I bought this coin at a coin show a year and a half ago and it is a 2 sols coin of Louis XIV minted in 1704. I was wondering if you guys know what it is worth and how rare it is to see if I got my money's worth as I have not seen it on ebay and my books do not go back that far. As you can see in the pictures it is nicely worn but I think it is still in very nice condition.
Since you have the coin in hand you can see it better - but it appears to me that the mint mark is Z ( Grenoble ). When the reverse is held with the date at the top left, 11 o'clock - the mint mark is found at 6 o'clock. Is it a Z ? If it is, and I could be wrong, but I believe you have a counterfeit coin. It is likely it is a contemporary counterfeit due to the wear. But possible it is not if that mint mark is indeed a Z. For if it were genuine, the coin could be considered semi-rare and thus valuable. But the privy mark on the obverse, the design of the bust on the obverse, the date being on the obverse & reverse both - all of these are wrong. This coin, of this denomination ( it is supposed to be a 1/12 ecu not 2 sols ) with this date was issued during the 4th reformation. Coins of this period are not even listed in Krause.
...I see an "A" at 6 o' clock...it is made from high quality silver and clearly circulated...what is a privy mark?? 2 sols was just written on the holder so that is what I was going by. BTW there is only the one date on the coin and that is on the reverse...
I think what you are seeing as an A is part of the design of the bottom crown. A privy mark is a small mark or design that siginifies the Engraver General, the Local Engraver and the Mint Director for a given date. The privy marks found on a given coin are different for each mint mark and date. This helps greatly when trying to identify a coin and confirm its authenticity. Now - that being said, I determined the denomination of your coin as a 1/12 ecu, also known as a 10 sols, by finding the only design for the date it even comes close to. Your pic also helped because you used a cent for scale comparison. A cent is 19 mm - the 10 sol is 23mm. Here is the obverse of your coin - You see that 8 pointed star at about 11 o'clock - that is a privy mark. This is what the obverse of the coin should look like - I tired unsuccessfully for hours to find an example of this coin on the internet. I finally decided to just scan the image from Monnaies Royales Francaises 1610 - 1792 by Victor Gadoury, which is the source of the image above. As you can see, this coin and yours are quite different. Here is the reverse of your coin - Here is the image from the book - With the reverse - the two coins match. Now I have gone through every privy mark, for every year, there is listed in Gadoury - the 8 pointed star does not exist. I have also been unable to find it listed in Krause. Because of the design differences between your coin and the coin listed in Gadoury - I can only conclude your coin is not genuine. I could be wrong, but I have gone through every book I own and I can no coin that matches yours By the way - you see that Z on the reverse of the Gadoury coin at 6 o'clock - that is the mint mark. And if that is the location at which you can make out an A on your coin - I am even more confused.
When you first said my coin may be a counterfeit it was as if you drove a steak knife through my heart. Then you said contemporary and that lowered the pain a bit...that star looks mighty similiar to your picture...is it not possible that there are just different varieties out there and perhaps this type coin is just rare??? The writing on your picture and mine are different to a degree as well...if someone made this coin 300 years ago with the intention to deceive, why would they change the design at all??? As for the mintmark I thought you were talking about the "A" in the crown...it looks as if it was made together with the crown itself...so if that is not what you are talking about as the mintmark than I am perplexed at that. Under that it is quite worn but looks like there is a dot there.
Trust me, I understand your feelings completely. The last thing I ever want to do is convey such news Now I will readily admit, I am FAR from an expert on these coins. But I spent several hours researching all of the information available to me and it is considerable since I collect these coins myself. As for the star, look at it closely. Yours clearly has 8 points, the one in my pic only 5 - they are completely different. What's more, the design of the star in my pic is plainly listed as a privy mark. There are many different stars listed as privy marks - every one of them is different. But there are none like yours. And I searched them all from 1610 to 1974. Yes it is possible that your coin may be some unusal variety. But the books I searched are THE books and they list all the varieties. And with varieties the differences are rather minor - yours is completely different. Compare the location of the L in LVD on your coin to the L in my pic - completely different. Compare the location of the star privy mark - again completely different. Look at all of the design elements on the obverse - most are different. The legends all have the same and correct words on your coin - but they are not positioned correctly on the coin in relationn to the other design elements. But the reverse designs appear to be identical. Try weighing your coin - it should weigh 2.261 gm. As for the mint mark - examine your original pic. When it is placed at a slight angle, as you have it, you can barely see what appears to be a Z in the correct location. As to why someone would change the design of a counterfeit - it's not uncommon at all. It is usually because they have a die for 1 coin's obverse and another for the reverse - they don't always match. I have even seen counterfeits with the wrong king's name for the design.
It also looks as though the three Fleur de Leis (??) in the center of the obverse are reversed or up-side down between the two photos.
I'm afraid I don't have a scale small enough for coins. Just to clarify where exactly would this "Z" be? I have looked at it at 6 o'clock and all I see is the A above the dot there. Non the less this coin is a bit strange to me now. Take a look at the top picture... http://www.lotn.org/~calkinsc/coins/000178.html The mint for that coin is "A" as indicated by the description...and has the dot just like my coin... if it is a contemporary counterfeit what is it worth? I'd expect to hear nothing but contemporary counterfeits of King George III half pennies have value to them...
Also the chin lines don't match between NOS's coin and GD's photo. The star is defintely not in the same location in bothe photos, NOS @ 11:00 and GD photo at 12:00
Can you see the Z in the pic I posted ? Exact same spot. The coin pictured on Charles' site is of a completely different design. On it the mint mark A is above a dot. But with the coins of 1704, the dots are found on each side of the mint mark - not below it. The dots are called stops by the way. To be honest I have no idea. But if genuine, your coin would be worth $100 - $200.
See that is the encouragement there I need to hear. If each privy mark is different than maybe the dies made vary in some respects. I see the "Z" in your picture but not on my coin. Instead I see a "stop" with a very distinct "A" above that. It looks just like in the pic from the link I gave you. Could it be a pattern coin of sorts? Flying Eagle cents from 1856 were in fact patterns and they did circulate...
Sorry that i've come into this so late in the day, but i've been away from home this week and time is tight for me just now. The coin as originally posted is a dead ringer for a Seizieme ecu (1/16th) as outlined in Ciani page 426 (Ciani #1928). There were three series of the Ecu aux huit L released. The first during 1690-1693. The second and third series were released in 1704. The main things that differentiate the series is a) the style of bust and B) the legends on the first series differ from that of the second and third. a) The first series had a draped bust. The second had a cuirassed bust, the third had a draped bust with minor differences to the first. It is not uncommon to find the second / third overstruck on earlier coins and also mixed die matches. b) The first series also shows the privy marks on the reverse. On the image presented by the original poster the fleur de lis are actually the right way up in relation to the position of the date on the coin. I cannot explain the `star' as a privy mark excepting that it might not be a privy mark at all. It may be that it is just the general depiction of the `sun king' as appears on many of the obverse dies in that approximate location on his silver coinage. As you know, the French were not only excellent recyclers of coins but they didn't exactly record every aspect of their minting practices either. I suspect that the coin in question could easily be the result of the use of re-worked dies or perhaps it might even have had the reverse re-struck using the 1704 reverse die. I can't tell for sure one way or the other. It doesn't look to me to be a counterfeit although it is very difficult indeed to make calls on such a small coin from such a poor scan. Personally I wouldn't like to say one way or the other without seeing it a lot closer up and with higher definition. On the image you present Doug (from Gadoury) the fleur de Lis are actually upside down in relation to the one in Ciani. How very odd! According to my `bible', Ciani's `Les Monnaies Royales Francaises de Huges Capet a Louis XVI' (Paris 1926) the Ecu aux huit L series of 1704 were only produced in the following denominations : 1 (Ecu) 1/2 (Demi Ecu) 1/4 (Quart D'Ecu) 1/8 (Huitieme D'Ecu) 1/16th (Seizieme D'Ecu). This one is entirely in keeping with the cent size comparison as presented. Interestingly the 1690-93 denom's for the lowest two were 1/12th and 1/24th as opposed to 1/8th and 1/16th. There is no doubt in my mind though that the coin in question is supposed to be a 1/16th ecu. I don't have the Gadoury book, so I can't comment on it's contents. Ian (I edited this post concerning privy marks on first series being on reverse only)
Yay! That is the new good news I had been hoping for. GDJMSP was basically driving a steak knife through my heart and then twisting it upward as I paid a pretty penny for it but you have saved the day for me Ian! What you say Ian explains very well why I see the "A" kind of in with the crown. See my points exactly. It just wouldnt make sense to be a fake as the quality of silver is so good! Now I think the scans are pretty good but I am very new to scanning so I will try and scan again and enlarge the pictures if possible. I can't find much info on your book or 1/16th ecus (or "Seizieme D'Ecu") so would it be possible for you to scan the page from which you are referencing since it is such a dead ringer or atleast tell me what the coin I have is worth as I want to know that I got my monies worth...though by checking ecus(notably Louis XIV) on ebay they seem to go for a nice bit of money. Thanks for your enlightening me Ian!
Doug knows his stuff and i'm not saying i'm right or that he's wrong. All i'm doing is merely offering an alternative explanation. There is no substitute for seeing the coin in the flesh IMHO and I for one would not be prepared to say that it IS genuine from these scans. I would only go so far as to say that it looks genuine to me. Don't get cocky on that point. I've seen some fakes made from better quality silver than the original, and I kid you not on that one. I simple words....no, I just don't have the time to scan the relevant pages at present. There's not a lot to see but a series of coins from Ecu to 1/16th ecu all overlapping each other, (but the salient details can be seen none the less). The prices in Ciani are rather out of date given that it was printed in 1926, so no, I can't help you there either. What you could do is check out for yourself cgb's site to see if they have any archived from previous sales or auctions. Their site is the `holy grail' of french numismatics as far as i'm concerned. http://www.cgb.fr How much did you pay for it? If over $60, start worrying. cheers, Ian
Well I like your explanation a ton better than the other one I tell you what! Why would people make fakes with better quality metal than the original...what is the point??? I see what you say but I just do not understand that right now. I'll go through that site and see what I can find and work on making a much bigger scan for you. When I bought the coin the guy had two big binders full of great stuff ranging from ancient coins to medieval to the 19th century and most all of them were priced at $20. Well I had a twenty dollar bill on me and wanted to buy something really cool from one of his binders and I thought this coin was pretty neat looking and in pretty nice condition so I went for it! I know $20 is nothing compared to you guys buying gold coins and all but I was used to just buying cheapy $1 & $2 etc. coins. Then I get a scanner and try and find out what it is worth and then he suggests to me it is counterfeit but then you save the day so that is why I was so happy.
Okay Ian here are the bigger and more improved pictures. Just to note the date is at about LVD on the obverse and about 4 o'clock right when turned over. Does this matter at all??? I had to upload them to yahoo because they were too big for the server to accept on here. They don't exceed 240kb.
NOS - You're not gonna like this very much, but I think there is a rather significant problem with Ian's analysis. A 1/16th ecu is 20mm in diameter - that makes just 1mm larger than a US cent. I think it safe to say that your coin is a bit more than 1mm larger than the cent beside it in your pic - which is why I think it is, or was supposed to be, a 1/12th ecu. Can you measure it ? And for what it is worth - I searched the cgb site yesterday hoping to find an example of your coin. I went through all 74 auctions and the collection pages - it wasn't there. If you can find it - I would love to see an example. Believe me - I want to be wrong about this for your sake. But I don't think I am. Now then, I do not have a copy if Ciani, but I do think the book is in error, or else Ian just missed it. As per his comment - Both Gadoury and Duplessy disagree with Ciani, and they do agree with each other regarding the issuance of the 1/12th ecu in 1704. In fact there were several designs of this denomination issued in that year. They are the following - From Duplessy, a variant of the design and denomination for the year - As you can see in this image, the obverse comes pretty close to your coin. But there are several obvious differences. But the reverse - the reverse is entirely different. Duplessy does not list a 1/16th ecu as being issued in 1704. From Gadoury, there are several designs of the 1/12th ecu, other than the one I have already posted, issued in 1704. They are - design 1 - design 2 - design 3 - Gadoury also lists a 1/16th ecu as being issued in 1704 - it is - Now then, in order to further help you understand something - there are many books written on any given subject of numismatics. And the more one studies and the more books you read on a given subject, such as this one we are discussing French coinage, the more you come to understand that the books are often in error for they quite often directly contradict one another. I think this thread has shown an excellent example of that between Gadoury, Ciani and Duplessy. They are all three notable books and authors. But Ciani was written only once, and that many years ago. Duplessy is the same, but much more recently. But Gadoury - Gadoury is the French equivalent of the US Red Book. A new edition of Gadoury is published every year, and has been for decades. In my opinion, it is the most complete book available for French coinage. And it covers the time frame, in several volumes, from 987 to the present date. All of the above being said, it is still possible, stress possible, that your coin is genuine. But the considerable evidence and the research that I have presented suggest otherwise. You may draw your own conclusions.
