World silver crown-size type coin collectors?

They are fun coins to collect. I like world silver crown type coins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

regarding the thaler madonna reverses: so many of them have been scratched out or mutilated. Anyone know why?

 

1926 S US 1 dollar. Gotta love big silver coins!

 

It's not a scratch it's an adjustment mark!There's a similar issue with the Ragusa thalers!

 

1661 Pflaz gulden

 

Germany BRUNSWICK-DANNENBERG Julius Ernst Reichstaler 1625

 

Italy - Papal States 1667 Piastra (DAV-4072)

 

A few of my favorite crown size coins:


Great Britain Crown 1662 - Charles II (1649-1685) 40 mm 29.70 gm


Egypt 20 Piastres 1939 - King Farouk (1936-1952) 40 mm 27.79 gm


Mexico Peso 1913 - Caballito 38 mm 27.06 gm


Mexico Peso 1898 - 1949 Restrike 38 mm 27.03 gm

 

I liked those write-ups so much, I stole the link for later use. I've only read the 1898 Peso restrike story so far.

Thanks, I hope you don't mind.

 

I think this is my first post here. Mexico 25 Pesos, 1968, 34mm, 22.5g

 

1953 Canada 1 dollar.

 

Very nice coin.

 

1719 MUNSTER ,Sede Vacante,Medal

 

Awesome piece!Some time ago,i've posted the item above on a different forum and with your help and others, we've concluded that it's a medal, as it has no Davenport no. and so on. Recently i've discovered this one on ebay, being labelled as a taler so i'm wondering what exactly am i missing here?

 

@PaulTudor - I also noticed that piece and was also tracking it out of curiosity. I think there are some areas of ambiguity in the classification world with regards to what is a taler and what is not a taler. I have the same issue and PCGS called it a medal. Most German auctions will refer to it as a medal. For me, the term "medallic taler" describes it accurately. Davenport did not recognize it with a DAV- number, and generally speaking the Davenport classifications are the golden rule for taler attributions. I think Krause is where the ambiguity was introduced. In my Krause guide "German Coins 1501-Present", edited by N Douglas Nicol, George Cujal, and Thomas Mitchel, they call it a taler. It is KM#161. They also call it rare, which I would argue is not the case. I suppose NGC was partially influenced by the Krause guide.

 

Two more quick thoughts. First, in order to be a taler, it must meet rather strict weight and fineness criteria. Many of the medallic "taler sized" pieces do not exactly match this specification and by definition would not be considered official coinage. Second (and this more an opinion that fact), many of these medals were commemorative presentation pieces and never meant to circulate. That does not make them any less desirable, but it does differentiate between a coin struck for circulation and a commemorative struck for special circumstances. The above mentioned Munster piece might fit the weight but it was never intended to circulate. The following 1719 Paderborn medal was issued in the same context.

I would imagine Davenport factored this into his classifications, but have not seen it stated as such.

 

Yes, these are nice coins. I'm been collecting these for several years now and have quite a few. Even though I mainly buy just for silver content, I like these enough to consider condition when I'm thinking about getting a particular one, but still, mostly price. I tend to get these for just about melt.
I'm especially looking for the variety with the " lower center ring ". I don't have one of those yet, nor the variety with the different snake's tongue.

 

You are absolutely right!At 44 grams it's hard to call it a taler and it is not rare!Although Krause is very useful i still find it full of mistakes !It would be nice to know the mintage of these pieces or the exact event they commemorate!

 

@wcg

If I may offer a little insight. The value is actually considered 1.5 Thaler when you look through MA Shops and some current and previous listings on these medals. They're considered medals and I think they were first cataloged by Zepernick: Zepernick, C. Fr. Die Münzen und Medaillen der ehemaligen Capitel und Sedisvakanzen. (Halle, 1848).

Unfortunately, I was unable to uncover a copy of the book, but I found a listing that has (or had?) a copy of the book in very used condition and it still priced higher than almost any other book listed: https://www.muenzgalerie.de/assets/kataloge/pdf/mgm_antiquariat_2018.pdf

I was also able to find a free digital copy of the book:
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=nhBBAQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-nhBBAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1

Münster starts on page 155, with your medal possibly on page 165 (as #220) but I'm afraid I have not taken the time to read and confirm that this is your medal. I did pull up an English wikipedia for "Loth" or Lot, though I think the German version explains it much better, if you can read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(unit) It was approximatelz 14-15 grams.

I had fun looking into this medal; thanks for sharing them

 

@Seattlite86: You are spot on regarding the Zepernick 220 attribution! I managed to find a 1999 reprint of the original Zepernick 1822 for about $40. It is the best guide I have found for these medals but I will confide that it is not the easiest to interpret. An english version would be wonderful. Check out the hand drawn plates in the appendix at the end. I can't say I have even seen real examples of many of them. Beautiful stuff. I have yet to see several of the things listed in this guide offered in any auction.