Where were these ducats Struck? Russia or the Netherlands

[Levantiner]

I picked both these coins up just for a slight premium over the gold weight.  I know on the balance of probabilities at least one of these ducats was struck in Russia for use in Poland.  I have checked the references I have but they have just left me confused.  The 1840 coin  with a Torch privy mark  according to Krause is likely to be Russian.   In one reference  I read it noted there were no Ducats struck in the Netherlands in 1849  but in Krause I see a very small mintage were struck.   The 1849  ducat shown here has a sword Privy mark is it part of the small dutch striking or is it, as I have seen listed in some auction catalogs,  Russian also

[Figleaf]

Dutch gold ducats were struck in Warsaw with date 1831. These can easily be recognised, because they have an eagle instead of the caduceus mintmark of the Utrecht mint. They were documented by André Schulman in Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde (yearbook for numismatics) 1932. These coins served to pay off a Russian debt at the Warsaw bank that financed the suppression of a Polish insurrection.

Dutch gold ducats struck in Russia are known with dates 1818, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1831, 1833, 1836, 1839, 1840, 1841 and 1849. The Utrecht mint struck ducats with the same dates. There are two known variants of the genuine Dutch ducat 1840: mintmaster sign torch (Suermondt) and mintmaster sign lily (Poelman.) The second variant uses a slightly different font and is slightly larger (21.5 mm.) A ducat with a torch could therefore well be Dutch, though Moscow mintage of this type/date was 1.35 million against Utrecht mintage of 151,202.

The coins of the two mints differ only in slight details, such as the spacing of the letters on the reverse. The only documentation of the differences I know of is an article by A. van der Wiel, Valse Nederlandse dukaten, from Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde (yearbook for numismatics) 1952. They were struck for generic trade purposes.

Unfortunately, I have neither the 1932, nor the 1952 issue of the yearbook.

Peter

[Levantiner]

Do you know the page numbers of the article( I can probably locate the article through Subito)

[Figleaf]

Pages 41 to 59. This is of course second hand knowledge I have been unable to check. Source

Peter

[Levantiner]

Thank you. Subito  wasn't any help.   A member of another forum emailed me some identification info. I still need to confirm but it looks like the 1840  coin is Russian and, I still can't quite believe it, the "49"  is Dutch.  If it is Dutch then it is  one of my better finds. I had purchased them expecting both would be Russian ( the auction house advertised them as Netherlands)

[Figleaf]

Mintage figures for 1849 are Utrecht 14 344, Russia around 4,75 million. The low Dutch mintages explain why Russia minted the imitations: they were needed and not available.

These were trade coins. Just like the Dutch versions did not circulate in the Netherlands, but along the sea route to an in the Netherlands East Indies, the Russian version did not circulate in Russia, but along the Russian periphery. The only area where both versions might have met is Afghanistan/Persia, where the Russians freed Russian slaves and the Dutch bought supplies en route for long range seaborne travel. Nevertheless, the Dutch were bothered enough to undertake a number of fruitless demarches at the czarist court.

Peter

[Levantiner]

Mintage figures for 1849 are Utrecht 14 344, Russia around 4,75 million. The low Dutch mintages explain why Russia minted the imitations: they were needed and not available.


Peter

Nice speculation but  I think that is all it is.  The Russians had been copying the Netherlands ducats  since, at the very least, the last quarter of the previous century.    The 19th century type 2 counterfeits( meaning a coin correct correct alloy and dimensions but not struck by the proper authority)  were destined for use in Poland( as well as for trade) The Netherlands ducat was important in Poland as evidenced by the polish striking during the uprising( has an Eagle mint mark)   I have read conflicting views:  at one stage the Russians may have been licenced to produce ducats, but not so in 1849  at least one account states the Netherlands stopped striking the coins and wrote to the Russians demanding they stop producing them. That Article went on to  suggest the reason for the small Dutch mintage was that the dutch were trying to stop the Russians from producing the coin. The Russians were effectively stealing the minting profits.

How I identified the coins to the respective mints:  If you look at the arrows in the 1840 coin  the second and fourth arrow heads are lower than the rest indicating Russia.  In the 1849 the 2nd and fourth arrow heads are at the same level as the others

[Figleaf]

- The Russians had been copying the Netherlands ducats  since, at the very least, the last quarter of the previous century. ==> Previous dated copies not known in Dutch numismatic sources.
- The 19th century type 2 counterfeits (meaning a coin correct correct alloy and dimensions but not struck by the proper authority) were destined for use in Poland. ==> The Russian copies (not sure what you mean by "type 2") are generally not found there.
- polish striking during the uprising (has an Eagle mint mark) ==> André Schulman, one of the best known Dutch numismatists of his time, say they were struck on Russian orders in Warsaw to pay off a large loan for the suppression of the Polish revolt of November 1830. In other words, they were destined only to sit in the vaults of the Bank of Poland, a Russian bank.
- at one stage the Russians may have been licenced to produce ducats. ==> Highly unlikely in view of the later diplomatic protests. Your author may well be confused by a Dutch mercantile colony in St. Petersburg that used Utrecht coins. The Hermitage has a large number of Dutch ducats. They were studied by a boyhood friend when the city was still known as Leningrad. He found no evidence that they were struck outside the Utrecht mint, unless you see the fact that he found a number of hitherto unknown dates as evidence. The strong Dutch presence also explains the high number of Rembrandts in the Hermitage museum. They were not produced there either.
- at least one account states the Netherlands stopped striking the coins ==> The opposite is true, to the degree that many of the torch ducats were struck under Poelman, because his mintmaster sign was not ready yet and it was considered urgent to stop the Russians. Mintages in Utrecht were comparatively small, but not for lack of trying. Your author may be confused by a lack of production of gold ducats during the latter part of the French occupation (1809-1814)

Please quote your sources. Are these statements all coming from the same source?

Peter

[Levantiner]

Re type II counterfeits  you don't read my post properly... you even requoted my definition of what a type II counterfeit is    but to be clear: A type II  counterfeit is a counterfeit of correct alloy and weight. In contrast a type I counterfeit is of a debased alloy.

References  as I said it is confusing    on the late 18th century strikes these are the sources ( which also  include the identification  marks for the 19th century Russian strikes I was only supplied some scans of the relevant pages:
I attach one scan

Journal Of The Russian Numismatic Society - issue  Number 8, September 1982

Journal Of The Russian Numismatic Society - issue Number 66, Summer 1998
The other reference is Jaseks  book Gold ducats of the Netherlands


I am now back tracking on my belief the 49 is Dutch   further information Via email  from Jasek suggest its more likely to be Russian. I am hunting the Russian Numismatic society(USA based) articles hoping the full articles will lessen my confusion. h