Modern Proof Maria Theresa Thaler?

Henry I really don't know if your coin is the same. As I pointed out the 1 in the date doesn't match. The article is in German and the picture isn't the best When I find it again I will scan it and post it here

Henry its a very nice example I suspect, like many MTT its been cleaned( but I could be wrong as every time I see a bright shiney mtt of that vintage I assume cleaning)) It has the large mint signature so its 1b. the small mint signature is 1a and you will know it when you see it as the letters of the mint signature are a almost microscopic. I have a soft spot for the karlsburg strikes...the director of the academy of medalists and engravers described the engraver responsible ( Karl Wurschbauer) as the worst engraver of his time. That engraver got into trouble with the Karlsburg mint officials and was pensioned off early so as to get rid of him!! Due to the poor engraving you see a great deal of variation between examples......That likely accounts for the size difference you are concerned about. The edge is the Karlsburg edge

Glad to read it. As I suggested My immediate reaction when I see a bright shiney MTT dating to the 18th century is to assume cleaning. However the coin you posted has me questioning some assumptions of mine. I hadn't previously noticed the larger diameter of H1. I also have not focused clearly on the differences between the h1 and h2 variants before. That made me briefly wonder is your coin actually a variant of H2? Then I looked at the saltire on your coin, and clearly yours is a H1 variant (when looking at Hafners catalog).

here is second variant with small signature AH-GS very,very bad engraver

Sorry, image wrong! Here now is right.For me the coin is H3a - Hafner

I have no objection that it is a H49 specimen, which was struck in Vienna during 1853-1890/1900 according to Hafner's catalog.

Greetings, everyone! I want to make a further observation on the matter of H58 and H71. The H58 is the J&M production and the H71 is purportedly the Rome coin. I have more than 12 coins that appear to be H58. Every coin has NO dots in the reverse shield. That appears to be another exception to the Vienna "two dot" general conclusion (the other being H61a). So, I also have a fair number of MTT with die cracks, both obverse and reverse, with some on both sides. A few coins have odd die cracks and I do not include them in this discussion. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the reverse circular crack that goes directly through the large top crown is consistent with Rome strikes (assuming the weight is right). ALL of the die crack coins like that which I own have the Vienna style 2 dots in the shield. My tentative conclusion is that, if I am correct in my observations and IF the consistent die cracks I have are actually Rome strikes, then the Rome strikes may look like J&M strikes generally but that the Rome strikes are NOT from the same dies. That is because of the presence of 2 shield dots on those and the absence of the dots on the J&M coins. The matter of these die cracks is another story for another day, as to whether they match the true Rome die crack. I acquired the Regoudy book and have had a chance to look at his photos. They deserve some additional comment later but the pictures are not clear enough to discern whether they have 2 dots or not. Would readers please check collections and advise whether their circumferential die crack coins have the 2 shield dots or not?

Hi, Has anyone ever come across a MTT where the letters ET are missing on the edge inscription? I have a coin like this, weight 28.19g. I also have a second MTT where the word Clementia on the edge inscription is upside down to the word Iustitia, weight 27.93g. The two coins appear to be from the same die being slightly thicker than the older MTTs and slightly larger dia ie 41mm. Are they fakes do you think? I'd be interested in any views? Many thanks.