News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Fosdinovo. Luigino. Trade imitation?

Started by ZYV, August 01, 2012, 07:02:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Levantiner

Quote from: Figleaf on May 07, 2013, 03:50:18 PM
I would be very interested to know how to recognise those made in Zwolle and Orange...

Peter
Zwolle: only one date reported (1662)   Obverse male bust looking to the right.   script  "DA. PAC.DOMIN.IN.DIEB.NOS   Reverse: Shield with St George and the Dragon Script "MONET. ARGENTEA.CIVIT.ZVV   Rarity rating R3

Orange: A number of varieties produced  from 1650 - 1684   Obverse Guillaume Henry de Nassau (looking right) note as dates advance the bust starts to look  more feminine  Reverse Four Field coat of arms

Figleaf

Thank you. Concentrating on the Zwolle coins, the Zwolle mint produced three official types dated 1662:

1. Leeuwendaalder of 27.68 gram, obv half length knight looking right, holding shield with climbing lion, MO.ARG.CONFOE.BELG.CIVI.ZWOL. rev climbing lion CONFIDENS.DNO.NON.MOVETVR
2. Silver ducat of 28.25 gram, obv full length knight holding Zwolle city arms, MONETA.ARG.CIVIT.ZWOL rev crowned federal arms with climbing lion CONCORDIA.RES.PARVAE.CRESCVNT
3. Silver rider of 32.78 gram, obv knight on jumping horse over arms (no dragon) MONETA.ARGENT(EA).CIVITAT(IS).ZWOLL(AE), rev crowned federal arms held by two crowned lion CONCORDIA.RES.PARVAE.CRESCVNT

These types were minted for exports, primarily to the Levant. All are signed with the mintmaster mark flower.

Before its re-conquest, Zwolle issued a rijksdaalder in the name of emperor Ferdinand with his portrait looking right. Legend and arms are quite different from the description you quote from the book. There is a lion dollar (minted for export, primarily to the Levant) dated 1633 with matching legends, half length knight holding shield on obverse, lion on reverse, no dragon in sight.

I think we may conclude from the above that the coin described is a fantasy, with elements from at least three different coins. Interestingly, these coins were all known in the Levant.

The status of the Zwolle mint was that since the re-conquest of the city in 1657, the mint was supervised by the federal government. The mint was closed in 1694. My guess is that unauthorised production would be risky (mint masters caught doing it would be cooked to death or hanged) and difficult, but not impossible.

My conclusion would be that it is unlikely that the coins were actually produced in Zwolle. The flower mint master mark could be a hint: if it is missing, it becomes more likely that it is a Zwolle product.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.


Figleaf

The flower mintmark is indeed missing. However, the quality of the design is so bad (the wacky crown borders on the ridiculous), I find it hard to believe that this was produced in Zwolle. Saving the illustration for posterity.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Levantiner

I really can't comment on whether genuine or not, as this series of coins is very new to me.  As for imitations or "not-official" I believe that is a matter of perspective. The coins were produced outside of "usual" monetary minting needs and were driven by the traders who required them for the Levant. They might be best regarded as trade coins (similar, perhaps, to the cowrie in West Africa) rather than coin-of-the-realm.  Although my French is not good ( Cammarano's book is in French) I was intrigued to read  that it was Marseilles based traders who  commissioned a large proportion of all Luiguino for the Levant.  The reason for my intrigue is that approximately 100 (less)years later it was predominantly Marseilles based traders  who were responsible for the introduction of the Maria Theresia Thaler into  North Africa, Sudan  and the Red Sea/Persian Gulf trading environment.  Those later traders purchased from Augsburg which traded silver coin produced in Hall and Guenzburg.  History Rhymes!!!

Figleaf

That makes sense! I have read of how all the good, god-fearing people who were learned enough that they could write hated the Monaco mint for producing all kinds of wicked coins I couldn't locate for merchants on both sides of the Mediterranean. Those would presumably be first of all be based in Algiers and Marseille. Independent, lawless and money-driven Monaco is the perfect place for this kind of pirate coin. It even goes well with an Italian name (Luigino) for what seem to be imitations that are often inspired by French coins (the fleur-de-lis, the portrait) in the name of some Louis.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Figleaf

Nice speculation, but not so. Here is the verdict of a well known Dutch numismatist:

Half schelling Zwolle, imitating a half ecu or douzain in the name of Louis XIV. Occurs with dates 1662 and 1664. Responsible mint master was Arend van Romondt. Die sinker must have been Claes Hanssen.

This piece, known as Purmer Zw67 en VdW237, 238, was of course not meant for circulation in the Republic, but was probably destined for Mediterranean trade. The type is not mentioned in the report on the trial of the pyx, but this makes sense, because an imitation of a foreign coin was outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. The coin should be silver, with a weight of 2.26 grams and a diameter of 20 mm. If not, please let me know.

Literatuur:
D. Purmer, Handboek van de Nederlandse provinciale muntslag 1568-1795 II: Gelderland, Friesland, Overijssel, Groningen, Amsterdam, 2009
H. van der Wiel, De stedelijke muntslag van Zwolle, Vriezenveen 1994.


If I understand the above correctly, the Zwolle mint master could produce imitations of foreign coins at will and without supervision. Confusing.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Levantiner

#37
That does make sense(re Zwolle). Till today I only had three Luigino but a couple of weeks ago I spotted a counter marked 1661 Orange example in a Netherlands floor auction. I did some research and decided to bid and the coin arrived today. In 1667-1668 the Ottomans clamped down on the luigino. They made it illegal to trade with the coins, the result was some pretty nasty riots. Apparently there was some counter reaction and in AH 1080 (1669-70) there was some approved counter-marking of good Luigino.   From my reading so far it seems the counter-marked Luigino are dated 1661-1662 ( the period before the worst debasement). Wilski "Countermarks on Ottoman Coins" reports the known Countermarks are found on luigino(5 sols) of Luis XIII & XIV  also   Carlino of F.Chigi and 8 Bolognini of Alberico of Cybo M.   Wilski notes they are many reports of the countermarking but few descriptions or pictures of the marks.  Wilski catalogs only three marks for Luigino but his script intimates that there may be more.   He catalogs the marks as Tim01- 03.   The coin I have doesn't seem to really match any of those three except for Tim03  which might be a poorly struck version of the countermark I now own ( however I think I am being optimistic).  Here are the pictures of the coin and following those are pictures of the counter-marks listed byWilski. Tim 01 is dated AH (10)80 and is an abbreviation of nagd sahih ( best translation: legal tender or good money). Tim02 is a contemporary counterfeit of Tim01.  Tim 03 is untranslated I also couldn't relate it to Arabic.   Counter-mark photos are ordered 1 to 3

Edit: I am now coming to the opinion that this Orange Luigino  is actually bearing the Tim03 countermark. Unfortunately the resolution of the photo isn't good enough to see, but under magnification  it is clear that there are too many corresponding curves and features between the hand drawn representation of the mark and the actual mark on the coin, for my coin not to bear the same counter-mark
.

Levantiner

I think I might have a solution to what the TIM03  counter-mark stands for.  Could others familiar with Arabic script ( and abbrevaitions)  critique my "discovery"?  Wilski  only records Tim03 as appearing on  5 sols( luigino) of  Luis XIV,  Timo3 seems to,at least in part, read Luis. If I am right I have a new puzzle why is the mark on a Luigino from Orange?  Perhaps, speculation on my part, the coins of Luis were regarded as genuine and so the mark was placed on genuine ( not debased) Luigino of any type so long as the weight and silver content was correct.

Figleaf

Excellent research. I like the puzzle. My Arabic is almost non-existent, but I think Louis may resemble something like this in Arabic: لويس

HTH.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Levantiner

Quote from: Figleaf on June 16, 2013, 01:29:16 PM
Excellent research. I like the puzzle. My Arabic is almost non-existent, but I think Louis may resemble something like this in Arabic: لويس

HTH.

Peter

Yep thats how I anticipate normal Arabic script should look like....However Arabic calligraphy  can portray /letters words in very ornate fashion, and only if you know exactly how the symbol is constructed can you read it.  I cheated a little as my wife is  Arabic mother tongue..... she had looked at the counter-mark many times  at my request and each time she said its impossible to tell( you know it was  with that tone of voice that suggests she wasn't really paying attention). Then with another look( and this time she really  looked at the counter-mark and Wilski's drawing) and she had a "eureka" moment  She saw a reference to Luis(meaning which coins the mark was found on) in  English and the Counter-mark grabbed the book and looked closely and was soon pointing out how the letters were "strung" together to make the mark!

Levantiner

Now  I am going to have to be very careful I seem to be developing more than a passing interest in these small coins.   A week ago I saw on eBay a counter-marked 1643 Luis XIII example; it arrived today. The counter-mark is Tim01 

Figleaf

And why not? Adding a collecting field is never dull. Congratulations with the new acquisition. It takes an expert to see at once that it is a countermark, so I hope you got it really cheap ;)

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Levantiner

Quote from: Figleaf on July 12, 2013, 02:21:50 PM
And why not? Adding a collecting field is never dull. Congratulations with the new acquisition. It takes an expert to see at once that it is a countermark, so I hope you got it really cheap ;)

Peter

Actually getting it was a bizarre experience getting this coin........ I didn't have too much competition, sold on ebay by a new ( zero feedback) seller in Macedonia. After winning the auction I paid only to discover the seller had set up his paypal account incorrectly. He had to reject my payment twice and then by mistake applied to have the transaction cancelled. the coin actuallyt cost  under €80.00.  Being holed may have been a turn off for some. Today I was checking the six bid archives. I need say no more than past the link to that march sale item:

http://www.mcsearch.info/record.html?id=974990 

{Obviously that example is not holed, like mine, but it is not in particularly great condition}

Figleaf

Well, I am not exactly in the "uncirculated only" camp :D Frankly, I hadn't even noticed the hole. What harm does it do to know this coin once jangled on ladies' clothes? It just says the coin was appreciated and adds to its history.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.