Hello all, I inherited this coin from my grandfather and have done a lot of online image searches on it but have not yet found anything which matches the front. I have found several other from 1720's that match the back. I "assume" it is 1726 but since it looks to be damaged in that area it's hard to tell 100%. Could anyone provide any insight to what it may be? I appreciate any feedback.
It is from Brunswick Luneburg, later on Hannover. The Hannoverian monarchs became the Kings of Great Britain in 1714 when the Parliament preferred to turn the throne over to the descendents of James I that were in that German duchy. So this coin depicts the "wildman" of Luneburg, and the arms of George I on the reverse with all of his newfound British and French and Irish titles.
Wow that's great, thank you. However you didn't mention what the coin is. I did further research and found a wiki page on it that says it's a guinea, even though there are no images of my coin. From that site it shows that they may be made of gold, could this be true of the one i have? I doubt there is any great value to it but I would be interested in determining what i could sell it for. Thanks
Could you take a photo of the coin with a well known US coin also in the picture, for size reference? Also, can you take a picture of the edge of the coin at all? I'm curious if it is reeded, or smooth. If you are fancy enough, knowing the weight of the coin in grams to the accuracy of 0.1 grams would also be helpful, but that would require "specialistic" equipment. From the pics, it looks too big to be a Guinea, but size is hard to gauge from a picture with no frame of reference. Guineas were roughly the diameter of a modern day presidential dollar or slightly larger than a quarter dollar. Thanks.
2/3 Taler from where? None of the 2/3 Talers in Krause from that date (1726) for Brunswick-Luneberg have that reverse/obverse combination. At least, not that I can find. Can you provide the KM#? Thanks.
The 112.2 features the Saxon Steed (Horse) facing left. This coin does not. Can you clarify how you came to that conclusion? I don't see any way this coin is the 112.2. The reverse of the coin shown is more consistent with the British Crown coins than any of those from Brunswick-Luneburg that I have seen.
I think you must be associating the line of text with the wrong coin. The "horse" 2/3 taler is KM #148. Scroll through your book until you get to the next denomination, or go to the very first page for that city/state. You will find that the text refers to the picture above the text, not the picture under it. As for the design, you will find the same design - wild man and British arms - on the Brunswick-Luneburg-Calenberg-Hannover 1/6 taler #109, the 1/3 taler # 163, the 2/3 taler #112.2, and the taler #134. But all of them have different legends, which is how I was able to distinguish that this coin was the 2/3 taler - because it is the only one with those legends.
Read the legends on that coin, you'll see they do not match the coin the OP posted. edit - now I have to correct myself Krause printed the picture of the taler upside down and I didn't catch it at first, the legends are the same on the 2/3 taler and the taler. So it could be either one of those coins, depending on the size. It will be 47mm if the taler and 39mm if the 2/3 taler.
They do, I have checked. KM 112.2 in my issue is misprinted it shows a 2/3 Gulden and it states the reverse "Horse Leaping left" the same as km 148
KM 134 Legend Obverse. GEORGIUS.D.G.MAG.BR.FR.ET.HIB.REX.FID.D Reverse. BRUN.&. LUN.DUX.S.R.I.A.R.THES.&EL
You're right, it's the taler. The Krause pic being upside down threw me and like an idiot I forgot to check the most obvious - the 2/3 taler is marked with a 2/3 - duh ! The taler has the cross in the center of the reverse
I didn't see what was posted in the section that you edited Doug. I realize some of the information may be copyrighted by Krause Publications, but the full Krause listings are searchable for free on ngccoin.com, so I'm not sure that blocking freely available information is really relevant. Just wondering.
It was a scan of the page in the book. And that is a violation of copyright. And just because you can find the info someplace else, that doesn't give us the right copy it from the book. That someplace else is most likely paying Krause for the right to use their material. Or, they at least have their permission to do so.
OK, good to know. I didn't know it was a direct scan of the book. There is a lot of information conveyed in this forum that is accessible only from the Krause books, but I wasn't aware what the exact rules were for regurgitating that info. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything I wasn't supposed to be doing in any other threads. Thanks for the clarification.