Coin Week: Error In Article Warning

I have had a number of people email me the links to two articles on the maria theresa thaler that were published in coin week in November and December last year. The articles make me cringe as they contain some significant errors. Please do not rely on these articles. The errors have occurred because the author concerned relied on outdated references that have been superseded by later research. Initially I was astounded that the author claimed Dr Franz Leypold stated that the Maria Theresa thaler was never struck in 1780 and that the first restrikes were produced in 1783. I then looked closer at the references and realised the reason for the substantive errors

The errors in fact have arisen because the author of the article only relied on a 1971 article that Leypold published in the Vienna Numismatic Societies Journal . Unfortunately the coin weekly author was not aware of a much more substantive booklet that was published in 1976, that is based on much more in depth research, and corrected the earlier assertions. That later reference clearly states and describes the original Maria theresa Thalers that were struck in 1780, and also states based on Mint records that the first restrikes were produced in 1781. The Maria Theresa Thaler is a phenomenally difficult coin to understand and write about because of all the previously published errors on the coin. Those errors have far too often become fact in many collectors minds( hence this very public warning). Considerable research has to be done to sort fact from fiction so for me the coin week articles were a very disappointing development.

The reference that should have been used by the coin week author was Franz Leypold "Der Maria-Theresien Taler 1780" self published in Wiener Neustadt 1976. There is a further 1986 update that further refines our understanding of the Maria theresa thaler. So I repeat: the November and December Coin week articles on the Maria Theresa thaler contain significant errors. In particular I take great issue with the author directly inferring that Restrikes can be called "Original". I strongly believe the words "original" and "restrike" should never be used together unless the purpose is to discriminate between the two terms. An "original restrike" is an oxymoron.


Later today I will be emailing the editors asking them to print a Correction/Warning