This one is for those folks ( yeah I'm talkin to you Roy ) who prefer their coins to have that original white, mint luster. You know the kind - the ones that look like they got left outside on a cold October night - and in the morning they're all frsoty A 1650-I 1/2 ecu, with the bust of the child Sun King for the obverse design
I didn't even bother looking at the one with colour, i can see it now. *shudder* Yes white is good. And it's French too. Go on GD how much did that set you back and what's the size diameter wise?
Now THAT is a nice example of an early Louis XIIII 1/2 Ecu a la meche longue.....and from one of the more difficult to find mints too (Limoges). Well done! However...you obviously haven't been looking at that coin very much yet have you? Look at the obverse legend......Closer!! See it yet? If not get yer book out and find out what the obverse legend should read....... Quality Controller? Off with his head! ;-) Ian
Nice coin, bet you don't carry that one around in your pocket. But think of who might of way back when?
Well done Ian !! Out of - oh I'll guess 50 or 60 collectors who have looked at pics of this coin - YOU are the first !! I was beginning to lose faith in people's eyes Of course I saw it - but until you - nobody else did. I don't think the seller even saw it ! Now then - this puts this coin in a whole new light doesn't it. Not only is it possibly the finest extant - it seems to be an unlisted variety as well. At least, nothing I have even mentions it. How 'bout you Ian - can you shed any light on this ?
It is struck in .9170 silver with a weight of 13.5440 gm - ASW .3994 oz. and is approx 32 mm in diameter. As for what it cost - I gave three dollars for this coin
OK, here's a couple of observations: 1) Directly above the bust you will find the privy mark of the Limoges mint director Francois Malbay. The only problem is that he didn't take up office until 1653 (?). Your coin is dated 1650 but (if my information is correct...which needs verifying) it could not have actually been struck in 1650. 2) There is a possibility that the coin was struck twice, the second time with a new die but which did not obliterate all of the previous legend. On cursory examination of the image, this does not immediately appear to be the case. You have the coin in hand though and really should get that loupe out and start studying! . At first I thought there might be something going on with the second `F' but I suspect not. Hard to say without the coin in hand. 3) I have seen blundered legends before on French coinage. (I have an example on an older quarter ecu) and as we can already see, these `blunders', although not common, do have a habit of going unnoticed by even the strongest admirers of the coins. This coin initially looks like being a `blundered' legend ie a bona fide mint error. The only problem I have concluding on that is ` how does the mint also make an `error' of minting a 1650 coin in 1653 (or perhaps even later)? So unwitting `blunder' doesn't add up. 4) I am almost 100% certain that it was a mint struck coin, struck in 1653 or later using a new obverse die (possibly a trial for the new Mint Director with the extra ` F' as an addition to represent Francois Malbay?). Obviously the piece was either struck using the reverse die of a 1650 coin to create this `anomaly' or it was completely overstruck on a 1650 coin as per 2) above. You need to closely examine for any signs of overstrike to determine the `either / or'. After that i'm just hypothesising / guessing......and your guess is as good as mine Ian
Hmmmm - my info says Malbay served from 1650 to 1654. There is no sign of an overstrike at all - 0. I have looked at many overstruck French coins from the 17th & 18th centuries. But never have I seen one with even one letter of the previous legend so distinct. Typically - they are rather faint but fully visible. The coin is beautiful - completely uncirculated. The original mint luster literally drips off this coin. There are 2 flaws - a small planchet flaw on the obverse just behind the nape of the neck. And at the top center obverse there is a small raised area just inside the rim that looks to be the beginnings of a cud. Pics of similar coins from the Limoges mint are hard to come by - Krause doesn't even have any. But the extra F does not exist on any coin of any denomination from this period that I can find. Thus I can only assume it is a genuine mint error - and a truly uncommon one - a blundered legend. By the way - that privy mark - it is supposed to be a crucifix. Sure doesn't look like one to me This is a first for me with French coinage. I have seen and am aware of more than a few such examples that exist with Spanish colonial coinage - so I have little doubt they exist. But I have never seen nor even read of one. Any other help or info you can provide Ian would be appreciated PS - knew I forgot somthin
Nahhh - I left that when I edited the message. The edit was in regard to the privy mark. According to Krause at least - Malbay's privy mark was a crucifix as I noted below. Now perhaps it was their intent for it to look like a crucifix but it turned out a squiggle. No idea myself - so I defer to you. I guess I'll have to start writing letters to museums in Europe again now to try and track down an explanation for the extra F or to find out if your theory could be correct.
Ah .....and there in lies the conflicting data. I have their first edition 1601 - 1700 and they have the Mint Director's privy mark (Malbay's) as being the very same squiggle that appears on your coin. Out of interest what does your Krause have as the Engraver General's privy mark? In my one it's a crucifix...... I'll make a few enquiries about your coin with a contact I have in France .
I'm using the 3rd Edition - it shows the Engraver General as Jean Warren 1643-72 with his mark being a solid dot. It is also my understanding that the Engraver General's mark is found on the reverse - which jives with the mark found on this coin at 12 o'clock.
Something else neither of us yet considered Ian - the local engraver's privy mark. While the name of the local engraver is listed as unknown for this period - his mark is listed - as a teardrop. Works for me Now if I just explain that extra F
I was wondering where the Engraver General's privy mark was on that coin!! I have just been looking at some sites in french to gain an understanding of the position Jean Warin had (it extended far beyond the remit of the Paris Mint which is what I usually associate him with). So the coin dies were engraved by Jean Warin and the coin was struck under the direction of Francois Malbay at Limoges. I'm just about to email Michel Prieur to ask if he can shed some light on the coin. I will snatch a copy of the images to send him in the presumption that you have no objection...or you can always sue me later ;-) Ian
The teardrop is the one alright. The `squiggle' as I put it. You might be right, but i'm not sure about it being a local engraver though. Jean Warin's role under the direct appointment of the king was (quite apart from being Engraver General) to be keeper (controller) of all privy marks. I cannot see that there would be an Engraver General privy mark AND a local Engraver privy mark on the coin...and not one for the Mint Director. That would seem a bit too weird for even the french. ;-) I've tried looking up the records for Limoges mint, and although I can find details concerning the counterfeiting of silver coinage for Orange in 1649 - 50 and all sorts of fun things going on there prior to 1649, I cannot find any reference to Malbay being Mint Director. I will wait till I hear back from Michel Prieur. If anyone can shed any light on things, it's him. At least he will be able to provide a steer on it. Ian
