| Author |
 Replies: 30 / Views: 4,146 |
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
Over the last 3- 4 years European dealers who should know a lot better are describe early restrike Maria Theresa Thalers (MTT) as originals. IMHO this is a shocking and numismaticly damaging practice. Original should mean struck in 1780. As I have noted in other threads there are not more than 20 (approximately) original 1780 MTT. The "origonals" are phenomenally rare and IMHO very much undervalued. These dealers who describe early re-strikes as being original are shooting themselves in the foot. One day they will get one of the real origonals...and they won't be able to sell it for what it has the potential to fetch. The early re-strikes average around US$300-US$500 in value. The original 1780 MTTs usually sell for US$2000 - US$2500.00 which is ridiculous considering their rarity Given how important they are and how rare they should be demanding prices aroundUS$10,000. The reason they dont fetch those prices is, in part, due to dealers trying to sell early restrikes by describing them as origional. By doing this they give the impression origional 1780 strikes are more common than they are: Why the Rant: well a respected ebay seller and member of this forum has just listed a restrike MTT as an origional: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....111293392567Its not an origional its a restrike! In this case its a Guenzburg mint coin. The most likely Candidate for the origonal Guenzburg strike is this coin:  Have a look at the tail formation on the reverse and then look at this 1777 Reverse( the two large curling hair feathers are never seen on restikes in the way they are seen on the 1777 and the coin I have posted the picture of):  And for those who want to know here is the rarer (2-3 known examples) of the two origonal Vienna mint 1780 strikes ( the more common , with Aprox 10 known examples, has a pearl-less brooch:  Edited by austrokiwi
03/05/2014 12:40 pm
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
477 Posts |
Let him know that you believe it to be a re-strike and not original. Sometimes even people who specialise in coins can make mistakes, however he did clearly write ''not a cheap re-strike'' so... I once spoke to a well respected coin seller on ebay, declaring a problem I noticed with a coin-he took it down in seconds declaring he had not noticed it and thanked me, as his reputation was important. And as a new coin collector, I agree that this is very damaging-I'm a novice and as much as I try and do my research, I do like to be able to trust reputable sellers. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
His listing states this coin is of the 1789-1792 type, not an original 1780. The term "original" is somewhat subjective for coins like this. Many people refer to pre-1850 pieces as originals and post-1850 as restrikes.
Edited by Numismat
03/05/2014 1:01 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Austria
566 Posts |
Dear austrokiwi,
i think, that you put more in this than what is actually there.
If you review the complete description you will see, that I have given the Hafner number, which is I hope correct and also the period of striking (1789-1792) and also the word posthumous (struck after the death of the Empress, which was 1780).
I think, that this makes the whole thing look less shocking, but more as a mistake on my side.
Next time I will not forget to list this also as an Early Strike instead of Original Strike (indeed there is a difference). Still I would not use the re-strike term for this coin in the caption as it would get it too close to the bullion issues, struck after 1850 and which are still produced today.
Best regards
Filip / CWTV
Edited by coinworldtv
03/05/2014 7:13 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 2087 Posts |
Thanks Filip I expected you would do/say something like that. the reason I highlighted this issue is that is the same thing is being done by some major auction houses who should know better. The fact is people are very loose with the term re-strike and original. The coin you are selling is of much more importance and rarity than a late 20th century restrike. How to descibe them is a problem no one has published a proper description from my research the following might work:
- Origional = 1741 - 1780
- Early re-strike 1781-1805 (1805 picked as it is the date of the closure of the Guenzburg mint
- Early 19th Century = 1805 - 1820
- Italian period ( overlaps with the above) 1814- 1848
- Modern Restrike: post 1853
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Austria
566 Posts |
Edited by coinworldtv
03/06/2014 6:44 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
Over the years, I have had reason to call to a few seller's attention a problem.
They thank me and make the suggestions part of their description.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
That last one is a contemporary counterfeit, I would think... Interesting piece.
Edited by realeswatcher
03/06/2014 6:52 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Filip that last coin is not a coin, it's an insult :D
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
648 Posts |
Fourree, fouree, foure
I like it!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Austria
566 Posts |
People you need to see the bright side.
For the MTT collector this is a small treasure.
How often do you see a new MTT species?
Edited by coinworldtv
03/07/2014 02:45 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Of course, just saying that the crude way it is portrayed is an insult to the real thing. Still a really cool coin though. Some people love the crude pieces.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
That Fake is a brilliant coin. Is it North African or is it Ethiopian? I guess we may never know but its a brilliant find As for hafner number Hafner didn't catalogue fakes like that one.
I will have to check my references but I recall reading a traveler ( Very early 19th century) report on the trial of a Ethiopian for counterfeiting MTT. Apparently the counterfeits were produced in pewter using a file. That Coin pictured here is perhaps the closest I could imagine to a fake produced using a file. the report didn't mention what the punishment was but it was likely extreme and unpleasant. Apparently the counterfeiter was mortified at the fact he was being punished suggesting strongly he didn't see it as an offence.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Hong Kong
1270 Posts |
Quote:
Origional = 1741 - 1780
Early re-strike 1781-1805 (1805 picked as it is the date of the closure of the Guenzburg mint
Early 19th Century = 1805 - 1820
Italian period ( overlaps with the above) 1814- 1848
Modern Restrike: post 1853 Thank you austrokiwi, you suggest a useful guideline of collecting MTT. Also interested in why in the period 1814-1848, the Vienna mint had never produced any MTT restrike, can you give a hint to? Henry |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Jumping in late - I do think that the seller has attributed his coin correctly and since it has the you instead of the V it is an "early" strike as genuine as a posthumous issue can be. (I am thinking of the Henry VIII posthumous coins among others.)
But as a collector of counterfeits the most interesting to me is the forgery. Personally I love the locally (crudely) crafted copies of the MTT perhaps more than the "genuine restrikes" of any age. Does anyone know if the forgery is for sale?
I can see with the MTTs that multiple classes apply. Actual 1780 coins made in 1780 are likely not always identifiable.
But I can see placing all of the coins made with the spelling AUG versus AVG into a distinct group.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
Hi Swamperbob. Fillip had already changed the listing before your saw this thread. My post now is to ensure there is no confusion. The fake is on ebay. Quote:
But I can see placing all of the coins made with the spelling AUG versus AVG into a distinct group. Look at the third coin I posted; note as typical of this variety the mint signature of "I.C. - F.A." is poorly struck. That coin has the AUST DUX spelling and is from the Vienna mint it is a true origonal 1780 strike. In 1781 the Vienna mint, with the first Vienna mint restrike MTTs, used the AVST DUX spelling. Guenzburg did not make that change until around 1797 so the double "U", "U & V", & Double "V" distinction isn't that appropriate, except to assist with identifying Vienna mint originals. If you look at the first coin I posted it has AUST DUX like the re-strikes from the same mint but it has two long fine curling hair feathers ( look at the 1777 reverse) that are regarded as the Original strike" identifiers for that mint. IMHO, given that the ethical codes of Numismatic societies ( including the ANA and ANS)around the world often have specific requirements regarding the identification of re-strikes, describing a re-strike as "Original" ( even one struck in 1781) is wrong and is never justifiable no matter how rare the coin. Therefore I do not accept your,apparent point of view, that it was acceptable. Edited by austrokiwi
03/08/2014 03:07 am
|
| |
Replies: 30 / Views: 4,146 |
Posted 03/05/2014 11:50 am
