| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 4,069 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
The edge is a good indicator. This coin has a clean well defined edge. That places it as being struck before 1960. The Arabesque is typical of pre 1930 but it is not typical of H49. Most likely it is H54 dating from 1890-1930. Value is the same as H49. One would really have to examine the coin in hand to confirm the variety. Like H49 H54 is a catch all variety......It covers a wide range of variants from the date range indicated. Dating MTT is very difficult if you check this months issue of the numismatist you will see an example of the dating problems. the article covers two Varieties and any one familiar with MTT attributions will realise the two file discoveries blow a huge hole in Hafners currently accepted catalog. Unfortunately the discoveries prove the attributions currently accepted for Milan and Venice are wrong ( except for H41 which should now be recognised as Venice 1817-circa 1860). ( I'm the author).
Edit: One further check you can do. With a tape measure measure the length of IUSTITIA on the edge. If its 14mm you have a rare find...if its longer its back to H54
Edited by austrokiwi
12/02/2014 1:19 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
IMO, a modern MTT restrike from 1960s onwards would always has the curved nail on the eagle's claw (as shown in the circle). H54 has not this feature. A H60 will also has an improved edge minting. I would say it is a H60.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Hi AustroKiwi & Wonghinghi
The length of " iusticia " is longer than 14mm.
At this point I am leaning towards Wonghinghi's choice based on all the suggestions and evidence.
Please understand that I am not trying to cause an argument between you two, but I do think I have an answer now though.
1 other thing about the coin, I decided to test and check it again a little more diligently with my big magnet, it does not stick to the coin or pick it up but it is giving a strange " pull " feel when held closely above the coin.
When I moved the magnet over the coin within a couple of mm's of the surface area I managed to make the coin " move "
Now I am thinking I have picked up a modern forgery, a pretty good one at that if that's the case.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Quote:
When I moved the magnet over the coin within a couple of mm's of the surface area I managed to make the coin " move " Hello Tenbobbit, this is a physical effect of diamagnetism caused by Ag inside the coin as your coin contains 83% Ag. You pick up a modern MTT restrike rather than modern forgery. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Phew, thought I had a total duffer for a minute.
I purchased it for the purpose of learning something new and I can safely say that it has been an eye opener.
I will definitely dedicate a bit of my spare time to learning more about them after this.
Many thanks to AustroKiwi & Wonghinghi for your combined efforts, greatly appreciated.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
H 60 will have a diameter greater than 40mm and often a blurred/unclean edge . Henry not sure where you get the idea H60 has a clean well defined edge. H60 is another very annoying catch all variety and Hafner notes there are many sub-varieties. Its really hard to put an attribution to these modern varieties. I have gone back to the one confirmed 1962/3 strike I have. The Missouri NUmismatic societies countermarked MTT ( an undervalued numismatic item). the edge on that coin is not clean and not as well defined as the edge pictures shown in this thread. The Missouri countermarked coin is dated 1963 and the coins were purchased brand new from the Vienna mint. My example doesn't have the two dots in the centre band of the heart shield! the other 1960s strike is H55; An error coin( Hafner first labelled it as 1920s but the MIssouri countermarked coins confirm by edge comparison that its a 1960s striking date and Hafner now states it is 1960s) It has the two dots in the heart shield it has the same edge as the Missouri countermarked MTT ( perfect match) and claw is broken unlike the one circled by Henry. The huge problem is no one has a clear break down of all the varieties in this time frame( excluding the non Austrian mint coins). I would still put a bet, based on the edge, that the coin is earlier than 1960. The reason being that once Austria regained the sole Right to MTT production( 1961/2) they started striking the coin in a collar. That causes blurring to the edge back in the 1960s the edge was still readable but, using Hafners words, unclean. By 2000 they couldn't care less about the edge and it is almost always extremely blurred. The coin is in phenomenal condition for a pre 1960s strike so that might indicate a later date but the edge Arabesques are absolutely typical of H54. For me that tips the balance.
Edited by austrokiwi
12/03/2014 10:52 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Ian, how come you say that after 2000 they left the edge blurry? I have seen pieces that were advertised as "fresh off the press" a.k.a. very recent, sometimes even proof-like in appearance. They had very clean edges. I'm pretty sure the coin posted here is very modern, as in within the past 25 years.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
on the clean edges: NOt the ones I have seen ( including a proof I purchased in May from the Vienna mint) The letters and decorations all look blurred and squashed( thats what I mean by unclean). But anything is possible. These modern restrikes have never been properly analysed. MY focus is often much earlier and targets key varieties that tell the story of the coin. As I have said I have made my assessment based on the edge arabesque its drawn in Hafners lexicon under the H54 description. I have seen one perfect example of H49( In Colorado springs of all places) I was really surprised by it. I even saw an BUnc( Is that MS65?) H 69 something I never thought was possible. The owner had purchased it in Chad in the 1980s I believe. I have to admit for these coins I think the term modern retrike is heaps better than hafners attributions. Simply because these labels H49/H54/H60 are just catch all categories rather than specific easily identifiable varieties. Heres a 2003/2004 proof error coin with the edge(One edge iron was set up upside down) that edge is what I mean by unclean  Edited by austrokiwi
12/03/2014 11:29 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Personally I'm also much more interested in the earlier examples, as well as those crazy fantasy counterstamps on MTT's. I think this coin is so popular and so widely accepted as being OK to reproduce makes the more modern versions an extremely difficult task to catalog properly. And what is the incentive anyway? they are all just bullion silver.
Edited by Numismat
12/03/2014 11:31 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
 Except I would add a correction. The MTT is probably one of the coins that is illegal to reproduce( despite the chinese doing it any way). It is recognised as a coin of Austria and I think any chinese reproducer is actually breaking Chinese law. I believe the MTT is a current coin under Austrian legislation ( but as a trade/Bullion coin rather than national currency) {I gotta check that to see if its true!}. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
I can't imagine Austria successfully extraditing a Chinese national for making MTT's. It may be illegal under Austrian law, but the Chinese laws are pretty clear that it's only illegal to counterfeit Chinese coins. Now, the Chinese do counterfeit their own coins regardless, they just sell them on the US or one of the European ebay sites and do not ship them to China. It's pretty easy to get rich in China right about now if you know things about coins. :( |
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
LOL actually I was referring to Chinese law. I usually only see lots of fake MTTs when I travel to jordan. I suspect most of the MTT fakes made today are sent to the middle east...because why would any one buy a fake when they can get it new. The MTT is recognise under British law as an Austrian coin. I believe the legal considerations that led to non austrian production from 1936 -1960/61 have all been modified so Internationally the coin is legally recognised as Austria's
Edited by austrokiwi
12/03/2014 1:04 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
:) We are talking about "is it illegal in China". International law need not apply
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Quote:
Henry not sure where you get the idea H60 has a clean well defined edge. Quick reply to you Ian, Frankly speaking, I have no proved data or documentary evidence to tell there is an improved edge in H60. What I have to identify a modern MTT restrike is by Hafner's Lexicon (You bought for me). By comparing several tens of coins, I am pretty sure the "curved claw" design happened to be found from 1960s, there is no early (say 1930s or 1900s) MTTs have this design. That's why I am sure the posted coin is a modern restrike. As this "modern restrike or H60" has a clean edge, I just suppose not all H60 have an unclean edge inscription, probably it happened to have some batches or variety to exist with an improved edging. |
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
All I can say for certain is its a modern restrike. Which isn't particularly helpful as modern restrike, from my research, actually encompasses the period 1817- to the current day( I count Hafner 41 as being the first example of a modern restrike) and the edge Arabesque on the coin is typical of a pre-1930 MTT. It looks 20th century to me I would have said exactly the same as you except for the edge arabesques. As for the curved claw I have no idea if that is an exclusive identifier.
For any ones constructive criticism: I define as modern an MTT that has a Guenzburg obverse with an oval pearled brooch, a Guenzburg reverse, and vienna mint edge decorations. I don't use dates because I can't trust them. I have to acknowledge my definition isn't clean as an 1817 Venice strike( H41) is modern while an 1820 Prague mint strike would be early.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 23 / Views: 4,069 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 12/02/2014 1:13 pm
