It measures around 22 mm. I think the 1st picture from GDJMSP is a great example. The star is in the same place as on my coin and the words match up very well I think on the obverse and as well on the reverse there is t a perfect a match. The only real differences is with the the design a very tiny bit but it is overall the same. The reverse seems to match 100% with design 2. It may just be a variety of which is very uncommon thus making it very rare...is that not a possibility?? Ian does it ask you to sign in or something cuz they come up right away for me...
The stars, or privy marks are completely different designs. The legends on the obverse are totally different and in different locations. And please look at the center of the reverse design - not even close. Yes it does. Unfortunately the obverse and reverse have to match - not be found on different coins struck at different mints. Yes it is possible. The page does not come up at all. We get a page not found message.
Perhaps it is the 1/8th(?). I didn't get too involved in measuring up the coin. The 1/8th isn't visually all that significantly bigger than the 1/16th. These denom's only appear on that issue and a few other very scarce issues. The earlier issue 1690 -3 was 1/12th and 1/24th. The later issue of the Ecu aux trois couronnes saw the two smaller denom's change yet again to 1/10th and 1/20th. The one you have imaged Doug is the Bearne issue. It differs significantly from the ordinary dies. Apart from the different shield (reverse) you can always tell Bearne issues by the legate letters (BD) that appear after REX (obverse). That one is also listed in Ciani, but because it is a Bearne issue and therefore readily differentiated from the one cited by NOS I decided not to muddy the waters by even mentioning it. What IS important to mention here is that during the period 1690 - 1715 there were quite a number of different designs all of which were issued as `sets' of five pieces in silver. As I said, I don't have Gadoury, but the species outlined in Ciani is there for all to see. Two types of 8 l's issued between 1701-1704. One with the cuirassed bust with the little `sun king' medallion on his breast. The other (1704 only?) a draped *and* laureate bust very similar to the earlier 1690's issue of the 8 l's but withought the laurels (all of which are different again from the Bearne issue). Ciani would not have been able to list them if they didn't exist, and given that Ciani was there first....... None of that however makes the coin `genuine'. See my earlier comments on Ciani (and also my earlier comments on French mint records). As you are well aware, you have a coin which has an enigma to it which isn't noted in any of the aforementioned books. I have a number of french coins with significant differences from the recorded / catalogued `norm'. Out of sheer interest the image you gave as a Gadoury listing as a 1/16th is listed in Ciani as (dependent upon size) either a 20 sols (1702-09) or a 10 sols or a 5 sols. Personally (paraphrasing a somewhat famous quote) I would rather err with Ciani than be right with Gadoury. I think that just about sums up my opinion of Gadoury. However, that does not help resolve the bona fide's or otherwise of the coin in question. (Nor does it resolve why Gadoury shows a coin which has the tips of the fleur de lis pointing up instead of down.) ;-) Ian
Well...I'll go over what you have just said once you can see the nice big photos. The photos come up right away for me but maybe that is because I am signed into the account. If there wasn't a size limit on here I could just upload them no problem. I'll think about what to do...
That is a very easy one to answer. An original silver coin may have a `silver content value' and very little collector value either due to it being relatively common or badly damaged...or both. However some coins have significant collector value, sometimes many orders of magnitude greater than their `silver content value'. Rare coins are the target of counterfeiters because the genuine article IS valuable, scarce and in demand. If they can turn a bit of silver worth $1 into say $150 or more then you can readily see that it is worth their while. It is not worth their while to try and get a collector to accept a pasty bit of metal as being the real McCoy because it simply won't work with specialist collectors. Some counterfeits have been so good that they have remained in collections for years undiscovered until recently. No doubt there are others yet to be discovered too. The rarer the coin the more of a target it is to the counterfeiter. No expense spared in the efforts to deceive. That is the simplicity.
Well...I'll think that over...sometimes with yahoo the url code changes for some reason and it is different now so try these... http://us.f1f.yahoofs.com/bc/7127beb3/bc/ScanFront.jpg?bfaRRGCBybYNQHMp http://us.f1f.yahoofs.com/bc/7127beb3/bc/ScanBack.jpg?bfaRRGCB7fJW5dOC I think it will work
The exact error message I receive from these links are: "bcvrf.yahoo.com cannot be found. Please check the name and try again." I've never come across a url like the one you have posted before.
Ian - I am quite enjoying this - rather think you are too So let's narrow things down a bit shall we ? Now then, NOS says he has measured the coin at 22mm. I think it reasonable that the orignal measurement of the coin could have been 23mm, but due to wear 22 can be accepted. Can we agree that the measurement limits the possibilities as to what the coin may or may not be - yes ? Assuming that - we must then limit what the coin may or may not be by the design found on the obverse & reverse - yes ? And then we have to limit the possibilities by the date found on the coin. First the size - the 1/8th ecu ( 10 sols ) issued in 1704 was 23mm so that works. However - the design is wrong as this coin is known as the 10 sols aux 4 couronnes. So that one's out. The 1/16th ecu ( 5 sols ) which I have pictured was 20mm. Too small and the wrong design - again out. The 20th ecu was always way to small, and the 1/10th was not issued until 1709 - both out. So the only thing left that fits for a coin issued in 1704 is the 1/12 ecu, which varied in size depending on design and was issued in 22 and 23mm. Do we agree so far ?
They use these codes after the file name and I do not know why and they change too. It would be nice if it was just http://us.f1f.yahoofs.com/bc/7127beb3/bc/ScanBack.jpg but they add all the junk to the end. Pandoras box has been opened and I want to get to the bottom of this so do you know of another server I could upload them to or could I email you 2 the photos?? Are you sure it can't be a 1/16th ecu as Ian said earlier or is that totally out of the question??
Yes those enlargements are very good and the quality doesnt seem to have been distorted. I tried to make them just show like that but just the url would come up on here. The steak knife is starting to be thrust back into me again with counterfeit talk so I'd like to wait and see what Ian says now...
That is the purpose of my 2nd to last post - to determine just that. In my opinion, based on the info and pics you have provided, it can be no other than the 1/12th. We'll see if Ian agrees.
(?) Maybe I haven't been clear. The coin in that image NOS provided is a clear match for Ciani #1928 which he notes as being either a 1/8th or 1/16th ecu bearing the `Ecu aux huit L's' design. How can I possibly agree that `that's that one out'? It might help if you clarified what design elements you feel to be at fault (forget the privy marks business for the moment) Ah...according to Gadoury / Duplessy you mean? I think the only thing we can safely agree on is that Gadoury does not note the series that the coin appears to have come from. From the larger images you have just posted, it looks very much like I was correct about it having been overstruck (whatever it turns out to be). Looking at the `A' in the crown it is obvious to me that it is overstruck on some earlier type (and not the earlier 1690-3 8 l's either). Mind you a forger might be smart enough to try something like that, but I doubt it. I do not have Gadoury or data regarding the diameters he gives for these so I am happy to take your word for such things. The question really is, does Gadoury or Duplessy list the coin in the image or not? What they actually call it (if they list it at all that is) is secondary. If they don't, then my next question would be `how come Ciani does'? I'm pretty sure he wasn't in the habit of inventing coins. As a caveat, I might well be missing the obvious here but if I am then it's got to be a good 'un because there's little doubt in my mind that the image is that of the Ciani reference I quoted previously, and he has it as being either a 1/8th or 1/16th (whatever they size in at). I'd forget trying to link it to what Gadoury or Duplessy says. I'm off to the land of nod and from there away from home till next weekend. I hope I get a chance to check in on this though. It's a pity i'm so rushed as i'd love to have scanned the page from Ciani for you to see.
NOS my friend - there are two very important lessons to be taken to heart from this thread. 1. Even experts can differ regarding the legitimacy and value of a specific coin, and just as in this case, without actually seeing the coin they aren't willing to make an absolute declaration. (And by the way, IMHO Doug and Ian are both experts in this category of coinage.) 2. Don't let your emotions get in the way of analysis. This applies to coins, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, builldings, automobiles, jewelry, or anything else of value. Whether I got a tremendous bargain, or was horribly shafted, is of absolutely no relevance to the question of "What do I have here?" When the real world tells me that a stock I thought was the next EBay was actually the next Enron, if I let my unhappiness with the result stop me from liquidating my position and saving what I can, I'm the one who will suffer. Keep digging for the truth, but keep an open mind, and
See now I do not know if I should call it a 1/12th ecu or a 1/16th ecu as the 2 experts can not come to an agreement but that does not matter too much as this is the only ecu coin I have and will not matter in my binder. I would however like to know though for sure that my coin was indeed made by the government of France back in 1704. Even if it wasn't it is still very clear that it is contemporary...Perhaps I have exposed some kind of mystery or maybe I woulda been better off not posting it at all as I knew for sure until yesterday it was authentic and had no reason to doubt it. Too bad Ian who is on the side of my coin more so than GDJ is leaving for a while...
I forgot the privy marks long ago my friend I am trying to simplify things greatly. So my question as posted before - " Now then, NOS says he has measured the coin at 22mm. I think it reasonable that the orignal measurement of the coin could have been 23mm, but due to wear 22 can be accepted. Can we agree that the measurement limits the possibilities as to what the coin may or may not be - yes ? " Can you agree with that statement yes or no ? As an aside - I would be curious to know what Ciani lists as the diameters of the 1/16th and the 1/8th ecus. For if Ciani does not list the 1/16th or the 1/8th as being either 22mm or 23mm - then I do not see how it could possibly be either of them since the coin in question is 22mm. Well yes and no. For what you and I both depend on as a definitive source - cgb - agree with Gadoury & Duplessy regarding the dimensions of the coins. Sadly - there is no listing on cgb for any of these coins struck in the year 1704. But they do list them for several other years - and in all cases the info provided by Gadoury & Duplessy is accurate. We do agree on those comments They do not - I have posted pics of every issue of the correct size ( diameter ) both authors list. The question as to why Ciani list the design and they don't is the one that has me puzzled. But then I've been puzzled by these same authors before. As have you when dealing with some of my coins The obvious thing that I think you're missing is the diameter of the coin. To me that is the key given the information about the coin that we have. I would just about kill to know the weight - as THAT would determine a lot !!
So you are agreeing then that this coin is authentic and was made over an earlier coin then right?? As for weighing the coin I am sorry to say that I do not own any scales but I do recall that my uncle has some small old electric scale or maybe it was a oddly shaped calculator. Unfortunately though I will not be going to his house until next Sunday...I wish I could get this mystery settled as the thought that it may be counterfeit is tearing me up inside as paid $20 for it.
Hey NOS: Go to the post office and get that coin weighed for crying out loud......... This is killing me and I gots to know the answer LOL!!!!!
That's a pretty dirty crack my friend. There are an awful lot of coin collectors who never have, do not, and never will, use, buy or sell illegal drugs, but have sensitive gram scales for coin authentication. The vast majority of jewelers are non-sellers of illegal drugs, but every single one of them has at least one sensitive gram scale in their shop. I think an apology for that remark would be in order.
