Back to Articles




Without a doubt, one of the greatest mysteries of modern Spanish numismatics is the absence of the assayer's mark on all of the coins that King Philip II struck from his silver ingots (1) at his own private water powered mill mint in Segovia, Spain. We are inspired to publish this article now, since 1998 is the four-hundredth anniversary of the death of King Philip II. In addition, it makes a curious anecdote to the GLOSSARY OF MINTMASTERS AND ASSAYERS, recently published by Josep Pellicer i Bru (2). As we will see, it is very probable that the assayer mark was purposefully left off of the coins because Philip II was being "prudent" (3) in what appears to have been a monetary experiment.

The inclusion of the assayer's mark on all Spanish coinage, obligatory since 1497 (4) was a direct response for the need to identify the individual who prepared the alloy, whom, for his part, guaranteed that the fineness corresponded to the officially required 11 dineros and 4 grains, in the case of silver coins. The absence of this mark on an entire series of silver coins struck from 1586 through 1598 signals to us a probable anomalous situation with respects to the fineness of these coins; a topic which has always been worthy of numismatic study.

After lengthy investigations of original sources (5) it seems strange that we found not a single document which refers directly to the absence of the assayer mark. Not a single order, decree, or even the slightest reference to the omission of a symbol which, during this period, traditionally appeared on all Spanish coins. On the other hand, according to the official "instructions" for the minting of coins at King Philip II's private Mint in Segovia, all coins were to be struck to the same weight, fineness and design standards employed at all the other Spanish mints. Nor were we able to find a single document which ordered the placement of this missing symbol on coins from this Mint during the reign of King Phillip III, when this occurred. But even stranger, we found not a single document written by a third party in which the absence of the assayer mark is directly questioned (6), as if there had been a subsequent search and official destruction of any documented reference to this matter. One thing for sure, we can be certain that the absence of this symbol did not pass unobserved; not by the general public, and certainly not by the assayers at the other mints, gold and silver merchants, silversmiths, and other professionals who worked in this field.

We did, however, find a few indirect references and indications in documents not specifically related with this affair which enable us to probe this mystery in order to arrive at an explanation.

It's worth noting that no numismatic investigator has ever attempted to explain the missing assayer mark up until now. Casto Maria del Rivero, in his 1915 doctoral thesis on the Segovia Mint simply stated that "the absence of the assayer mark deprives us of the interest in discovering the name of the assayer which corresponds to the symbol (7)." And Pellicer, in his recent study, correctly identifies the names of the two assayers who worked in the Mint at that time, Juan de Morales (8) and Joaquin Lingahel (9), but does not attempt to explain why their symbol is missing from the coins.


In order to better comprehend the circumstances which surround this affair, a brief analysis is necessary of the historical context in which they occur, along with some considerations as to the personality of King Philip II.

To begin with, we should remember that if one thing kept Philip II awake at night, it was where he was going to obtain more money; a problem which became an obsession after the state bankruptcy in 1575. Geoffrey Parker (10), in his analysis of the character of the "Prudent King," draws our attention to his attraction to the art of alchemy, for the obvious reason that the ability to transform common metals into gold or silver would immediately resolve his economic dilemma. Parker also reminds us of "the Prudent King's known fondness for secrets and dissimulation tactics," which is another factor which comes into play in our attempt to discover what happened to the assayer mark on his coins. As Parker says, "it's in these cases when we need to consider the psychology of the King, as the more we know about the way he thought and made decisions, the greater our chances will be in filling in the voids left by the absence of documents," adding that "as a rational being, the King had good reasons for all his actions."

Owing to his financial difficulties and the above mentioned considerations, it is perfectly rational for us to theorize that the King may have contemplated lowering the fineness of his coins as a method to create more money, as his successors, Charles III and Charles IV (11) would later do in the utmost of secrecy (12) (although these kings did not tamper with the assayer mark). We have previously discovered that the "Prudent King" sent some of his silver ingots in 1582 to be minted at the Lisbon Mint, showing great interest in the benefits which this yielded him since the official fineness for Portuguese coins was only 11 dineros, instead of the 11 dineros and 4 grains required in Spain (13).

As a backdrop to this affair, we remember that a general confusion reigned during this period as to the correct scientific method for performing assays; a pretext under which the gold and silver merchants of Seville protected themselves in order to commit widespread fraud at nearly all the Spanish mints over a long period of time. The famous assayer, Juan de Arfe, tells us how this confusion came about "because the gold and silver merchants and assayers assumed a mistaken correlation between the silver weight of the marco and the weights used for gold and the castellano (14)." Arfe continues by referring to certain lawsuits during 1585 and 1586 pertaining to the fineness of practically all the coins struck at the Spanish mints, which later resulted in a massive trial against the merchants and the assayers (15), and the subsequent passing of a new and definitive legislation on the standards and methods of performing assays (16).

In the above mentioned trial, several gold and silver merchants confessed to having struck debased coinage over a period of more than 20 years, basing their actions on the supposed confusion regarding the technical methods of performing assays. Nevertheless, the authorities judged that the merchants always knew exactly what the fineness of the coinage they produced really was, even if only by "visually observing the coins, which is the truest test," one of them arguing that "it seems to me they cannot plead ignorance according to what they say, since this is their trade and profession, in which they have gained all their wealth and fortune by taking for themselves the silver and gold which should have been in the coins, because they themselves declare it is their knowledge and evidence to know what they earn or loose and if the assayers were performing well their duties, or not (17)."

It shouldn't surprise us if the interest that King Philip showed for discovering the tricks of the gold and silver merchants and resolving at the same time the technical questions surrounding the proper method of performing assays, lead him to conduct a few practical experiments. In such a case, the ideal laboratory would have been his new Royal Mill Mint in Segovia, which was his own private coining factory, as well as the closest mint to his palaces in Madrid and the Escorial. Along these lines, we should remember that in the first "instruction" which the King gave for the striking of his own silver ingots at the Segovia Mint, he explicitly stated that "although these coins are for test or experimental purposes, they are later to be distributed and spent (18)."


The circumstances surrounding this affair direct us to one basic question: Did Philip II do away with the assayers mark on these coins because he could not truthfully guarantee their fineness? It's obvious that a decision to delete such an important symbol from these coins could only have been made by the King himself, and according to the specimens known today, it seems that this decision was made before the first piece was struck at the new Mint.

Was the "Prudent King," also devoutly religious, by omitting the assayer mark, washing his hands of any act which may have been questionable by the only authority higher than him: God? Without a doubt, it would have been much less noticeable if he had not tampered with such a traditional symbol on the coinage, as his successors later did in similar cases.

In order to probe deeper into this affair, we'll investigate the assayer of the new Mint, Juan de Morales. In 1583, Morales, then assayer of the mint in Burgos, sent a petition to the King in which he insisted he had discovered a "secret" as to the fineness of silver coinage and its relation to the price of gold, with which, according to him, Spain could circumvent the unequal parity of it's coinage with those of other European nations, and thus thwart the foreigners who extracted coins from Spain to melt them down at a profit; a "secret" which would yield "a great advantage to the Royal Treasury (19)." Nevertheless, the experts judged that Morales hadn't discovered anything new, and that he had simply implied raising the value of the coinage or lowering its weight or fineness.

Shortly thereafter, in 1585, we find Morales in Madrid performing a special assay for the King. We don't know the nature of this assay but it appears to have been an experiment or demonstration which lasted 100 days, including 10 days round trip from Burgos to Madrid (20). Apparently, the King was satisfied with Morales because on the first of February, 1586, he was sent a letter with orders to return to Madrid for a special task, but without a hint of what that task would be. The letter, folded and sealed, had the following address on its outer side: "The very magnificent Mister Juan de Morales, assayer of the Mint of the city of Burgos."

"I have written to Mister Antonio that he is to give your mercy, license and order, that later, as soon as able, you leave where you are and come to where I await your mercy. And it is convenient that you give speed, for the effect which you are called will be made known to you when you cometh... Your mercy is advised to bring what is necessary to perform an assay, as it will be ordered of you (21)."


There is always an air of mystery surrounding the actions of Morales, but we know that he arrived in Madrid on February 9th, 1586, and that he was still there on the 21st, because he requested a signed testimony of the fact before a public scribe. Although we have not been able to locate the commission or instruction which Morales himself received for his duties in the Segovia Mill Mint, we know that on February 23, he was assigned there because this is clear in the instruction which Juan Racionero received on that date:

"...later upon receiving this my order, and the other dispaches that with it will be given to you, without delay, you are to leave and go the said city of Segovia, taking with you Juan de Morales, deputy assayer of the mint of the city of Burgos, whom we have ordered to come to the city of Madrid for this reason... (22)."

Juan Racionero was a metals expert who had worked in the mercury mines in the Province of Peru. King Philip II put him in charge of the new Segovia Mill Mint "to ascertain its usefulness and benefit... confiding that you will deal with this with your utmost care, diligence and truthfulness, owing to the experience that you have in these matters (23)." This "Instruction of the King, His Majesty, to work the silver," directed to Racionero, is of utmost interest to us because of the subtle alterations it authorizes in the procedure of performing the assay, different from that used in the other Spanish mints.

Later on, the accountant general found serious flaws in Racionero's ledgers, apparently originating in the aforementioned instruction. The accountant accused him of "not keeping the book he was ordered to, and of not having signed in the book of the German coiners... and that also, after having adjusted the coins, before blanching and striking them, they be assayed once, after which they be blanched a second time, and this was not done, for which he claimed that although this be customary in the coins struck in the our Kingdom, it cannot be done in the Segovia Mill Mint (24)."

These shortcomings of Racionero, in which Morales is also implicated, later became the responsibility of the accountant general of the Treasury, whom was ordered by the King in the aforementioned document, to look the other way regarding these and other anomalies in the initial coinage of the Mill Mint. In this decree of March 11, 1588, the King ordered, with respects to the accountant's responsibility: "...and I relieve you of any responsibility or blame that because of this you might be charged with."

Another curious detail which arises from this document is that the scribe of the Mill Mint, the official in charge of registering all the data in the mint's ledgers, was Juan de Morales' brother.


Doubts about the fineness of the alloy used began to emerge as soon as the coins left the mint. The first coins were struck on March 23, 1586 (25), and the Count of Chinchon, treasurer of the Mint, was already informing the King´s secretary on April 2nd, regarding certain worrisome declarations that Morales had made. According to the Count:

"This Juan de Morales says that in not one of all of the mints in this Kingdom are coins struck conforming to regulation fineness, which is 11 dineros and 4 grains, but rather 11 dineros and 2 grains, and from there under; and that if His Majesty, without expressly ordering, permitted him to alloy in the Mill Mint somewhat below the 11 dineros and 4 grains, he would still be alloying finer silver than in all the other mints in the Kingdom, and His Majesty would benefit greatly from the difference between the one and the other (26)."

In another letter, this one dated April 7th, the Count warned the King's secretary that he should start "undoing Morales' plan, since he has his hands in the batter and intends to remain occupied" at the Mint (27).

We should emphasize that there was also another assayer at the Mill Mint: Joaquin Lingahel, a German, who came with the other German technicians and the convoy that brought the machinery from the Hall mint, near Innsbruck, Austria, where it was designed and built. But Lingahel rarely appears in the documents pertaining to the early coinage, and in fact, he protested to the King on numerous occasions that he felt he was serving "without much honor."

On April 8th, the King's secretary wrote the Count expressing the apprehension of the president of the Royal Treasury about the three keys to the security vault at the Mint: Morales had one, Racionero another, and the Bishop of Segovia, who due to other obligations could not attend the work at the Mint, had the third. He continued stating that "Morales does not want to be accompanied, and although he probably knows how to perform his duties as assayer, he has little knowledge about coining, and he speaks more than his talent permits, and since he has no other occupation or entertainment, he desires to perpetuate himself in this one...(28)."

Soon, suspicions about the fineness of the coins flowed like rumors all around Segovia, exacerbated, we must assume, by the missing assayers mark on the coins. On June 11th, Racionero complained to the president of the Royal Treasury that the Bishop of Segovia had gone to the Mint to withdraw samples of the coinage in order to ascertain its fineness. According to Racionero:

"Juan de Morales and I have taken offense with these assays of the Bishop for not showing an order from His Majesty to perform them, and for having said and published, he and others from the Old Segovia Mint, that we only strike coinage here of 11 dineros. And not happy with that, they have sent the German's coins to be assayed at the Toledo, Seville and Granada mints; and what's more, this audacity I consider to be a disservice to the King, who took offense with Juan de Morales, even though he performs his office with truth and much care and diligence; and for my part, I relate that each day he complies with what His Majesty orders...(29)."

Another document makes reference to a memorandum by Sebastian Muñoz, a Segovian silversmith, in which he suggests that Morales be dismissed. The Kings secretary summarized by jotting down "everyone writes that a different assayer is needed to alloy the silver because Morales is very busy and not very skillful at this (30)."

Months after all the silver had been struck, Morales was obligated to be put through an examination of his knowledge of assaying techniques, a test apparently designed more to quell the rumors about his abilities, than to find specific fault with any particular coins. We say this because the test didn't include the inspection of a single coin struck from the silver that Morales had alloyed at the Mint. We can suppose that Morales knew perfectly well how to assay metals; his only problem was that he apparently had some type of order that the alloy at the Mill Mint be of a reduced fineness, which of course would not be evident in this test of his ability.

On December 16th, 1586, the King's secretary sent Morales another of those letters ordering him to appear in person again in Madrid, without offering any details or reason. This letter contains a certain air of importance, but does not impart urgency. Could it be that Morales was to be given orders to cease the debasement experiment before the next shipment of silver from Seville, not scheduled to arrive in Segovia until mid January?

We'll see later, according to certain account ledgers we've discovered, that the only year in which the coins appear to have a reduced fineness was 1586; the first year of coinage at the new Mint, although the assayer mark remained absent from all the coins produced there during the remainder of Philip II's reign. Is it possible that the King found out everything he wanted to know during the first year of coinage and then put an end to the experiment, but left the assayer's mark off the subsequent coinage so as not to attract any more attention to the affair?

In any case, Morales' dilemma continued to worsen, according to what we gather from a letter Racionero sent to the King on January 3rd, 1587:

"Juan de Morales has done in all this only that which in the service of Your Majesty he should have, and in this City he has been intensely followed and persecuted, and today even more than ever. I believe in his ministry of the assay and that he tells the truth. I beg of Your Majesty, that in whatever it be, he receive Your Majesty's favor (31)."


As we mentioned before, during this period in time there existed a general confusion as to the correct method of performing the assay and as a result, fraud was rampant in all of the Spanish mints. On November 12th, 1587, King Philip II ordered that a criminal trial be brought against Juan Castellanos and Company, and other gold and silver merchants, as well as the assayers of various mints. Today, the meticulous details of the proceedings of this trial are available to us in two historical document books: one of more than 1,600 pages in length (32), and the other of 164 pages (33); this later one being the conclusions that were arrived at by the judge commissioned in the case, the honorable Mr. Armenteros, justice of the Kings own Court and thus the highest in the Kingdom, including his own private opinion on the outcome, signed and dated on October 12th, 1588. As we recall from other studies, the new regulations specifying the correct and definitive method of performing an assay were dated on July 2nd, 1588, meaning that Armenteros, in his concluding opinions about the trial, already had access to what we could call the true methodology of the assay.

In his private observations on the trial brought against the metals mercahants, Armenteros makes the most direct and profound reference we have yet discovered to what we suspect was a purposefully devised scheme by the King regarding the debasement of the coins struck at his Mint. According to Armenteros, referring to certain declarations made by the merchants implicated in the trial:

"And what's more, they say that Your Majesty ordered by way of a special permit or notice, dispatched by the Council of the Treasury, that Juan de Morales, the assayer of the Mill Mint that Your Majesty has in Segovia, was to alloy with 5 reales the said silver ingots of purest fineness. I just can't believe it! And if Your Majesty ordered that, he certainly must not have been guided correctly, because by force the alloy would have turned out to be short 2 grains in fineness. And I plea to God that the favors of these guilty merchants were not the authors of this fraud. And in the case that Your Majesty, by way of his knowledge and Royal powers, has been served that in his Mint the coinage be carried out in this manner, the privilege that has been granted to this Mint because of its curious manufacture and the beauty of it's coins, should not be extended throughout the Kingdom, and it should be restricted only to the mint which Your Majesty has been served to confer it, and it doesn´t result in excessive harm, in as much as Your Majesty orders only his own silver to be minted there, and in the Kingdom no one receives any damage, and outside the Kingdom, if Your Majesty is responsible for the debasement of the fineness, Your Majesty will be held accountable (34)."

Another person who carried out tasks relating to the merchant's fraudulent activities was Francisco Baptista Veintin, who would later be named Chief Assayer of the Realm, an office created in the aforementioned regulation on assays. In 1592, Veintin penned a memorandum in which he requested his salary for the previous six years, including a list of the services which he had performed, which included the capture and arrest of the guilty merchants in the since famous trial. He also assured in his list that he went to Segovia "to perform certain tasks that were required of him for that lawsuit" (probably related to the coinage that the merchants struck in the other mint in Segovia, the "Old Mint") and summarized by pointing out: "I have also dealt with other very serious matters which I will not mention here because His Majesty already has those papers. All of which I have dealt with and performed during those referred to six years (35)." We mention this just in case it pertains to something related with the alloy that Juan de Morales prepared in the Mill Mint (where no merchant entered to strike coins until during the reign of Philip III); inasmuch as we havn't seen any other matter related to the manufacture of coins during this period that seems to have been treated with such confidentiality as the actions of Juan de Morales in the Mill Mint.


The accounts of Juan de Morales also present certain signals that call our attention. To begin with, the account of metals that he was in charge of during 1586, 1587 y 1588, reveal words that have been crossed out along side a note that cautions that the account only contains the "residuals" of the 1586 coinage. At the end of the account Morales penned in addition: "and if for the credits or debits of what I was responsible for, it be convenient for the service of His Majesty that I give further explanation or clarity, I will do such according to what I have in my ledgers and manuals (36)."

As a matter of fact, it seems that Morales' bookkeeping was notoriously confidential. In 1597, access to the records of both Morales and Lingahel was requested in an unrelated lawsuit by the heirs of the deputy treasurer of the Mint, who also served during the same period of time. This was the normal procedure for verifying records for such purposes. Nevertheless, in this case, the Council of the Treasury deemed this normal method inappropriate, stating:

"Because turning these books over to people who are different from those who drew them up, particularly because they are unaware of the conditions under which they were redacted, could be inconvenient. It seems, if Your Majesty is thus served, that these original books could be ordered to be brought to the General Accounting Office for the verification and knowledge of their content, inasmuch as at the Segovia Mint they are no longer needed nor do they serve a purpose (37)."

Although we have not found data in the regular account ledgers enabling us to verify the fineness of the coins struck in 1586, we have found a letter dated November 7th, of that year which Morales sent directly to King Philip II in which he mentions the total weight in pure silver which he processed that year and the total weight of the copper he used in the alloy (38). This data permits us to calculate the fineness of the alloy; which results in exactly 11 dineros and 2 grains, precisely as the honorable justice Armenteros stated in his observations on the trial of the metals merchants. If we next calculate the theoretical benefit which the King obtained by having the entire shipment of silver struck during 1586 with a debasement in fineness of 2 grains, we arrive at 40,334 reales of excess monetary value, which we can then contrast with the more then 1,654,400 reales he obtained through fines and sureties due to the frauds committed by the merchants.

We should point out that the Mint's accounts beginning in 1587 are perfectly documented, and that calculating the fineness of this subsequent coinage, employing the same formula we used for the year 1586, the fineness turns out each year to be just a little above the regulation 11 dineros and 4 granos (39), leading us to conclude that if there actually was an intentional manipulation of the fineness of the Segovia Mint coins by Philip II, it only lasted for one year.


The absence of the assayer mark on all of the silver coins struck at the Segovia Mill Mint during the reign of King Philip II has always been one of the biggest mysteries of modern Spanish coinage and was always worthy of a detailed numismatic investigation.

All indications point to a scheme having been put into action by the King regarding the debasement of these coins, and that he himself decided to omit the assayer mark for prudence sake, since he could not guarantee the fineness of the coinage. In support of this theory, we know that the King considered these coins to be part of a "test or experiment", although he ordered them to be "distributed and spent."

Owing to the sequence of events studied, it seems that what the King learned in this experiment permitted him to bring firm charges against the gold and silver merchants and assayers who had been manipulating the fineness of the coinage in all of the mints for more than 20 years, as well as enabling him to do away with the misconceptions surrounding the technical procedures of performing assays and to establish a new and definitive regulation controlling the proper methodology. In this sence, the King must have thought that the best way to catch a criminal, discover his tricks, and calculate his profits, was to recreate the crime in a real life situation.

According to several indications, it seems the experiment only lasted for one year, although the assayer mark remained absent from all Mill Mint coinage - even after the definitive regulation for the Mint was given in 1596 (41) - until after the death of King Philip II, not appearing for the first time until several years into the seventeenth century, and then without even the slightest mention in documentary sources thus far discovered.

We should also remember that Kings Charles III as well as Charles IV also debased the fineness of coinage in order to create necessary funds; both cases shrouded in absolute secrecy beyond the sworn officials who implemented the order. As a result, it shouldn't surprise us that Philip II could have considered doing the same two centuries earlier, just as our old friend Francisco Baptista Veintin, proposed to Philip III in 1608, while he was Chief Assayer of the Realm, offering to plan the debasement "in such a manner that no one would find out (42)."

As an anecdote, we could add that King Philip II probably considered the permanent debasement of Spain's silver coinage as being an unwise decision, perhaps because these coins were such a vital part of being able to maintain his possessions in central and northern Europe, opting instead to eliminate the small silver alloy that the copper coinage contained, which only circulated in Castille (43). In such a case, the "Prudent King" probably remembered the harsh warning which the honorable justice Armenteros gave him regarding the coinage that his Royal Treasury sent outside the Kingdom: "if Your Majesty is responsible for the debasement of the fineness, Your Majesty will be held accountable."


(1) All of the silver coined at the Royal Mill Mint in Segovia from the first piece struck in 1586 through the death of Phillip II in 1598, belonged personally, to the King. There is no proof, documentary or otherwise, of any gold being coined at this mint during that period. The first silver to be minted there by a private individual was not until 1609, while in the case of gold it was in 1607.

(2) Published by the Museo Casa de la Moneda (F.N.M.T.), 1997, [425 pp.].

(3) King Philip II (1556-1598) is generally refered to as the "Prudent King."

(4) Pragmatica of Medina del Campo, dated June 13th, 1497.

(5) Documentary sources from the Archivo General de Simancas (AGS), sections: Casa y Sitios Reales (C.S.R.), Consejo y Juntas de Hacienda (C.J.H.), and Contaduría Mayor de Cuentas (C.M.C.).

(6) The accusations made by the gold and silver merchants, according to the honorable justice Armenteros, as we will see later on, made no mention of the missing assayer mark on the coins.

(7) RIVERO, Casto Mª del: El Ingenio de la Moneda de Segovia, Madrid, 1919, p. 26.

(8) On pages 79 and 263 of his book.

(9) On pages 79 and 229 of his book.

(10) PARKER, Geoffrey: Felipe II, Alianza Editorial, 1995.

(11) In 1771 and 1786, respectively.

(12) Documents exist today for the debasement order and the oaths of secrecy sworn by the treasurer, assayer and founder of each mint.

(13) MURRAY, Glenn: Génesis del Real Ingenio... NVMISMA, No. 232, 1993, p. 192.

(14) Juan de Arfe y Villafañe: "Quilatador de la plata, oro y piedras...", Madrid, 1598.

(15) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 278.

(16) San Lorenzo, July 2nd, 1588: Norte de la Contratación, book I, chapter XXXIII, p. 13; transcribed by Rosa Romero in NVMISMA, No. 233, 1993, doc. 1.

(17) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 277, fol. 22.

(18) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 271-2ª, carp. 16, pp. 9 and 10.

(19) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 218, carp. 16.

(20) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 271-2ª, carp. 16., p. 17.

(21) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 271-2ª, carp. 16, p. 7.

(22) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 271-2ª, carp. 16, pp. 9 and 10.

(23) Idem.

(24) RIVERO, Casto Mª del: El Ingenio... doc. 6 p. 60.

(25) MURRAY, Glenn: "La fundación del Real Ingenio de la Moneda de Segovia desde los primeros indicios hasta sus primeras monedas"; published in Premios Mariano Grau, Real Academia de Historia y Arte de San Quirce, Segovia, 1997, p. 487.

(26) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol. 176.

(27) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol 180.

(28) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol. 181.

(29) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol. 186.

(30) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol. 185.

(31) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol. 192.

(32) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 278.

(33) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 277, fol. 22.

(34) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 277, fol. 22.

(35) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 292, carp. 15.

(36) AGS, C.M.C.-2ª época, leg. 314.

(37) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 369, carp. 13.

(38) AGS, C.S.R., leg. 267-2º, fol. 194.

(39) MURRAY, Glenn: "Las acuñaciones de plata en el Ingenio de Segovia - Felipe II," unpublished.

(40) The definitive conclusion about this affair will have to await, for the time being, pending a chemical analysis of a sampling of the coinage in question (using non destructive methods) to clarify the true fineness of the alloy used.

(41) This regulation would have technically ended any supposed trial phase of the new Mint. "Instruction of December 31, 1596": AGS, C.S.R., leg. 306, fol. 290.

(42) AGS, C.J.H., leg. 485, carp. 8.

(43) By decree of 1596.