Customer Reviews

Cobs: Pieces of Eight and Treasure Coins--The Early Spanish American Mints and Their Coinages, 1536-1773

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

For those who like this book, I am glad that you do and for those that don't I can say I can understand why. I would agree that $125 is a great price for a "full sized, extensively illustrated, hardback book on such a specialized topic" as H. S. Dilcher stated before. But I would find it offensive calling someone's comments "totally asinine" when they actually do have merit, as well as comments about "anyone who is serious about collecting cob treasure coins would laugh at someone saying the book was overpriced." The value of a book is not in the size of the book, the eye appeal of its cover or just in its illustrations (be those good or bad in quality). The true value is in the information it contains. And this is where I find this book problematic and falls noticeably short.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." And with this said, I must now say that I do find this book problematic, in that the author many times contradicts himself, has numerous editorial errors, references that are misaligned; whereby the information does not match the statements cited. Furthermore, comments are presented as true statements, even though no corroborating evidence is included to substantiate or validate them. Now before you start asking me what contributions have I made to the advancement of this topic (a list that I do have) or issue a challenge such as "bring it on," let's just go through the first 162 pages of this book (remembering that this book is 484 pages) and see how this book stands up to scrutiny.

On page x, Menzel includes: "I have used a system of mint-specific two-letter codes followed by a sequential number: MX (Mexico), SD (Santo Domingo), Lm (Lima), Po (Potosí), SF (Santa Fe de Bogotá), Ca (Cartagena), Cz (Cuzco), Gt (Guatemala), and Cu (Cuba). My question is where on this list is Panama?

Page 15 - Ferdinand is described as Ferdinand the V of Aragón, although he was Ferdinand the II of Aragón and then later proclaimed Ferdinand the V of Castile and León.

Page 20 - It says that the P is for the Viceroy's of Peru Lima mint. True that the P is for the Lima mint, but the reason for the use of a P is to represent the Province of Peru and not the viceroyalty. Also on page 20, it says: "(see the Breakout Design below)" when it should say: "on the following page."

Page 21 - It says that "the Mexico mint piece has a ball at the end of each segment of the cross." Then it continues: "This ball is peculiar to Mexico and is a key identifying characteristic for this mint." At no point was there any mention that the coins minted in Santo Domingo during 1578 (with the design mandated in 1573), also have this feature.

Page 23 - Where it says: "(1691 for Potosi and 1690 for Lima in the examples above)," this should say "on the previous page."

Page 26 - Menzel says: "the first Lima specimens have an R (for Regis or Rex) at the center." Since he makes such a strong claim in here, with no word that would suggest that he is theorizing or making an assumption as to why there could be an R in here, then I must ask, what source does he site as evidence? Also on page 26 - Right after stating that the R was for Regis or Rex, Menzel then says: "The Style I ¼ real reverses both depict a single crowned pillar." Once again, WRONG. This is not a pillar but the letter I for IOHANNA (something that he himself corrects, contradicting himself on pages 42-43, when it now says that the I is for "IHOANA." Although the later statement is correct, how is the reader supposed to know the real reason when the book contradicts itself from page to page?

Page 35 - The animal-like cobs are said to be a product of "private parties" and that they were "generally not produced at a mint." The mystery of why these coins where produced remains as such, a mystery. But the fact is that if the mint was not involved in their production, then how can it be justified that the coin dies were rotated several times when the coins were being made to highlight the features of the animal they intended to illustrate and also the fact that they also contain almost full weight or sometimes even slightly higher than the denomination involved (proof that they were not cut into those shapes after production, but were produced like that). To me it seems that the only explanation for these is that the mint had to have some kind of participation. But hey, I am just suggesting this. If Menzel has evidence that these coins were made by private parties and not the mint - it would be nice if he provided this evidence in here too.

Page 39 - Menzel states: "A value relationship was also clearly established, with 1 silver real worth 34 copper maravedíes (instead of 44 maravedíes, as was the case in Spain.)" This is wrong. The value was never set at 44 maravedís per real in Spain. That was the value for the Americas prior to the establishment of mints. Also on page 39 - When talking about the early order from 1537 to produce 8 Reales coins at the mint, Menzel says: "While the mint did not produce the 8-reales denomination at this time." According to the Tello de Sandoval investigation, this is not true. Two separate witnesses to the minting since the establishment of the mint in 1536, including Alonso Ponce and Francisco del Rincón (cousin of the first assayer), state that in fact the 8 Reales were minted and discontinued because they were too hard to manufacture (interestingly a picture of the 8 Reales minted during this period is included on the page 128 of the book, contradicting his previous statement).

Page 42 - Menzel says that "A cousin by the same name (Francisco del Rincón) is reported as having worked at the Mexico mint as an assayer assistant and smelter. Not true. There is no document that includes Francisco (the cousin) working as an assayer assistant. Page 66 - Menzel states that "In the absence of Juan Gutiérrez, and as the brother of Francisco del Rincón, it was relatively easy for Alonso to obtain some experience in the assayer position, working as a lieutenant-assayer for Gutiérrez." Why leave out the explanation on why Alonso minted the coins and not Francisco, who owned the office? Also, in here Menzel states that Francisco del Rincon died in in 1555, citing Nesmith's The Coinage of the First Mint of the Americas at Mexico City as the source (pages 17-18). But Nesmith never made such claim.

Page 75 - Menzel states that Bernardo de Oñate "started out as a lieutenant-assayer under Luis Rodríguez, beginning on 4 June 1564. He quotes Pellicer I Bru's "Glosario de Maestros de Ceca y Ensayadores," as the source. In fact, that is not was Pellicer I Bru states. Pellicer I Bru gives credit for the discovery of the name of this assayer to Pérez Sindreu, and states that his name was found on list of mint officials dated 4 June 1564. In fact the beginning date of Oñate's tenure has not been established yet.

Pages 80-81 Menzel has Bernardo de Oñate as working from 1572 to 1589. He includes on his endnotes that this information is in accordance to an article from Perez Sindreu from 1999 (Gaceta Numismatica). Well, that is not what the article says. In fact it seems that Bernardo must have died or just renounced his office in favor of a Luis Oñate (presumably his son). On this article, Don Luis de Oñate started in 1608 that he had been serving the post of assayer of the mint since 1578 (or as stated in 1608, he had been serving as assayer for 30 years). Luis de Oñate is also found on a document from 1598. All these information included in the article that Menzel sites, but which is not included by Menzel anywhere.

Page 91 - Menzel says that the tenure of Francisco de Quintana Dueñas was from 1598-1599. If in fact Dueñas is assayer D (which again I don't find any evidence), then I would still like to know where he gets this information, including the ending date of his tenure as 1599?

Page 131 - The coinage authorized on 10 May 1531 was not for exclusive use of Hispaniola as Menzel states in here. According to Menzel, when minted "these were placed on a special account for shipment to Santo Domingo." In fact, the merchant Perez de Maluenda was said that he could introduce this coinage in whichever part of the Indies he considered of benefit to the Spanish Crown (all information provided on sources cited by Menzel). Interestingly,
on page 139 now Menzel once again contradict himself, when he now says that these coins minted in 1531 were also sent to Mexico, Panama and Puerto Rico.

Page 133 - Menzel says that the mint produced a few coins with the shield design in Santo Domingo, of which "only a few 4 Reales pieces survive." Again we find a contradiction in here, as in page 157 Menzel now says: "Although six distinct die-punch kits (one for each of the denominations to be struck) as well as finished dies were sent to Santo Domingo, only a single 4-reales piece has apparently survived." So what is it then? Is there one 4 Reales or are there a few 4 Reales that have survived? I am aware of the existence of only one. But from the wording of the book I can't tell.

Page 139 - It says the coinage with the style for special use of the Americas took place at Burgos between 1531 and 1536. If he is referring to the coins that started being minted in 1531, as production ending in 1536, then I find a problem with this statement. In fact, this most likely ended in 1533, as the license was only for two years. If he has new evidence that the mint of Burgos produced these coins beyond 1533, why not include the documentary evidence on the book?

Page 149 - Menzel states that the 4 and 2 maravedíes from the first issue of Santo Domingo were evaluated by the Santo Domingo Town Council and they found that they did not have the proper amount of silver mixed with copper. To this he adds that this was 4 grains instead of 8 per 192 coins. He quotes Utrera and Estrella. His explanation is completely inaccurate and erroneously concluded. The coins evaluated were the Blancas, which were said to be too small and thin and they were hard to manufacture. Estrella gave the 192 coins produced per marc for the Blanca. By the way, Menzel never even talks about the Blanca coinage having even been minted. He just used the information on them as if it refers to other denominations and left it at that.

Page 156 - Regarding the mint of Santo Domingo, Menzel writes: "copper coinage - third series 1558-1662." 1558 to 1662? What is Menzel trying to say? Maybe he meant 1558 to 1562. If so, what is the 1562 date for? According to Utrera (p. 62), which Menzel includes on his endnotes, by mid 1558 the 4 maravedís with the new design were discontinued, at which time Santo Domingo is said to have started minting again the coins with the old design [All this pointed out by Utrera on the endnote cited by Menzel, which Utrera quotes from a letter from 27 January 1559 located at AGI Santo Domingo 71

Page 157 - About the Santo Domingo coinage with the 1573 dies, Menzel writes "to the right of the shield was placed the denomination and, presumably, the assayer's identifying initial." What is so presumable about this? He has on the following page a drawing next to a picture of this coin (showing the assayer initial X to the right of the shield). I guess the problem is that the drawing and picture don't even match. So, if the coin clearly shows the assayer mark X, why does the drawing shows a numeral IIII instead? Well, that is because the drawing used is from Estrella, who had a very bad picture of this coin in his book, and now that there is a better picture, the drawing with its errors has become obsolete. Yet, Menzel had no problem in using this old drawing without any revisions, rather than taking a closer look and making the corrections.

Page 158 - Above the image and drawing of the 4 Maravedis Design (coin SD-95) it says: "4- and 2-Maravedies Design (1678 period)". There is surely an error here as the coinage it depicts is that which started being minted in 1578 and not 1678.

Page 159 - Menzel writes that on 10 August 1633 the mint struck some cuartos depicting a castle on one side and two keys on the other. Then he continues saying that "surviving documents indicate that one Juan de Alfaro was working in the capacity of smelter and assayer at the mint on 19 December 1536, but it is not known if he was involved with the provisional coinages." This provisional coinage was minted almost 100 years after Juan de Alfaro was given the title of assayer. So, unless Alfaro found the fountain of youth, which would be another subject for another book, he the answer is that he could not have participated on this coin production,

Now, I just wanted to mention that while I was going through this book there were articles and publications cited which I had previously read or had copies of. So there were many endnotes that I did not check their accuracy. Being this the case, then if these problems discussed here are obvious ones and in most cases you don't even need to be an advanced researcher, with only access to the archives, to see them, then you formulate your own conclusion. As for me, I didn't even discuss the Lima, Potosi, Panama or even Cartagena and Santa Fe sections. But to find these many errors/problems in what amounts to only about a little more than the first 1/4 of the book, that is just too much. But, if you still want a list of my contributions to this topic, just let me know and I will be happy to publish.

I purchased this book about a year ago and have found it to be an invaluable reference. It is an incredible reference and well worth the price. It provides very detailed information on each of the Spanish colonial mints along with great biographies of each assayer. It is also illustrated with an incredible number of photographs and drawings of nearly every variety of cob coin. I have used it many times to help decipher what I am seeing in my own coins as often only part of a letter or other marking is visible. I have also really appreciated the research that went into naming each of the assayers as other cob books list some of these as unknown. For anyone interested in Spanish colonial cobs I would recommend this book, along with the "Practical Book of Cobs" by Daniel and Frank Sedwick and "Spanish Colonial Silver Coins in the Florida Collection" by Alan K. Craig.

What a great book ! I am a lover of Spanish cobs and a collector. this book can turn a novice into a professional
cob specialist, It goes into great detail, I was surprised how much there is to learn about cobs.
with the help of this book I made a fantastic purchase from ebay, I picked up a fantastic cob worth 5 times the
price I paid, The seller had no idea ! good thing he did not have this book.
The book is very well priced and has paid for itself 10 times over, I would recommend this book to anyone !!!
It is my bible, and I use it as my reference before I buy any cobs.
Cheers, Sam Lopez

I will not apologize for anyone taking offense to my review about this book.

Simply put, I expected more and it just didn't live up to my personal expectations. So, I stand by my opinion. Mr. Dilcher although amusing, I'm a bit too mature to engage in the puerile game of "I Challenge You". As far as boasting about the Numismatic award, I congratulate the author on the recognition. However, let's be honest and let's keep it real according to the latest Numismatic Literary Guild (NLG v37 II, pg 3)newsletter the body that bestows that award consists of individuals completely "outside" of the numismatic professional field. Again this is my review and I stand by it.

I read the book painstakinly cover to cover and must say the pictures are nice but the book is not worth the price.

Most of the information found in this book is information I have read in other periodicals, journals, and publications.

The book tries to cover too many "facts" yet not enough depth to give you the impression the author did due diligence in his research. Rather I felt he was just compiling information from other sources. In my opinon the book is a disappointing work on such a rich topic. Very disappointing.

Having been in the profession of historic shipwreck research, search, and recovery since 1992, I am considered to be one of the foremost authorities on shipwreck recovered New World Spanish colonial cob-style coins. Two things an expert most appreciates are access to as much data as possible (ideally in an orderly format) in order to test theories and cross-reference for accuracy, and access to a source of broader knowledge and experience to increase one's own education. All this Sewall Menzel provides in depth as well as breadth with 484 pages, which include over 4,400 photos and diagrams, as well as over 500 references from the Spanish archives in Spain, Panama and Peru, along with some 167 additional bibliographic sources. He denotes hundreds of types and subtypes of the coins encountered in the field for the ten early Spanish mints (Mexico, Santo Domingo, Lima, La Plata/Potosi, Panama, Santa Fe de Bogota, Cartagena, Cuzco, Guatemala and Cuba), which enables the collector to virtually match each and every one of their own cob coins to an identified style by mint, type, date, and assayer's initial(s). As such, its utility to dealers, collectors, auction houses, museums, treasure hunters, professional historic shipwreck salvors, historians, and nautical archaeologists the world over is of supreme value. Cobs, Pieces of Eight and Treasure Coins covers the field in its entirety in both text and photos and diagrams as a fully professional work should do. This is a well-researched and scholarly effort and very likely to remain the most comprehensive one-volume work in its field for many years to come. It is, indeed, a veritable "Bible" in this fascinating field.

Carol Tedesco
President, Historic Research and Certification, Inc.

Cobs, Pieces of Eight and Treasure Coins won the American Numismatic Literary Guild's 2005 award: "Best World Coin Book 2005." This speaks for itself as the classic work in the field concerning the early Spanish-American mints and their coinages from 1536 to 1773.