Topcat7 Posted August 23 · Member Share Posted August 23 (edited) I have one of these and I would like to know more about it. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find out more about this coin, please? Thank you Edited August 23 by Topcat7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordmarcovan Posted August 23 · Member Share Posted August 23 Here’s the Numista page, if that helps. I guess some 1643 pieces were struck without a mintmark. This appears to be one such. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces52949.html And here’s one on eBay, simply by way of comparison. It’s a bit rough, like the coin shown above. In my (very limited) experience with copper double-tournois coins of this era, that’s often the case. https://www.ebay.com/itm/194950002727?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=8RaXV-BJQ6i&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat7 Posted August 23 · Member Author Share Posted August 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, lordmarcovan said: Here’s the Numista page, if that helps. I guess some 1643 pieces were struck without a mintmark. This appears to be one such. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces52949.html And here’s one on eBay, simply by way of comparison. It’s a bit rough, like the coin shown above. In my (very limited) experience with copper double-tournois coins of this era, that’s often the case. https://www.ebay.com/itm/194950002727?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=8RaXV-BJQ6i&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY I saw that page on 'Numista' but I noticed that there was a character 'E' between the '4' (in the date) and the 'cross', which made me think that the coin on 'Numista' was not the same as mine. Also, with reference to the second link that you provided, (thank you), the legend on the 'bust' face of the coin is not the same as mine. Edited August 23 by Topcat7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordmarcovan Posted August 23 · Member Share Posted August 23 Oh, sorry about the discrepancy on the second link- I wasn’t paying close enough attention. As to the Numista plate coin having an “E” between the date and the cross, that’s the mintmark. Your coin may lack any mintmark. Note that further down the page in that Numista listing, it mentions that there were 1643 coins without mintmarks, which would account for its lack on yours. It’s likely the same type, just a non-mintmarked one, unlike the illustrated example. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaximander Posted August 23 · Member Share Posted August 23 Wow, that Numista page is a wealth of information. All the mintmarks you can eat. Varieties and variants galore. References. Thanks for sharing that, @lordmarcovan. My collection of French royal coins peters out in the XVIᵗʰ C. simply because I'm in this for the hammered coins. In looking up this coin in Duplessy Royales II, @Topcat7, I see that it is #1377A, precisely because it does not have the mintmark but does have an initial cross on the reverse legend. Photo below. Or check out this one on Numista. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ominus1 Posted August 23 · Supporter Share Posted August 23 ..a most popular coin ...i have one also in my Louies collection...:) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qcumbor Posted August 23 · Supporter Share Posted August 23 (edited) @Anaximander, I think I see a mintmark on the #1377A you show : 1643 dot mintmark before the initial cross. The one with no mintmark in the OP, according to Duplessy would be # 1378/1378B, and Clairand # 32423 Q Edited August 23 by Qcumbor 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat7 Posted August 24 · Member Author Share Posted August 24 20 hours ago, lordmarcovan said: it mentions that there were 1643 coins without mintmarks, I can't see that. I do see that there is a listing for 1643 (dated) coins that have no mintmark, but I can't see where there were 1643 of them, in total. Thank you for pointing out that the letter in the legend refers to the mint mark. (I am always learning.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat7 Posted August 24 · Member Author Share Posted August 24 (edited) 17 hours ago, Anaximander said: My collection of French royal coins peters out in the XVIᵗʰ C. simply because I'm in this for the hammered coins. In looking up this coin in Duplessy Royales II, @Topcat7, I see that it is #1377A, precisely because it does not have the mintmark but does have an initial cross on the reverse legend. Photo below. Or check out this one on Numista. Thank you for your contribution. If your interest is 'hammered' French coins then you could be interested to see this onefrom my collection. 1100-1225 FRANCE Valence 1 Denier Metcalf 39 Edited August 24 by Topcat7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaximander Posted August 24 · Member Share Posted August 24 Nice one @Topcat7. I was taken by surprise by the reference to Metcalf. I have the first edition of his Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East (1983), and this coin lands in the section Erat Haec Nostra Moneta (This is our coinage), where coins from Lucca and Valence were said to be among the preferred coins used in the First Crusade. Coinage of Valence may have been favorited because of Bernard of Valence, the Latin Patriarch of the Principality of Antioch (1100 to 11351). + VRBS VALEN[TIAI] around angel or bird. / S APOLLINAR[I] (or similar) around short cross with annulet. Also: Roberts SCMF (early feudal France) #4783. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat7 Posted August 24 · Member Author Share Posted August 24 5 hours ago, Anaximander said: Nice one @Topcat7. I was taken by surprise by the reference to Metcalf. I have the first edition of his Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East (1983), and this coin lands in the section Erat Haec Nostra Moneta (This is our coinage), where coins from Lucca and Valence were said to be among the preferred coins used in the First Crusade. Coinage of Valence may have been favorited because of Bernard of Valence, the Latin Patriarch of the Principality of Antioch (1100 to 11351). + VRBS VALEN[TIAI] around angel or bird. / S APOLLINAR[I] (or similar) around short cross with annulet. Also: Roberts SCMF (early feudal France) #4783. @Anaximander Thank you for that information. I am always happy to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.