Coin of 1643 King Louis XIII of France - I would like to know more, please?

[Topcat7]

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

[lordmarcovan]

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

[Topcat7]

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

[lordmarcovan]

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.

[Anaximander]

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. 

[ominus1]

..a most popular coin ...i have one also in my Louies collection...:)

[Qcumbor]

@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

[Topcat7]

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.)

[Topcat7]

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

[Anaximander]

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. 

[Topcat7]

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.