Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 37370, member: 112&quot;]NOS - </p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;re not gonna like this very much, but I think there is a rather significant problem with Ian&#039;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 ?</p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;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&#039;t think I am.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>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 - </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>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 - </p><p><br /></p><p>From Duplessy, a variant of the design and denomination for the year - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20%20variant%20ecu.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>From Gadoury, there are several designs of the 1/12th ecu, other than the one I have already posted, issued in 1704. They are - </p><p><br /></p><p>design 1 - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20ecu%20a%20obv.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20ecu%20a%20rev.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>design 2 - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20ecu%20b%20obv.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20ecu%20b%20rev.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>design 3 - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20ecu%20c%20obv.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1%2012th%20ecu%20c%20rev.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Gadoury also lists a 1/16th ecu as being issued in 1704 - it is - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1704%201%2016th%20ecu%20obv.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.gdjmsp.cointalk.org/other_pics/temp/1704%201%2016th%20ecu%20rev.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>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,&nbsp; from 987 to the present date.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in