Mt-Thaler With A Broken Reverse Die! Calcutta Mint?

...the swirld behind her ear reminds me of the early (1840s) milanese mint re-strike!

Its not Calcutta. As Wonghinghi has stated it is a 1-3-1 tail feather formation. Calcutta would be 1-2-1

I have seen a number of Circumferential die cracks on MTT. It is used as an indicator for Rome mint..... but it is not a definitive indicator as the Circumferential die cracking is typical of a coin struck without a collar( as the MTT is usually struck). A rome mint coin of the grade you have pictured will weigh between 28.07 grams and 28.14 grams. this is because Rome used an 855 standard alloy instead of 833. The coin does have other indicators of Rome but, being conservative, I would only attribute it as Rome if the weight was on the high side of the range I have indicated( the range is based on the known tolerances of Rome... so A weight in the lower end of that range( in other words close to 28.07 g) overlaps with the tolerances from other mints.

Have you weighed it? Rome mint used Vienna mint dies( they didn't make their own).
Hafner is an unreliable reference when it comes to these later strikes.
In places Hafners lexikon is horrifically wrong such as labeling 1790s strikes as post 1828( I base that comment on actualy mint records in the Vienna state archives). When I advised Hafner of the error with the State archive file references: his reply, in German, was to the effect they Dr Leypold said thats what they are so that is what they are( Hafner has no credibility when He choose to ignore actual mint records).

I am happy for you to tell Hafner my views I was horrified at his attitude and I can back up my claims with mint records.

Regourdy identifies three varieties of Rome mint. The contemporary analysis of Rome mint coins conducted by The Royal Mint also identifies three varieties so I would not rely on the size of the "SF" to rule out Rome. Weigh the coin if 28.06 grams or less in weight then it isn't Rome.

Definitely not Rome with that weight and grade. As for Kremnitz I really have no idea> Hafners lexicon is not reliable. To illustrate my point take Hafner 66 it is supposedly a Birmingham mint strike using London dies. This designation is based on Stoke's article in the Numismatische Zeitschrift in 1980. Birmingham mint strikes were produced solely for Samual Montague and Co. Stokes wrote to that banking house and they sent him a coin that was produced for them in 1949. He assumed in his article this was the Birmingham strike. What he didn't know is Samual montague and co ordered from both the Birmingham and London mints through out 1949. I have photocopies of most of the London mint orders from that bank for 1949. Now there are reports of dies being transferred from London to Birmingham, but the London mint has no record of them transferring London mint dies to Birmingham...and this is where reality becomes stranger than fiction. Regourdy reviewing Belgium mint records discovered MTT dies ( made in Brussels) were transferred formally into the hands of a Samual Montagu and co rep in May that year( for transfer to Birmingham) I found a customs-Royal mint correspondence file in the British National Archives that starts about 2 days after the dies were handed over to the rep in Belgium. Those dies were confiscated from in London by HMs Customs... who sent the dies to The Royal Mint inquiring if they were legally allowed to be brought into the UK. The Royal Mint confirmed there was a valid import permit and released the dies back to customs who returned them to the rep who took them to Birmingham where they were used to produce MTTs. So yes dies were transferred to Birmingham through the London mint but they were Brussels mint dies (as confirmed by Birmingham mint records). So Hafner 66 as described in the Lexicon does not exist.... I found this out after I had paid €90.00 for a supposed example of H66. Dealers still try to sell London mint coins as H66 at considerable premium over their actual value as London coins this is one of a number of examples

Hafner 5 is Guenzburg 1793

Hafner 35 is Florence.. confirmed by Dr Leypold in 1986

Hafner 36-through 40 are all Guenzburg 1793-1802 ( confirmed by an 1812 file in the vienna state archives) they are not Milan and Venice as Hafner claims.

Hafner 41 and variants are indeed venice but the first dies for that type were actually transferred to Venice in late November 1816( not 1840 as Hafner claims) ... for the start of production in early 1817( I have seen the transfer documents and tin impressions from the master dies)

You can understand I am astounded that Hafner received an honory PHD for his work on the Lexicon

Thank you Henry,

that would be interesting (struck between 1930 and 1935).

The only problem is why would the Vienna mint issue a broken-dies specimen of a coin with,
which they struck without much noticable defects for decades.

I am not aware of a single MT-piece issued at the Vienna mint to be with broken dies.

This is why I think, that this piece must have been struck somewhere else with old (already used up)
dies, which were probably prepared by the Vienna mint.

This is why I hoped to get some help with this one from Austrokiwi.

I do not want to question Hafner´s work as he is probably one of the main reasons, because of which
we are talking about MT-Thalers and that is an award worth even if he is not very cooperative with
new additions or correcitions of his work.
in the last years.