Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

The Dating Game - Name The Dodgy Digit

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3124 Posts
 Posted 02/14/2020  5:11 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
A while ago, I posted photos of a 15th century Pomeranian coin on which the last digit of the date was somewhat ambiguous.

I've got another one. I've obscured most of the coin so that nobody will be tempted to cheat .

Whaddya think?

Moderator
Learn More...
United States
22887 Posts
 Posted 02/14/2020  5:32 pm  Show Profile   Check echizento's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add echizento to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Looks like 5 IMO.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Spain
1765 Posts
 Posted 02/14/2020  6:56 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Palouche to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I have no idea but I'll go with an 8..
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
5833 Posts
 Posted 02/14/2020  7:27 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Finn235 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
It's an archaic 4 - pretty similar forms were used in India princely state coins until the reunification of India.
My Collections:
Roman Imperial
http://goccf.com/t/348979
Japan Type set Tokugawa + Modern
http://goccf.com/t/348999
Indo Sassanian
http://goccf.com/t/322087
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3124 Posts
 Posted 02/14/2020  8:01 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Yes, the second digit is an archaic 4, which makes it a coin dated in the 1490s.

But what is the last digit?

I coulda/shoulda done one of those voting thingees, but...

Looks like we have one vote for a 5 and one for an 8?
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3124 Posts
 Posted 02/15/2020  9:44 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
OK, now showing the whole coin.

I continue to be curious what others think the last digit of the date (seen at 10:30 to 11:30) looks like. I know what it should be (as does @spence and probably one or two others of the OFEY gang).

Edited by tdziemia
02/15/2020 9:45 pm
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3124 Posts
 Posted 02/16/2020  07:32 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
So, the reason for my question/confusion ...
This is a gros of Brabant issued at the Antwerp mint during the regency of Maximilian for his son Philip the Fair. According to deWitte, this type was minted between Jan. 1490 and March 1492, and only two dates are known, 1489 and 1490, even though the coin was likely also struck during what would have been calendar year 1491 back then (spring 1491 to spring 1492).

The coin was sold as a 1490. I am wondering if the last digit has damage, or has been tampered with, because it certainly does not look like a zero (but it also does not look like a 1 ... at least not like the 1 that starts the date). As the OFEY gang know, 1491 is a very tough date to come by.

Edited by tdziemia
02/16/2020 07:33 am
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
2992 Posts
 Posted 02/16/2020  09:08 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add january1may to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Huh. I didn't get to post, but my opinion was essentially "it's definitely not a 4 or 7, and probably not a 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, or 9".

The last digit, whatever it is, had definitely been hit, which obscures the identification. If I had to guess (without the further info) I'd say 5 or 8, probably 8 because the 5 wasn't usually S-shaped back then.

Knowing the options, I can't actually choose between "damaged 0" and "damaged 1", though of course the 1 not being attested suggests the 0.
It probably looks a lot more like a damaged 2 than either 0 or 1; does the timing allow a 2?

(...Actually, what does the last digit look like on other 1490 examples? IIRC sometimes the 0 was smaller than other digits, and a strong downward hit along a half-size 0 could provide the shape seen here.)


EDIT: apparently this is the Kunker 307 lot 176 coin; the photo there makes the 0 far clearer - looks like the thin line forming its left side was hard to see right next to the 9, so we were all guessing at the wrong shape.
Compare the definite 1490 in the next lot.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3124 Posts
 Posted 02/16/2020  2:38 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Good detective work @j1m. I will say that someone between Kunker and me lost money on this coin, as I paid well below that hammer price (which makes me feel a bit better).

As for the question about other possible dates, the gros and 4 mites coins from this emission were dated, and neither is known to exist as a 1491 or 1492. Only 1489 and 1490.

My first photo is a good representation of what I can see with a magnifying glass. I cannot see an area that looks like the left side of a 0 on this coin (when compared to the 0 on that better Kunker lot). There does appear to be a rounded area beneath the hit that would correspond to about 5:00 - 7:00 on an 0.

My guess is that there was some kind of corrosive process that has affected this area (the obverse is rather rough), combined with a hit that gave that vertical stripe of metal?

Would be nicer to have an absolutely clear date, but, as we see from the Kunker auction, always more expensive.



  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Coin Community Member eBay Sales

Certified Coins   Certified VAMs   Certified Errors  




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2020 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2020 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.5 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05