Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 4630491, member: 110504&quot;]This is absolutetly brilliant, conspicuously state-of-the-art (notably by way of your citations of Moesgaard) Scholarship. And the thesis is bracing, to say the least! Thank you!!!</p><p>In my initial reply to Lord Morcovan&#039;s latest giveaway, I showed off my example of the immobilization of the Charles the Bald GDR deniers that happened in Bayeux. These are even mentioned in Bates&#039;s <u>Normandy Before 1066</u> (see esp. p. 129). As you will know, Moesgaard gives them much more extensive treatment in the paper you cite.&nbsp; (Graham-Campbell, ed., <u>Silver Economy in the Viking Age</u>.) Dumas (<u>Tresor de Fecamp</u>) only dates them to temp. Richard I, and they may have been issued simultaneously to the more creative types from Rouen. Cool anyway....&nbsp; (Mine is at least a near die-match to Dumas 6047.)</p><p>...But now it gets even funner. In a couple of articles in The <u>Celator</u> (American numismatic journal; Vol. 24, Nov. 2009 and Feb. 2010), Alan DeShazo proposed a modified attribution for that other Rouen issue of Richard I, with the problemmatic monogram, often attributed to the reigning bishop, Hugues. (Although Duplessy calls this &quot;tres contestable.&quot;) Citing a similar insignia on a royal issue of (neighboring) Jumieges, DeShazo argues that this coinage represents an &quot;alliance&quot; between Richard I and Lothaire IV. As DeShazo notes, two such rapprochements are mentioned by Dudo of St. Quentin, bookmarking Richard&#039;s longstanding support of the rival Robertian camp. As DeShazo notes, Dudo provides no dates, which of course would help in reference to the coinage.&nbsp; But Bates (ibid., citing an old history by Lot) puts the second one at 965, which seems likelier on its face, since it was the more formal and more durable of the two.&nbsp; It&#039;s <i>just possible</i> that this represents two neatly successive issues of Richard.</p><p>While I haven&#039;t seen the latest edition of Depeyrot, some dealers have acknowledged DeShazo&#039;s thesis, notably CNG.</p><p>...Oh, and there&#039;s better established precedent for Lothaire having done co-issues.&nbsp; Dumas 6677 was issued in the names --right, full legends, this time-- of both Lothaire and one of the 10th-century Herberts (same family) of Vermandois and Meaux (although I&#039;m not as confident as she is about which one).[/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