Post Your Papal States Coins - Reverse Chronological Schedule By Ruler

excellent coins Bacc and tdz

Nice additions!

This is my last coin of Paul V and it's another one that doesn't appear to be on Numista but does seem to be KM35

With only that reference source the best attribution I can give is 1605-1621 1 Quattrino with the reverse showing St. Paul standing left, holding upright sword in left hand and book in right. Krause does suggest that while there are dated coins of this type (from 1606-1613) - there is also an undated variety, ie, this one.

In hand it's very dark so it took a lot of fiddling around to get a decent photograph. I note the unusual RP monogram in field as well.

That's because my Papal coins are skewed toward Ferrara, where George is one of the patron saints (and you've got a good dose, too!) He doesn;t appear on the Papal coins struck in Rome, Bologna or other places (Gubbio, Ancona,Ravenna, etc.). We will not see much more of St. George from now on, because Ferrara only came under Papal control in 1598 when there was a succession crisis in the Este family (Duke Alfonso II did not produce a male heir).

Starting next week, I think the mints narrow down to mostly Rome, Bologna, Ancona, Pesaro.



The online edition of KM seems to indicate that KM35 is dated with a pontifical year between II and VIIII, but I don't see a year on yours, so maybe it's KM# 90 which has the very (un)helpful desciption "Obverse:arms" and nothing more, and might be the undated version (even on this, the listing is ambiguous, showing -1621).
But ... I think the Muntoni catalog has it less ambiguously as #158:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=12182970

I really like that Paul is clearly reading (presumably his own writngs?)

very nice Bacc!
You can always add it to Numista yourself if you find coins that they don't have. I think that Numista give you credit for adding any missing coins there.

also on Numista, if you find listing errors, you can add the correct info to have it fixed.

I've the same thing, and found later on that once I started a new one with limited info, other users of Numista would add more until the listing is filled.

We discussed it over here at the end of page 1: http://goccf.com/t/472403 .

However, I'm now second-guessing myself a bit on the 1603 attribution. Quattrinos were also struck in 1693, which raises the possibility that your coin is a 1693 with a sort of low-riding 9 in the date, with its tail cut off by a strike closer to the rim.
Here is an experiment (in the photographic sense... no coins were mutilated ) where I took a 1693 with a low 9 and moved the rim upward to remove the tail on the 9:


It gets closer to looking like 1603, but I've convinced myself that yours is indeed a 1603. On all the 1693 examples I can find (at least 2 obverse dies), the lettering is chunkier and more irregular than on yours, and none of them have the sort of thin double line making up the exergue. Also, the example with the low-riding 9 has a sort of knob on the top of the 9, and I think it would need to be even lower to wind up looking like yours.

Very interesting.