| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 1,575 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7960 Posts |
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
 United States
23731 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
2752 Posts |
I have no idea but I'll go with an 8..  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
It's an archaic 4 - pretty similar forms were used in India princely state coins until the reunification of India.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7960 Posts |
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
United States
7960 Posts |
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
United States
7960 Posts |
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
5177 Posts |
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
United States
7960 Posts |
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. |
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 1,575 |
|
Posted 02/14/2020 6:56 pm
