Sounds good to me. She didnt get home until really late last night and this morning I was in a hurry so she never got the coin and holder...maybe tomorrow. hehe
Absolutely. Ciani leaves a lot to be desired...including dimensions/ weights and various other bits of what i would classify as `critical' information. I think the key to this may very well be the weight. I''ve had a little bit of time to look back over the enhanced images and there are indeed design elements that look at bit ropey to me. I'm also struggling to find a silver coin from that period that would have an `A' in that location. Out of curiosity, I had a look at the possibility of mixed dies. Have a look at the obverse die used for the billon Quatre Deniers (which is circa 22mm). The bust, legend and little sun all match rather nicely IMHO...... Ian
Which of course is why I have purchased the books I have instead of Ciani. But I'm sure you know Ian, that because of this thread alone I will have to buy it anyway I've already posted a picture of the coin, it was this design - design 3 - This design was used for the 1/12 ecu ( I'm still fairly certain that is the denomination of the coin in question ) from 1701 through 1704. But it was only struck at the Paris mint in '01, '02 & '03. The only 4 denier I am familiar with is the quatre deniers de Strasbourg and I do not show it as billon. I certainly see the similarity, but certain details do not match the information I have. The location of the L in LVD for example. With the coin in question the L is well under the shoulder - on the 4 denier it is at the peak of the shoulder nearly touching the hair. And the privy mark, on the coin in question is found at 11 o'clock - on the 4 denier it is at 12 o'clock. So perhaps this is not the coin of which you speak.
It has it's plus points that the others don't...... ;-) A yes, the Ecu aux Insignes 1701-03. The coin was ripe for being overstruck in 1704 by the newer design. That type was indeed a 1/12th (no smaller 1/24th either) as noted in Ciani. Iit would be a good fit. Bear in mind that `sets' would have been made as presentation pieces for dignatories and foreign diplomats. These would have been struck on clean flans, unlike the coins made for circulation. Here's an image of the obv. of the one I mean. Note the position of the privy mark at 7 ish in relation to the worn spot obv. on ROS's coin. Reverse legend is `Piece de IIII Deniers - (date)'. Ian
Perhaps more important are the essais for each design & denomination that were distributed to each mint so that the die engravers had something to copy. A few of those still exist as well. You do mean the same coin then - But notice the differences between a pic of the actual coin and a line drawing. See what I meant about the L in LVD ? There are also 2 privy marks under the bust - not just one as in the line drawing. But the privy mark is at 12 o'clock on both. This is what I have never liked about line drawings being used to identify coins. Certain details only have to be slightly off to make you wonder if it is another design altogether.
"I'm also struggling to find a silver coin from that period that would have an `A' in that location." As we have found it is an over struck coin from an earlier time period. Here is an example of an over struck French coin with the same "A" in place. http://www.lotn.org/~calkinsc/coins/000178.html Now I have some good news here. I had to go through some hoops to get this done but I did it. My uncle had a mini electric scale but it rounded the grams up or down so then we used an old manual scale and we came up with the following figures: One, we weighed a 2001 zinc penny at 2.51 grams and my book has those at 2.50 grams so that is a nice match. Before that though we weighed a empty holder of the same size with 4 staples, the same as my coin in its holder at 2.50 grams. Then we weighed the 1704 coin in its holder at 4.72 grams and subtracted 2.50 to equal 2.22 grams for the coin.
It appears I was correct regarding the denomination - for based on the weight & the diameter it can be no other than the 1/12th ecu. But that brings us back to my original problem - the coin in question does not match the designs of any known 1704 1/12th ecu found in Gadoury, Duplessy or Ciani. And that means there are only two possibilities left - oddly enough the same two I proposed when this thread began. At this point - I doubt we'll ever know the answer.
Now now that's not give up that easily. My uncle took a look at it and he said it looks pretty authentic. I am inclined to agree. Now since you can't find some exact match doesn't mean much as it may just be super rare.
Yes NOS it might be super rare. But you see - the rare coins are always the best known among those that collect a given series simply because they are rare. Something else you apparently don't know is that rarity does not equate to value. I own several coins with a total mintage of less than 100 - I own a few others with a total mintage of less than 40. And I own one particular coin of which there are only 4 known to exist in the world. The point of all this is that even for the most valuable of them I only paid $300 - the others were all under $150. NOS whether you understand it or not I have only been trying to help you, to educate you, to try and answer all of your questions to the best of my ability and with complete & utter honesty. Up to now, I have spent upwards of 40 hrs. researching this one coin of yours. But I did so willingly - and I enjoyed doing so. And what's more I'd do it again. I can't help it that you don't like the answers - but that doesn't make them any less accurate.
Please don't take this the wrong way my young friend, but exactly what are your uncle's qualifications to authenticate early 18th century French gold coins? If he is truly an expert in that branch of numismatics why didn't you just seek his opinion in the first place?
Myself, I've had 4 possibly unique Krause plate coins (All 4 were "new discoveries") pass through my hands. The cheapest one sold for $50 or so.
It all has to do with demand as you know GDJMSP. Now as you know the French back then weren't too good at keeping records of their coins and for all we know the people who compile these books simply go by contemporary records so not every coin would be noted quite possibly. Yes GDJMSP I know you speak of the truth but your possible truths are not what I want to hear as it is simply detrimental to me so I look for alternatives. I do appreciate your long research into all of this by the way. Now Satootoko, my uncle is not a coin collector nor does he know much of anything about French coins but he noted how well struck it is and how great the dies would have been and I brought up how it was struck over an older coin so I full heartedly believe what he says and it all makes perfect sense to me. That is why I believe him. Now, just as Ccgnum has written of "new discoveries", my coin may very well be a a new one that was unknown for centuries yonder.
I know you will be happy to hear that this will be my final post to this thread. I realize that your youth and lack of real world experience explains (but doesn't justify) your insistance that someone who knows nothing about coins is right because he says what you want to hear, but that people with years of experience and expertise must be wrong because you don't like what they say. I had no choice but to deal with that attitude when my children and older grandchildren were your age, but I need a break until my younger grandchildren get there, so I'm simply going to ignore this thread from now on.
On the contrary - The French records are some the most complete found in the world. Well one of these days you'll have to learn that no matter how much you don't want to hear it - when it's the truth, it's the truth. And there's nothing you can do to change the truth. You must simply accept it. But you go right on believing whatever you want.
1704 French coin Yes that is fine satootoko. Have a nice life out there. GDJMSP, I remember coming across a post of yours of which I found in google that said they were poor at keeping records! Now, since the weight was so important to you and when you heard the weight(2.22grams or so) and recognized it as a 12 sols coin, does that not prove its authenticity sir?
I think you should re-read that post about record keeping- I'm pretty sure it did not refer to the French. And if it did, then I must have made it before I became better educated regarding French coinage and their record keeping. No - the weight does not prove a thing in regard to authenticity. But it does determine what the denomination is or was supposed to be - that's why I wanted the weight. My opinions on this coin have not changed. And for what it's worth NOS, Ian and I continued the discussion of this coin for some time. He is now of the same opinion as I am.
Arghhh well it is clearly struck over an older coin!! I will try and find the old post of yours on google.
Hi, As GD has already mentioned we did indeed continue to discuss this coin for a good while (away from this board so that we wouldn't completely bore people to death with the minutiae). Quite irrespective of the discussion that GD and I had concerning design types / dies etc.. there remain a few things about that coin of yours that are difficult to reconcile and therefore continue to cause us both some concern over its authenticity. I would have suggested that you take it along to a reputable dealer, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think there are many dealers your side of the pond who would spot a good french fake of that era without first being prompted to examine it closely. If it is a fake, it's of a higher order than most in that it most probably would get past most people. It COULD be genuine. The probabilities are pretty well stacked up against it though. Whatever it may be it is certainly `collectable'. As such the best thing you can do (and I never thought i'd ever see the day where I recommended this....) is send it to ANACS for authentication. Someone who knows French coinage needs to see this one in the flesh. It's as simple as that. As it stands there is really nothing productive left to say here concerning it. We are all `expurted' out on this one. cheers, Ian
Well I stand by its authenticness as it is clearly struck over an older coin. As for sending it to a 3rd party grader I'd consider doing it if they'd do it for free. Just cuz you can't find it in a book in no way means it is fake. Probably just a super rare type. Maybe I should list it on ebay with a super high reserve asking if people out there recognise it and see what they would pay?
