"Freeman -" is a mistake - this exact coin is Freeman 3
montgoej
1. Mar. 2018, 06:59
Not Freeman 21. This exact coin is Freeman 20
CaptainMyCaptain
1. Mar. 2018, 00:09
This is definitely NOT a 1610 date, but later. This can be noted by several things (before I touch on the date itself), such as the Lions, and crown and shield. First the crown. The lower arching bar (with vertical lines between) of the crown for coins of "F" was no longer used after 1612, and starting in late 1612. The crowns of late 1612 plain - 1617 only consisted of one arching upper bar, which sat lower to the shield, and often begins and ends at the two upper corners of the shield.
Also, in 1613, the "Wishbone" over Granada was dropped from use the two arching bars that look like an upside down Y or V, or )(.
This coin, has neither of the two mention changes. Also.
This Lion type, more upright, with what looks like two eyes, did not show up on the coins of "F" until late 1613 and is not found any earlier than that date, as the "house cat" lions were still in use for 1610-11 (note any 1610 variety 8 Reales). By late 1611, the dies begin to show use of older die sets from the udated dei gratia types and first dated types of 1607-09, with a lion that is very close in design to this lion, (for quickest reference, see 1611 D/F) and often confuses collectors. However, they are vastly different. The type 1 upright lion, has a small tail, is thinner and is not "furry" . The castles, can also be noted as they are still intact with wide towers on the castles, and the center tower reaching higher than the two flanking it, very similar to the one seen here, but not the same for this punch would be chipped and repaired by 1613. It is a difficult period as punches were wearing out, and things were being reused.
By 1613 the dies were with a newer, simpler border (not counting the reused dies) that consist of more rounded dots, sitting back to back vs side by side as with previous issues. So, we can note the coin here, has the border of rounded dots sitting back to back, vs side by side. Add to that, the crown, with only 1 arch, and no vertical lines, and no wishbone over Granada, and "furry lions" its easy to attribute as no earlier than 1613.
This border, and crown as well as the lack of "wishbone border" over Granada, would remain the standard design until the end of Morales' tenure.
By 1615, likely mid to late, the lions tail has chipped and broken off the master punches, for I have noted at least two types. One, with the lion still fully intact, and the other, with the tails replaced, by using a leg (or one half of) the tressure punches {, as it is simply a straight arching bar vs a tail. And I should note, the tressures in the late period of F are also made slightly wider. The cross's crosslet's and globes are more reminiscent of coins of 1712-13. with chipped crosslets, thus appearing smaller.
Given everything I can see, this coin, is 1613. But the final digit being as sloppy as it is, I would assume it is an overdate. Possibly 3/Z. Especially with the sharpness of the "flurry" lions, and all other factors considered, it definitely dates in this period. But, I can say for sure, 100%, it is NOT 1610. Perhaps whoever owns it, and has it in hand, can examine the final digit more carefully and at other angles to discover what can't be seen from this photo. If it is any later than 1613, such as an early 1615, or even 1616, I would love to know. But I rarely get comments back so...for now. I hope, at least. This helps.
As a final note, it is no later than mid to late 1616 for the design totally changed by 1617. 1616 counting the broken tailed type, and reused dies, that I have never encountered in 1617 issues in my 30 years studying the coinage.
Legend -ANVS PP AV seems more appropriate for Justinian I.
siliquae
21. Feb. 2018, 05:43
RIC X 390 (tie 11)
siliquae
21. Feb. 2018, 05:41
RIC 390 (tie 11)
CaptainMyCaptain
20. Feb. 2018, 04:13
Wanted to follow up on this piece. Was able to see a better photo of this coin and study it and it is a reverse of a 1714 lesser ornate "royal" / Galano die, but what makes it interesting is it is not a noted type with this combination. The castles are the std "royal" ornate 4r castle, the lions are the "fancy" lions type 2 that are found on 8r royals dated 1714,and 1 type of 1715 8r cob that reused the dies of a Galano, and this lion is also found used for the royal stampings on gold ingots - typically inside a shield under simple crown. This die type is further proved by the orcle around the cross as clearly seen here. Furthermore, this is a 1714, not 1715. There is no 5 in the date field, rather a slightly distorted 4 from doubling and corrosion. So, it is a 1714 so called "royal" die reverse, with std type 2 8R obverse. All falls into place. :) Any other points you can make please share. Thanks
CaptainMyCaptain
20. Feb. 2018, 04:00
late 1712 or 1713. To late for 1702. 3.5 quadrants horizontal. Correct crown style for this date, which is the most telling of this coin. Its far off the mark for 1702. If seeing a "2", which I do not see in the photos, its likely late 1712 when the design was changed to the common type we see in 1713. :)
montgoej
18. Feb. 2018, 03:37
A correction to the description of this lot: This coin is not a variant of Freeman 24 but is no. 24 itself from Freeman's "A Group of Eraviscan Denarii"
Tejas554
16. Feb. 2018, 22:42
Nicht "leicht geglättet" sondern stark nachgeschnitten.
montgoej
14. Feb. 2018, 06:43
This coin is a cast fake from a doctored mold to hide some signs of casting. See cast twin here: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2733243
The easiest way to distinguish these casts is that all lose the frontmost part of Mercury's hat though show no sign of weak strike or corrosion
montgoej
14. Feb. 2018, 06:43
This coin is a cast fake from a doctored mold to hide some signs of casting. See cast twin here: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3506282
The easiest way to distinguish these casts is that all lose the frontmost part of Mercury's hat though show no sign of weak strike or corrosion
Pscipio
13. Feb. 2018, 15:11
SNG Turkey 1, 1580
Luisra
11. Feb. 2018, 21:58
CUIDADO, LOS GRAVES DE CORUÑA SON DE GRAFILA CIRCULAR Y V EN REVERSO GO 12.01 (SACADO DEL AB). ESTA MARCA PUEDE SER DE VALENÇA DEE ALCANTARA
Pscipio
8. Feb. 2018, 13:54
This is the common SB 1828, not the rare 1828A.
joha2000
8. Feb. 2018, 10:53
this coin illustrated in Stoll "Herakles auf römischen Münzen" (1999)
Provenience described as Stoll collection.
joha2000
8. Feb. 2018, 10:45
this coin illustrated in Stoll "Herakles auf römischen Münzen" (1999)
joha2000
8. Feb. 2018, 10:42
this coin illustrated in Stoll "Herakles auf römischen Münzen" (1999)
There, provenience Stoll collection (instead of private collection, as for other coins from the Neussel collection in this book).
joha2000
8. Feb. 2018, 10:39
this coin illustrated in Stoll "Herakles auf römischen Münzen" (1999)
There, provenience Stoll collection (instead of private collection, as for other coins from the Neussel collection in this book).
Also, in 1613, the "Wishbone" over Granada was dropped from use the two arching bars that look like an upside down Y or V, or )(.
This coin, has neither of the two mention changes. Also.
This Lion type, more upright, with what looks like two eyes, did not show up on the coins of "F" until late 1613 and is not found any earlier than that date, as the "house cat" lions were still in use for 1610-11 (note any 1610 variety 8 Reales). By late 1611, the dies begin to show use of older die sets from the udated dei gratia types and first dated types of 1607-09, with a lion that is very close in design to this lion, (for quickest reference, see 1611 D/F) and often confuses collectors. However, they are vastly different. The type 1 upright lion, has a small tail, is thinner and is not "furry" . The castles, can also be noted as they are still intact with wide towers on the castles, and the center tower reaching higher than the two flanking it, very similar to the one seen here, but not the same for this punch would be chipped and repaired by 1613. It is a difficult period as punches were wearing out, and things were being reused.
By 1613 the dies were with a newer, simpler border (not counting the reused dies) that consist of more rounded dots, sitting back to back vs side by side as with previous issues. So, we can note the coin here, has the border of rounded dots sitting back to back, vs side by side. Add to that, the crown, with only 1 arch, and no vertical lines, and no wishbone over Granada, and "furry lions" its easy to attribute as no earlier than 1613.
This border, and crown as well as the lack of "wishbone border" over Granada, would remain the standard design until the end of Morales' tenure.
By 1615, likely mid to late, the lions tail has chipped and broken off the master punches, for I have noted at least two types. One, with the lion still fully intact, and the other, with the tails replaced, by using a leg (or one half of) the tressure punches {, as it is simply a straight arching bar vs a tail. And I should note, the tressures in the late period of F are also made slightly wider. The cross's crosslet's and globes are more reminiscent of coins of 1712-13. with chipped crosslets, thus appearing smaller.
Given everything I can see, this coin, is 1613. But the final digit being as sloppy as it is, I would assume it is an overdate. Possibly 3/Z. Especially with the sharpness of the "flurry" lions, and all other factors considered, it definitely dates in this period. But, I can say for sure, 100%, it is NOT 1610. Perhaps whoever owns it, and has it in hand, can examine the final digit more carefully and at other angles to discover what can't be seen from this photo. If it is any later than 1613, such as an early 1615, or even 1616, I would love to know. But I rarely get comments back so...for now. I hope, at least. This helps.
As a final note, it is no later than mid to late 1616 for the design totally changed by 1617. 1616 counting the broken tailed type, and reused dies, that I have never encountered in 1617 issues in my 30 years studying the coinage.
The easiest way to distinguish these casts is that all lose the frontmost part of Mercury's hat though show no sign of weak strike or corrosion
The easiest way to distinguish these casts is that all lose the frontmost part of Mercury's hat though show no sign of weak strike or corrosion
Provenience described as Stoll collection.
There, provenience Stoll collection (instead of private collection, as for other coins from the Neussel collection in this book).
There, provenience Stoll collection (instead of private collection, as for other coins from the Neussel collection in this book).