Yes, you are right. I am sorry. Sorry for what I said but it has been as if a knife has been shoved through my heart when I hear it may be a counterfeit. I did not mean to imply that we coin collectors are sellers of narcotics. Though with the revelations of what Ian has said it is sounding more and more real to me and sounds like it was a strike over of an older coin...perhaps it is some true $1,000 rarity!
NOS - If this helps put you at ease - if Ian is correct and the coin is genuine - then it is worth perhaps a few dollars more than you paid for it. That's it - no more. My earlier comments about the coin possibly being worth $100 - $200 were based on what appeared to me to be remnants of a Z mint mark. But your new, clearer pictures dispell any possibility of that. The comment of Ian's that I agree with is that yes, the coin likely is an overstrike. Again your new pics indicate this. I even posted a pic of the older coin. But from the time Ian made his first post, my only purpose in continuing this discussion is for the sake of knowledge. I only care to learn. I greatly respect Ian and consider him a friend as we've known each other for some time now and are both members of the same coin club. More often than not we agree. But every now and then we will disagree - it is the nature of the hobby. It also makes it interesting and is how knowledge is shared. My last several post have been for one purpose only - to discuss the coin and the information contained in various books on the subject - as I said to learn. I don't think you realize just how much valuable information has been shared in this thread. But even if it is not genuine - I will personally send you the $20 you spent on the coin - just to make you feel better. And you can keep the coin. That is how much I have enjoyed this discussion. I thank you for starting it.
Well yes I agree alot of good information has been posted in here. When I posted in the "more Louie XIIII" thread I thought it was just all gonna be a simple thing with one reply or two saying the two sols coin I have is worth this much on the market and now pandoras box has been opened...I learned that it is definately not a sols coin and not even sure what kind of ecu it is and then with the talk of it being a fake is just simply detrimental to me. BTW with over strike coins how come the previous design isnt bursting through??? It's not like they just made the coins into blank planchets again...or did they??
No - they didn't turn them into new planchets. They just took a coin a struck a new one on top of it. The pressure from striking the new coin obliterates the old design. Sometimes bits and pieces of the old design show through. Sometimes a lot of the old design shows through, and sometimes nothing. It all depends on how much pressure was exerted during the new strike.
That is very interesting indeed. So since my coin was struck over an old one does that not prove it wasn't made in some French man's back yard and that since it was struck again over an old one wouldn't it have thinned out a tiny bit?? That could explain your mm measurement predicament...btw what does the "A" mint stand for...I'm just assuming it is real and realise this is probably just where the old coin was struck but it'd be fun to know anyways.
I've said all along that it was possible the coin was genuine. The only problem I had with it was that it does not match any design known to me or found in any of the reference books I have. But that fact that it was struck over an existing coin does not make it genuine or mean that it was struck by one of the French mints. All that the overstrike confirms is the silver content. A is the mint mark for Paris.
Hmmm well...it may just be a coin that is fairly uncommon you know...I've heard of coins on ebay that are purported to be unlisted in the major books such as Krause and what have you...
Yes so I have faith the truth will prevail. Is there not some life long ancient collector out there that you may have heard of who only collects French coinage and would know everything there is to know and is such an expert that he would know exactly about my coin right down to how many grains of silver it is made out of?
Many of which are well known to knowledgable collectors as counterfeits (intended to rip off contemporary trading partners - having slight numismatic value,) and forgeries (intended to rip off collectors - numismatically worthless.)
Well...how is it even possible for a catalogue, even Krause, which proports to have coins minted from 1901 until present for example to have every single coin pictured and in the book???? It just doesn't seem like they could do it!!! Maybe this is just the case with my coin and I read that the French didn't do the best job at recording what they made you know...
Actually in all of its volumes Krause lists coins minted from 1601-present, and in addition to its full time staff, it has scores (if not hundreds) of regular contributors who point out and correct errors, provide pictures, and generally aid in making it as complete as possible. Obviously it isn't perfect, but it's the best general catalog available. Besides, Doug and Ian have been discussing the contents of specialized books written by respected authorities on the specific coin that you want yours to be, not the contents of Krause alone.
Well yes see there you go. Is it not possible that my type of coin has just slipped through the cracks do to it possibly being a major rarity or maybe a pattern, making it even more rare and uncommon?? I used the Krause books as an example and I understand completely what you mean.
NOS - anything is possible. I think what GD and Ian are discussing is what is probable. If you're deadset on your coin being some ultra rare pattern or variety, then you are bound to be disappointed. Think of the odds
Well no Im not "dead set" but I think with the evidence that has been presented by Ian, it is looking quite authentic with it being a strike over. I'm suggesting it may be rare since they can't find much information on it. I can't find much information on French coins from this period as it is so they may just be uncommon...
Well,the 'A' mintmark on this coin is the one for the Paris mint.It was after the changeover to Francs & Centimes that privy marks began to be indicated on French coins.
The A mint mark was on the original coin - not this one. But I have to ask - what is it that makes you think privy marks were not used on French coins during this period ?
M'kay so you admit it was on the original coin you say so I do not think a forger would bother to make up some goofy dies and pass it off in circulation as real as there would be no need. Since you say weighing it would help so much I have 1 of two options. I can give the coin in its original 4 stapled holder to my mom to weigh for me at work or I can just weigh the coin by itself this Sunday at my uncles house. Let me know what you think.
Okay since weight is so important here is what I am going to do. My mom is fine with this. She is going to take the coin in the holder to work and weigh it on a postage meter and she is also going to weigh the same type of holder with 4 staples in it so then I will just subtract how much the holder weighs and that will let me know just how much the coin weighs. Would it have lost much weight at all though from wear GDJMSP??
It will have lost some weight yes - but so much that it wouldn't be within tolerance levels. The main thing the weight will do is help confirm the denomination for us. It will also of course help, stress help, not prove, if the coin is genuine. I'm starting a new thread on the topic of counterfeits that will help you and others to understand what I mean by that.
