FUNDADOR DE LA REPUBLICA (Grove 81a) and an 1843 Constitution medal (Grove 85a). In 6 July 1866 the Emperor Maximilian awarded Rovira the Medalla del Merito Civil (silver class) {footnote}La Sociedad, Tomo VI, Núm. 1,107, 7 July 1866{/footnote},

Other Assayer Initials used at some mints include:

PM (Patrick Murphy) at Guanajuato
RG (Rodrigo García) at Chihuahua
JG (Juan de Dios Guzman) at Guadalajara
MC (Manuel Cueras) at Guadalajara

One mint, San Luis Potosí, did not use Assayer Initials on the ¼R using instead the initials S. L. P^I.

Mints that produced the cuartilla were:

Mint	Year(s)
Chihuahua	1843
Culiacan	1855
Durango	1842 & 1843
Guadalajara	1842-57 & 1862
Guadalupe y Calvo
Guanajuato	1842-56 & 1862
Mexico City	1842-46, 1850, 1858-63
San Luis Potosi	1842-47, 1851, 1854, 1856-57, & 1862
Zacatecas	1842

 

Note that half of the mints that struck the ¼R produced them in only one or two years.

Chihuahua

KM-368 ¼r Chihuahua 1843 CaRG (Stack’s Bowers Baltimore Auction, 28 March 2011, lot 8081)

Culiacán

KM-368.1 ¼r Culiacán 1855 CLR (Stack’s Bowers Baltimore Auction, 28 March 2011, lot 8082)

Durango

KM-368.2 ¼r Durango 1842 DoLR (Stack’s Bowers Baltimore Auction, 28 March 2011, lot 8083)

Guadalajara

KM-368.3 ¼r Guadalajara 1848 GaLR (Stack’s Bowers Baltimore Auction, 28 March 2011, lot 8087)

Guadalupe y Calvo

KM-368.4 ¼r Guadalupe y Calvo 1844 GCLR (Stack’s Bowers Baltimore Auction, 28 March 2011, lot 8090)

Guanajuato

 
KM-368.5 ¼r 1842 Go PM (Stack’s Bowers auction, 12 August 2024, lot 41230)

Mexico City

KM-368.6 ¼r Mexico City 1844/3 MoLR (Stack’s Bowers Auction, 13 February 2019, lot 71483)

KM-368.6 ¼r Mexico City 1850 MoLR (Stack’s Bowers Baltimore Auction, 28 March 2011, lot 8105)

San Luis Potosí 

KM-368.7 ¼r San Luis Potosí 1862/57 SLPi (Stack’s Bowers Auction, 13 February 2019, lot 71494)

Zacatecas

KM-368.8 1 ¼r 1842/1 Z LR (Stack’s Bowers Kirk Menczer Collection, 23 June 2026, lot 72061)

 

Introduction to the Medio Real Series

by Dave Busse

The medio real (½R) 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 Perfil and the supplement Hookneck II are essential to any serious collector of that series and important to the ½R collector even though there is only one known issue of the Hookneck ½R, the Mo 1824 JM.

A total of either eleven or twelve different mints produced the ½R between 1824 and 1870. However, one of the intriguing aspects of the Republic ½R series is that despite the fact that small coins were essential Ito 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 ½R even a cursory study of any catalog listing the ½R will show that Alamos and Estado de México produced the coin in only one year and the Chihuahua mint produced them in only two years. The single reported ½R from Alamos is dated 1862 and some controversy surrounds its authenticity (see further details below). Estado de México struck the coin only in 1829 even though it produced 8R in 1828, 1829 and 1830. Chihuahua struck the ½R only in 1844 and 1845 despite producing 8R from 1831 through 1895. This has been partially explained by some researchers who have reasoned that the Chihuahua 8R 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 ½R.

KM-372.7 ½r 1839 Ho PP

The above is the only ½R Ho 1839 PP I have seen. Note the broken star and the retrograde N in MEXICANA. The owner was kind enough to send a scan, but I have not been able actually to examine the piece and therefore make no claims as to whether or not it is genuine.

The standard Republic ½R 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 90.27% silver when converted to the 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 “★ ½R • MM • date • assayer initials • fineness • ” for example a Guanajuato ½R minted in 1828 would read: ★½R • G^O • 1828 • J • M • 10 D^S • 20 G^S •. 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 five 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, especially prior to 1854, 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.

Mexico City is the only mint that struck a Hookneck ½R and all known examples bear the date 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 ½R 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 ½R is one of the most popular coins for collectors specializing in the Republic of Mexico. As with the other denominations the ½R 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 ½R 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 ½R.

Mint	Years Struck
Alamos	1862 (note controversy surrounds the one reported specimen, some authorities say it is genuine while others say it is not)
Chihuahua	1844-45
Culiacán	1846, 1848-49, 1852-54, 1856-58, 1860-63, 1867, 1869
Durango	1832-34, 1837, 1841-43, 1845-46, 1848-62, 1864, 1869
Estado de México (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)-36, 1838-63
San Luis Potosí	1831, 1841-63
Zacatecas	1826-63, 1869

 

The reason for not being specific as to the number of mints is that more than one notable numismatist believes the Alamos – ½R A 1862 P.G. – was never actually minted and that the one known example is not genuine. Note that Superior Stamp & Coin Company, in the Miguel Muñoz Sale II in June 1979, claimed that the 2R 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 an MDA (Mint-Date-Assayer) set.

At this time, as far as we know, neither Catorce nor Oaxaca struck the ½R.

Die Styles

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 differences in the Cap I believe both the Hookneck and the Facing Eagle should be considered different styles of the same Type.

Hookneck Eagle style

Double struck example

Facing eagle style

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:
• 1828 eagle is bigger and more robust
• Upper beak on 1827 has more of a hook to it
• No lower beak on the 1828
• Right wing is smaller and sharper on the 1827
• Snake’s upper body is noticeably closer to the top of the eagle’s head on the 1827
• Oak leaves on the 1828 are less defined (almost rounded like the laurel leaves)
• There are subtle but noticeable differences in the letters of the legend as well as how they were punched.

Obviously, most serious collectors can find additional differences, but my 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, a new set of dies that had to be prepared by hand 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 ½R pieces below. I have studied 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 ½Rs of which I am aware.

KM-370.1 ½r 1844 Ca RG

KM-370.1 ½r 1845 Ca RG

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.

Varieties

Variety collectors can enjoy the ½R series as long as they choose to continue collecting. Three mints – Mexico City, Guanajuato and Zacatecas – produced many, many 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 an abundance of them. That can probably be explained by the fact that Mexico City, Guanajuato and Zacatecas struck the largest numbers of the ½R. 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) example of either variety, so my conclusions remain somewhat speculative.

★ 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 the Clyde Hubbard and Theodore Buttrey, 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. By the way I am aware of one such coin in Mint state.

★ ★ ½R • Mo •1841• M • L• Two Stars variety

Yet another unmentioned one from Zacatecas is the ½R Z 1833 OM. First on 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. Also, the one pictured below is a Choice Mint state example so it will give the reader some idea of just how crude many of the early issues were.

★ ½R • Z .1833 • O • M • (Note large M assayer initial)

Close up of ½ over 2/1. The loop of 2 is plainly visible as it was not fully removed after the error had been noticed and “corrected.”

The author also thinks 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 defined 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. Even a 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. The first 1 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 logically to conclude that a different punch was used to make it. Thus, one can deduce that the 7 is over a 2 rather than a 1 without a base. A further argument that it is a 7/2 is that Hermosillo did not strike a ½R in 1861 while it did produce one is 1862 but none between 1862 and 1867. 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 has the assayer initials FM. Therefore, I would argue that the correct attribution should be 1867, 6/ inverted 6, 7/2 and PR/FM.

½R Ho 1867 PR 10 DS 20 GS “6 over inverted 6, 7/2, PR/FM”

Cap side enlarged to show detail better

Note incomplete legend, no star and close study shows no dots (those appearing to flank the date are not actually dots but dings caused by circulation). The legend is crude; the superscript O of the mintmark is not complete nor is it centred 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 a 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 actually a 7/2. The PR/FM is weak but discernible. The indentation appearance between the 7 and the rays coming form the bottom of the cap 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 (most catalogs say is it an 1 instead of a ½ but clearly it is a 1/1). Note also the very low Micro Star.

Alamos

For a consideration of the rarity of Alamos ½ real see here.

Chihuahua

For a listing of the Chihuahua ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Chihuahua ½ reales see here.

Culiacán

For a listing of the Culiacán ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Culiacán ½ reales see here.

Durango

For a listing of the Durango ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Durango ½ reales see here.

Estado de México

KM-370.4 Estado de México ½ Real, 1829-EoMo LF (Stack’s Bowers auction, 13 February 2019, lot 71390)

For the single listing of the Estado de México ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Estado de Mêxico ½ reales see here.

Guadalajara

For a listing of the Guadalajara ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Guadalajara ½ reales see here.

Guadalupe y Calvo

For a listing of the Guadalupe y Calvo ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Guadalupe y Calvo ½ reales see here.

Guanajuato

For a listing of the Guanajuato ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Guanajuato ½ reales see here.

Hermosillo

For a listing of the Hermosillo ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Hermosillo ½ reales see here.

Mexico City

For a listing of the Mexico City ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Mexico City ½ reales see here.

San Luis Potosí

KM-370.10 ½ Real San Luis Potosí 1856 (Stack’s Bowers Auction, 21 October 2023, lot 71004)  

For a listing of the San Luis Potosí ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of San Luis Potosí ½ reales see here.

Zacatecas

For a listing of the Zacatecas ½ reales see here.

For a consideration of the rarity of Zacatecas ½ reales see here.