...just e-bayed this Leopold I "the Hogmouth" 3 kreuzer 1670. ...noticed that instead of "LEOPOLDUS" it reads "LHOPOLD?S" Can anyone offer any useful info on this coin? Is it simply a mint error or what? I like the coin very much & I haven't got it in my hands just yet, so this single pic is all I have. The seller offered the following info: Mint Year: 1670 Mint Place: Breslau Ruler: Leopold I "the Hogmouth". Assayer: Wardein Salomon Hammerschmidt (SHS) Denomination: 3 Kreuzer (Grossus) Diameter: 22mm Material: Silver Weight: 1.6gm Thanks gents, Aurelian
LEOPOLDVS - That's the Latin version of Leopold. There is no 'U' in the Latin alphabet. Instead they use a 'V'.
...just a little ANGRY! ...thanks Silvereagle, I'll bet your right, in all my online research I couldn't find one (3 kreuzer, 1670) with the "typos" or "mint errors." The metal on the coin also looks a little too fresh & possibly NOT silver. The seller still hasn't responded to my questions & when I went back to the auction (ebay) page I noticed that the close-up pics have been removed. I'm not sure if I have any power to ask for a refund & Yes I angry, but I hope I've learned my lesson. Hobo, I am totally aware of of the Latin use of the V instaed of U, however the reason I had the ? in the spelling, is if you look closely at the coin, the V in LHOPOLDVS looks wrong, kinda like it was an afterthought to cover a mistake. WHY didn't I see all this BEFORE I bought the silly coin?? WHY??
Do NOT assume that the coin is counterfeit based only on the fact that the legend is incorrectly spelled. Coins of this era are frequently found with various spellings and letters substituted (sometimes tweaked to look like the correct letter, sometimes not). FYI, I'm not saying it is real or counterfeit, just don't assume based only on the misspelling.
aurelian, gmarguli is right, but this coin looks wrong to me. The only true test may well be its actual weight and diameter and you won't know that until you get it in hand.
more questions silvereagle, Do you own the 3 kreuzer you posted in the above post? If so does the weight the seller quotes match yours? The seller finally responded & says he'll give me a refund, but the coin is in the mail. I'll take a good look at it then & try to post front & back pics here. Thank you, aurelian
aurelian, It is not my coin, it is one listed at Coinarchives.com. It does not list the weight. I'll do some quick research and see if I can find a mint weight,
It's not incorrectly spelt at all. It's simply the Hungarian version of the coin, as it was minted in Breslau (think Austro-Hungarian empire). As for whether it is made of silver, Hungarian coins of this era tended to be of slightly lower fineness than the Austrian equivalents. J.
That is not correct Jerome. The Hungarian version, KM 163, has the same spelling and does not use an H.
this just in... ...just got the lil' coin today & here's a scan. It is remarkably clear & crisp for it's small size (22 mm). It is also very thin, easily 1/2 the thinness of a dime & with a slight curl. The metal appears to be silver or maybe a silver alloy that reminds me of sterling silver. The top of the front corresponds to the top of the back, similar to how I have it situated in the pic. I can't stop staring at it, it would be an amazing counterfeit job, if it is not authentic. Silvereagle, let me know what you think.
The slight curl is a good sign, if I am not mistaken, and I could be, at this time roll presses were being used in which a strip of metal was sent through two larger rollers which were the dies... which imprinted the obverse and reverse...this gave the coin a bit of a curve. Not to say this couldnt be faked as well.
Interesting what these things looked like, Doug, thanks for showing this. I guess all this guy needs now is the rest of the machine and he's in the replica business.
