| Author |
 Replies: 5,932 / Views: 238,475 |
|
|
|
Moderator
  United States
188770 Posts |
Seeing as how that was posted last night.  We Need - 1355 C. E. (A. H. 756)  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7948 Posts |
Thanks for taking one for the team ttkoo!!!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2533 Posts |
Quote:
Seeing as how that was posted last night.
We Need - 1355 C. E. (A. H. 756) Cool.... instant replay  1355 C.E. / AH 756 - Juchid Mongols copper pul - 21.1mm 2.1g -"Rosette" Jani Beg Khan  Quote:
Thanks for taking one for the team ttkoo!!! My pleasure @tdzemia..... the wounds are starting to heal over already  And HOPEFULLY, someone else has a 1354 CE / Ah755 tucked away that can be played next (rumoured that @tdz might have one).......  The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
Edited by ttkoo
11/07/2024 01:11 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
188770 Posts |
Quote:Cool.... instant replay  Quote:
1355 C.E. / AH 756 - Juchid Mongols copper pul - 21.1mm 2.1g -"Rosette" Jani Beg Khan Fantastic!  |
|
Moderator
United States
188770 Posts |
Quote:And HOPEFULLY, someone else has a 1354 CE / Ah755 tucked away that can be played next (rumoured that @tdz might have one)....... It will have to wait until tomorrow though.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
Quote:
It will have to wait until tomorrow though. Technically the thread would have advanced to 1355 about an hour before the first 1355 post, which means we're technically waiting for 1354 now. But 1) it's your thread and your rules, and 2) we'd want more time in case someone else has an 1355 and hadn't noticed yet. |
|
Moderator
United States
188770 Posts |
Quote:
Technically the thread would have advanced to 1355 about an hour before the first 1355 post, which means we're technically waiting for 1354 now. To be clear, this topic uses forum time, which is currently US Eastern Standard Time (UTC-0500). The coin was posted 12:45 am today. That being said, you make good points both ways. I am going to go ahead an open it up to 1354, but will allow another 1355 to be posted if there is one out there. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7948 Posts |
Quote:
And HOPEFULLY, someone else has a 1354 CE / Ah755 tucked away that can be played next (rumoured that @tdz might have one)....... Maybe... Below is a leeuwengroot from the County of Holland that I picked up late last year. Heritage Europe (their photos) calls this coin as ND(1354), but I think j1m has uncovered that they are a little loose with their dating. van der Chijs describes the coin on p. 197 ( https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt...09&skin=2021 ), and I think says on the next page that a new groot in the style of a French gros tournois is struck according to an ordinance of October 1355. I couldn't find the date of the ordinance for the leeuwengroot, but assume it must have been some time in 1354. SO ... I'm not sure what to think.  Edited by tdziemia
11/07/2024 3:28 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
188770 Posts |
Very interesting!  Let us see what the others have to say. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2533 Posts |
Quote:
and I think says on the next page that a new groot in the style of a French gros tournois is struck according to an ordinance of October 1355. I couldn't find the date of the ordinance for the leeuwengroot, but assume it must have been some time in 1354.
SO ... I'm not sure what to think. hmmm, possibly @tdz.but there are a some if's but's and maybe's Going by the description of coin, then No 18 (in the plates at the end of the publication) is the coin that you have presented. I did a rough translation of the text from page 197 & 198 and it is as follows ( note, this is translated by image-to-text software to rip the words from the pdf, and then run through google translate using dutch to english)"No. 18 again has the type from the first quarter of the 14th century.
Vz. The climbing lion within an embroidered border, consisting of 12 shields, in the top of which the Dutch lecuw is visible, while on the other 11 flower ornaments are seen. Description:
MONSTA HOLAND.
*
Rev. A footed cross, surrounded by two rows of inscriptions. Between the legs of the cross and the inner circle:
GVILLELM | DV#1078;¤ | OMES.
d. i. William, Duke-Count.
In the outer edge:
BRDICTV: SIT: NOME: etc.
Z. A copy à fleur de coin in the Royal Cabinet weighs 3.45 w.; Furthermore, we found the coin in the Cabinet of the Leidsche Hoogeschool, in that of the Frisian and North Braband Societies, in the Collections of Messrs. BEELAERTS, VAN CLEEFF, VAN DAM, KEER, Professor KIST, MACARe, VAN DER NOORDAA, SANTeE, de Colonels NOOT and DE ROIJE VAN WICHEN, etc. Regarding the correctness of the suspicion whether the No. 22 is a Dutch coin with certainty, we are in the same case as above with ditto coins of William III.
Vz. The chatel of Tournoises and TVROHV°S° CIVIS
NB. The dot after the V may be a so-called secret character. Rev. Two rows of inscriptions surround a Carolingian cross. In the inner edge: WILHELMVS DV
again with a secret dot instead of a cross or flower behind the L in the syllable.
In the outer edge:
BHDICTV: SIT, etc.
Perhaps MADER writes in his Kritische Beiträge zur Münzkunde des Mittelalters, Th. VI, S. 154, and also CHALON on page 84 of his Monnoyes du Hainaut, this coin very rightly goes to Duke Willem van Jülik. It is remarkable, however, that it has already been awarded to our Count by VAN HOUWELINGHEN, who was followed by VAN ALKEMADE.
Z. This coin weighs 3.5 w. and came before us to the Lords BEELAERTS,
STRICKER and THE ROIJE VAN WICHEN.
A ditto ditto, but on the reverse. deviating, we indicate on Pl. XXXVI under No. 11. There you see only two dots instead of three as separators between the words, and the arrangement of the words is also different. Mr. STRICKER still has a copy, which instead of *PI only has I; just as copy No. 11 (by Mr. DE VOOGT) weighs 3.3 w., the last mentioned weighs 3.55 w.
Now it is the turn of Nos 19-21, as we believe. They must have been a few, half and eighths large, because we believe there is still a gap between Nos. 20 and 21, which may have been the quadruplet of the Ordinance of October 1355."I'm not sure what any of that proves, but it is a bit clearer being able to read some of the meaning of the publication. as a side note, I enjoyed translating the pages, and have set myself a project to translate the entire publication...I am up to page 13 ATM.. see you in 2026!The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
Edited by ttkoo
11/08/2024 03:28 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
...so TL/DR is that they started making the type in 1354, and made it for several years after that, but production was temporarily interrupted by a different type in 1355? That would explain why I kept finding dates like 1354-1357 and 1354-1361. In my attempts to look things up I found a 2016 paper on Academia that attempted to completely reclassify the leeuwengroot issues, while regularly riffing at apparent errors in classifications by Grolle and (to a lesser extent) van der Chijs. By their classification this coin is subtype F-2 (table 4, p. 29). They don't give any specific dates, though. It appears that William V's reign in Holland started in December 1354; if so, presumably the ordinance for the 1354 emission would have occurred around that time, which would date this type to 1355 (rather than 1354) even if we assume no production after the 1355 ordinance (though it does appear that there probably was some). |
|
Moderator
United States
188770 Posts |
Very interesting. If I am reading this correctly, the hunt for a definitive 1354/755 example continues?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
Quote:
If I am reading this correctly, the hunt for a definitive 1354/755 example continues?  Hopefully @bd251 or @JohnConduitt has one hidden somewhere. |
|
Moderator
United States
188770 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7948 Posts |
Quote:
Very interesting. If I am reading this correctly, the hunt for a definitive 1354/755 example continues? Yes, I agree that mine is far from definitive. It's a bit of a mystery why an auction house like Heritage Europe calls it as a single year unless there is some other research out there (maybe a follow up to the paper j1m mentions?) that makes it a more solid attribution. As for the earliest date William could have ordered the striking of the coin ... Though William's formal accession date is seen in most places as December 1354, he was already in control of the County since some time in 1352 after a civil war with his mother Margaret broke out in 1351 (over ... of course ... who was the rightful heir after the death of William IV in 1345). There is a pretty good account of the situation in the Wikipedia article (scroll to "A Short War"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_and_Cod_wars Possibly van der Chijs does not mention an ordinance for minting the leeuwengroot because the place was in such disarray that there was no ordinance? As pointed out by j1m, the Academia article also makes no attempt to give narrower date ranges for ANY of the coins. I am assuming other dates we see are using either the full reign of William V (1354-1389), or only the dates before his realm went into custodianship of his brother due to his mental illness (1354-1356 or 1357) As for the possibility of it having been struck in 1354 before his formally becoming Count, it would not have been the first time a claimant struck coins to try and bolster their claims (and to raise money for their cause) before things were settled. Though in that case, maybe the safer approach would have been to only use the title as DVX (as he was not yet been anointed COMES) Edited by tdziemia
11/09/2024 08:13 am
|
| |
Replies: 5,932 / Views: 238,475 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 11/06/2024 8:58 pm
