My father gave this to me last week. It came from some old coins my grandfather gave him. Can you help me determine type and perhaps worth if any? It is dated 1792 and appears to be French. Thanks
Yes,this is a French coin.It is a 12 Deniers,which was struck in both 1792 & 1793.It is actually quite a common coin for those bearing the 'A' mintmark of the Paris mint.I am uncertain which mint used the 'T' mintmark,as I don't have a Krause to put my hand on.The King's title 'ROI DES FRANCOIS' means 'KING OF THE FRENCH'.King Louis XVI was the first French King to have had this title.The other was King Louis Philipe,whose descendants are the senior line of the French Royal Family that still continues today. Aidan.
The T mint mark is Saumur and apparently the mintage was quite small. At least small enough that the number is not known in any of the books I have. I think that is one I would hang onto
Thank you for the information. I going to hang onto this and pass it along to my grandchildren when the time comes.
Just popping in for a mo' and I see discussion on my favourite subject area The T mint mark is for Nantes. The coin was struck in 1791, 2, and 3 at that mint. You will find that during the `regne sous la loie' period, on the 12 denier and 2 sol issues from Srasbourg (BB mint mark) he is described a `Roi Des Francais' (as opposed to `Roi Des Francois'). I guess he was the first French King to have that title too, eh? Or was it just that everybody knew he had that title and just thought better of putting it on a coin? Any idea as to why Francois for the majority of mint marks and Francais for Strasbourg Aidan? ;-) By the way, after he had his head lopped off, the republic issues were `Francoise'. As to values, these issues have seen some demand for good examples in the past few years. That one however is pretty well goosed. Collectable, but... I would say it carries a value no greater than $5 but who knows what some people might pay. However, they aren't that uncommon, especially in that condition. Ian (popping back out again)
Ian - now you can answer me a question. I readily agree that T is supposed to be for Nantes. But in all the books I have, at least the ones written in French, for this coin/time period they list Saumur for the T mint mark and not Nantes. What can you tell me about that ?
Well Ian it seems I have solved my own problem. The coins were struck in Saumur - not Nantes. You see, at the time, the new French govt. was having a problem. Older coins struck before the revolution were being hoarded by the populace. The people weren't quite confident that the new coinage would have metal content of equal fineness as the old coinage. And even obtaining the metal to strike coins was a huge problem. So in 1791 the French National Assembly ordered bells confiscated and melted down. Copper coinage was to be struck using the metal from these bells. And in order to accelerate the striking and issuance of coins it further ordered that the cities and towns having these stocks of metal from the bells to set up workshops and mint their own coins. They were to retain the mint mark letter of the mint nearest them. On Jan. 29th, 1792 they issued another decree. In Article #1 it stated - ( translated from French ) "the blanks of the metal of bell manufactured in the towns of Besancon , Clermont-Ferrand , Arras , Dijon and Saumur will receive there without displacement the monetary print with the corner of the new prints". So what this means is that the coin WAS struck in Saumur, not Nantes. But since Nantes was the closest mint to Saumur - Saumur used the T mint mark on the coins it issued. Saumur struck and issued these coins from May 15, 1792 until March 1793. Farstaff - this makes this coin even more interesting and speical in my opinion. But I doubt it would change the value any. Even so - truly it makes for a unique bit of history
Interesting stuff Doug, but have a look in your copy of Gadoury. Hopefully it won't be all that different from mine, even though chances are that it is a lot more up to date than my trusty 1993 edition. You will find listed through 1791 -1793 various mints which have two mints given for the letter (which normally indicates the mint). For example have a close look at the listings for D (Lyon), I (Limoges), MA (Marseille), T (Nantes), and W (Lille). These letters ARE the mints named and no other. So, when does a `T' become `Saumur' and not Nantes? A coin minted at Saumur will have a dot either to the left, to the right or directly underneath the stem of the T. I'm sure you will have seen these around on these pieces and perhaps mistaken the dot as an indicator of the `semestre', or perhaps paid its presence scant attention (?) A D with a dot indicates Dijon; an I with a dot indicates Clermont Ferrand; a W with a dot indicates Arras. I'm totally oblivious to what mint produced the MA with a dot either side of it though in 1793. Now THAT one is difficult to find, but i've got hold of most of the others. Without the dots, the coins were minted at the duly designated mints as far as i'm aware though. In this one's case......Nantes. ;-) Ian
Gadoury does list T as Saumur for this coin - and only Saumur for this time period. They list Saumur as the only mint to strike the 12 deniers with the T mint mark. And they list it as having the T both with the dot and without the dot. It is the same for all 3 years '91, '92 & '93. Apparently there were no 12 deniers struck in Nantes during this time. At least that is what the information I have been able to find leads me to believe.
Sticking with `T'. My Gadoury lists as follows: 1791 T 1791 T (with a dot top right of T) - Saumur 1791 T (with a dot at the bottom of the T) - Saumur 1792 T 1792 T (with a dot mid left of T) - Saumur 1792 T (with a dot at the bottom of the T) - Saumur 1793 T 1793 T (with a dot mid right of T) - Saumur ? Presumably questioning whether this was actually minted at Saumur or at Nantes(?). Now, given that we agree that T is in all ordinary circumstances Nantes, what would you conclude from the foregoing? Ian
If that was what was in my book - the same thing you do - but it isn't what's in my book (2003). Mine says - 1792 T - Saumur 1792 T (with a dot mid left of T) - Saumur 1792 T (with a dot at the bottom of the T) - Saumur
Out of interest what does it say for `D', `I' and `W' ? I wonder which Gadoury is right and which Gadoury is wrong? Odinarily I might concede that a modern `update' would be the superior. However, while it is true that the knowledge concerning `coins' is ever developing, I struggle with the concept that all of a sudden there is a shift to `T' (without a dot) being Saumur for these coins. Ian
