Maria Theresia Coins | Restrike Thalers

Yes Bob. if in case the specimen coin was made 1835 or later,then our country is facing a big problem on majority of our counterstamped coins' authenticity. Because the 5-4-1 pearl formation of the CS are all correct. One thing that I am not very sure of on the above specimen is the mark on the opposite side of CS. Again thanks Bob for a very informative thoughts you shared to us

Thanks again. I doubt that I can find it in my country. Any other books that have world coins with exact weights and measures ?

I bought the doctor's book but have not completed reading it yet. I was unaware that the Punch was not applied opposite a flat smooth surface.

The physics of the counterstrike would dictate a VERY slight bulging of the metal against the flat surface which I thought simply wore away in this case.

Could you give me the page number? If the strike was against an intentional anvil with a concave surface to produce a convex surface then I would have to rethink my position.

mvojnovic The book by Hafner was printed in Vienna, Austria and is much more common in Europe than the US. I bought mine from Austria. It is bi-lingual.

Chech the used bookstores on line it is not a rare book by any means.

Pandesalapi I have been giving some thought to the process here and the way stress would distribute against a solid flat surface. I have a couple questions as a result that you perhaps could answer.

1. As I understand it, the punch used for the YII and F7 counterstamps was a HAND HELD puncheon - it was NOT mounted in a screw press that would have kept the punch perpendicular to the coin or subsurface. The impression was made as a sharp "heavy blow" and NOT as a slow high pressure compression. Can you confirm this belief?

2. While many collectors might assume the punch to be flat - I would presume that the punch was slightly convex (the center of the punch making first contact to allow the center of the design to strike up well. Can you also confirm that as fact?

3. A flat punch, a concave punch, and a convex punch all make different appearing distortions on the opposite side of the coin. Sometimes the result is not what would be expected. For instance a flat punch would tend to make a flat appearing impression on the opposite side BUT would also result in a bend of the coin Upward away from the surface on which the coin is placed. The distortion tends to INCREASE as the application of the force is slowed. A Convex Punch creates a slight DEPRESSION on the opposite side because the initial point of impact is at the center and there is a rebound effect as the force spreads to the edges and decreases. In the case of a sharp blow this produces a concave impression on the REVERSE side of the coin. A concave punch would contact at the perimeter first and would tend to punch through the coin and produce an impression that mimics the shape of the punch on the obverse. The reverse would tend to be flatter with a pronounces outline. This punch would also tend to bend the coin. So shape of the punch face and speed of impact is very important. Any information on the shape of the actual punches used is therefore critical.

4. You indicated a wooden surface was used to strike against. I find this to be odd - I would have expected a less resilient surface like steel. The effect of using a wooden surface COULD alter the impression on the reverse of the coin. A surface that gives - like wood - can dissipate the force of the impact and alter the way the surface appears. My studies of punch impacts have always involved using a flat steel plate because the results should be far more consistent.

MatthewMa: no doubt about Swamperbob's wisdom, that's why I consider him as a my Maestro in our community.

Swamperbob:


Yes it's true by the process of what we call "Golpe-de-Martillo"


Again Bob we also coincide with this presumption of a slightly convex punch.


An answer to a concave punch would have a concave effect like this which most of us consider as counterfeit



On this question, I am only assuming the Iron Wood (we call it Tindalo) maybe used during that time because of the results on the inconsistent shapes of different CS coins. Most coins are having convex shapes, while others are almost flat. Just my wild guess with regards to Iron Wood.

TwoKopeiki: I just went to the website (about MT Talers)you mentioned, and its very informative and super-nice site. I noticed some differences in the CS coin being discussed against all the sample pictures. The website shows 1815-30 and 1830-40 having a rarity grade of 1 (extremely rare). I have compared its pictures below


I became more curious on the serifs more particularly letter "R". They do not coincide.
If the CS coin being discussed is indeed an original having a rarity grade of 1, then it is much rarer because of its Countermark.
However if the said coin is proven to be a restrike on or later than 1835, then our country - the Philippines is definitely in big trouble on our Counterstamped coins. This is for the reason that the YII countermark being discussed does have all the qualities of a perfect 5-4-1 pearl formation stamped on a later date host coin.
Having this scenario at hand, it is really confusing...

I have managed to verify some coins of my thaller collection (thanks to a friend) and I would like to ask where I need to post them for better evaluation.

The coins I manage to recognise is :
3 thalers coins Hafner 40 1833-1838.
2 thalers coins Hafner 28 1789-1792.
4 thalers coins Millan 1815-1853 (cant specify somethink more than this).
2 thalers coins Vienna 1817-1853 (cant specify somethink more than this).
2 thalers coins origina Vienna cut and 1 thalers coin Hall cut that suppose to be original and not a restrike (cant specify somethink more than this).
Also there is 2 coins that there is propably H27 or H33.
(This is according to my friends findings)


ps. Forgive me for my english it isn't my native language.