Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
A serious upgrade
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="+VGO.DVCKS, post: 5612289, member: 110504"]Hmmm. I've been collecting this stuff actively for about fifteen years, corresponding with numerous French dealers in the process (and the Gisors Hoard definitely came up --think I have one), and my distinct impression is that parisii across the board seem to have done a lot worse than the easiest point of comparison, deniers tournois. Maybe there's a nuanced difference in our standards.</p><p>...Now then. You're right, I don't hang out much in the 14th century --gets too depressing! (Cf. Barbara Tuchman --distinctive, but hardly unique, for responsible popular history.) But I'm game for this.</p><p>From here, it's looking more like Duplessy 273. As you know, in this general period, there can be enough stylistic variations within a given issue to elicit a measure of caution, regarding which are of significance to the reign and chronology. But the width of the cross, and the more 'Lombardic' letter forms --conspicuously the "C" in "FRA / NCO-- there are more points of similarity with 273 than with 221. And the chronological interval between the two options is wide enough to have potential significance, where such points (to borrow from paleo-bibliography) are concerned. --Right, 221 refers (from Philippe IV) to issues of Philippe III, noting the attribution, all the back to Ciani (1926), all the way back to Philippe II. Aggregately emphasizing the 13th-century vibe of the style.</p><p>...So, yeah, I'm with Philippe VI, from 1329, as in Duplessy 273.</p><p>Regarding the possibility of an "unrecorded Philippe V," was that, by any remote chance, a typo (You Will Not Lose Points!!!) for Philippe VI? Because, while, in 273, Duplessy lists several mintmarks in the primary legends of both sides, his plate has none of them on the reverse. Along similar lines, the annulet in the obverse legend of your example could be an unpublished variant of Philippe VI.</p><p>...Coming from a place that's not only more 12th-13th century than 14th, but more feudal than Capetian, I wouldn't sweat that. (...Is this variant also missing in Poey d'Avant?) Variants on that scale are more the rule than the exception. Apart from (selectively accessible) journal articles, published references on French coins of this period still has some catching up, in comparison to contemporaneous English hammered. ...On a mundane, anecdotal level, people who collect this stuff just kind of have to take that onboard.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="+VGO.DVCKS, post: 5612289, member: 110504"]Hmmm. I've been collecting this stuff actively for about fifteen years, corresponding with numerous French dealers in the process (and the Gisors Hoard definitely came up --think I have one), and my distinct impression is that parisii across the board seem to have done a lot worse than the easiest point of comparison, deniers tournois. Maybe there's a nuanced difference in our standards. ...Now then. You're right, I don't hang out much in the 14th century --gets too depressing! (Cf. Barbara Tuchman --distinctive, but hardly unique, for responsible popular history.) But I'm game for this. From here, it's looking more like Duplessy 273. As you know, in this general period, there can be enough stylistic variations within a given issue to elicit a measure of caution, regarding which are of significance to the reign and chronology. But the width of the cross, and the more 'Lombardic' letter forms --conspicuously the "C" in "FRA / NCO-- there are more points of similarity with 273 than with 221. And the chronological interval between the two options is wide enough to have potential significance, where such points (to borrow from paleo-bibliography) are concerned. --Right, 221 refers (from Philippe IV) to issues of Philippe III, noting the attribution, all the back to Ciani (1926), all the way back to Philippe II. Aggregately emphasizing the 13th-century vibe of the style. ...So, yeah, I'm with Philippe VI, from 1329, as in Duplessy 273. Regarding the possibility of an "unrecorded Philippe V," was that, by any remote chance, a typo (You Will Not Lose Points!!!) for Philippe VI? Because, while, in 273, Duplessy lists several mintmarks in the primary legends of both sides, his plate has none of them on the reverse. Along similar lines, the annulet in the obverse legend of your example could be an unpublished variant of Philippe VI. ...Coming from a place that's not only more 12th-13th century than 14th, but more feudal than Capetian, I wouldn't sweat that. (...Is this variant also missing in Poey d'Avant?) Variants on that scale are more the rule than the exception. Apart from (selectively accessible) journal articles, published references on French coins of this period still has some catching up, in comparison to contemporaneous English hammered. ...On a mundane, anecdotal level, people who collect this stuff just kind of have to take that onboard.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
A serious upgrade
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...