1704 Ecu

coinkat

coinkat

This 1704 Ecu struck at the Dijon Mint (P) repurposed a 1695 Ecu as a flan. It has a bold pewter gray appearance highlighted by craftsmanship that create more questions than answers. Our host graded the coin AU50. I anticipated a grade within the AU spectrum. This coin serves as an intriguing historical artifact that documents the production limitations of coinage in early 18th century France.

Bob13

I don't fully understand this type of recoinage. In the past, re-coinage meant take all the coins, melt them down, and make same face amount of "new" money that contained less precious metal. The ruler keeps the difference for personal wealth.

But this sort of overstamping seems like busy work?

Bob13

I'm going to bump this thread with a new pick up: A 1705 Nantes (T) mint 8 Ecu. This one caught my eye based on the portrait, color and surfaces.

Can anyone identify the undertype? Or, as above, explain why they would just re-stamp these?

Zohar

coinkat

Great coins and additions to the thread- thanks for resurrecting this one. Both of these are truly exceptional coins.

I really do not have good answers as to the reasons behind what I refer to as the re-coinage of the Ecu denominations.

coinkat

One that just came back from our host- 1787 R Ecu

The Louis 16 Ecu coins seem to be plagued with issues- adjustments marks as well as finding fully struck up examples.

coinkat

1790 L Ecu- these seem to be tougher to find in MS

Bob13

Glad to bring some of these out of the woodwork! As usual @Zohar 's example is amazing.

If these are recent trueviews, seems like still some work to be done...

Bjorn

@coinkat said:

Awesome piece - that is a type I particular like, and its enjoyable to see the patterns that result in the lettering where the die and existing coin's legends clash badly. Also nice to see a double date.

coinkat

I have not seen many of this type with such a clear date on the host coin (1695).

There is a certain historical charm about this coin in that it really captures the French minting and recoinage of the time.

Frenchie

@Bob13 said:
I don't fully understand this type of recoinage. In the past, re-coinage meant take all the coins, melt them down, and make same face amount of "new" money that contained less precious metal. The ruler keeps the difference for personal wealth.

But this sort of overstamping seems like busy work?

Indeed, it's a strange case !

Usually they would effectively melt the old coins to create new ones, and that's what they did until 1690.

Since the "Écu aux huit L du 1er Type" (first minted in 1690), this practice became more or less the way to go for the next types : "Écu aux Palmes" (first minted in 1693), "Écu aux insignes" (first minted in 1701), and finally "Écu aux huit L du 2e Type" (first minted in 1704).

This practice was still even used from time to time until the year 1726 under the reign of Louis XV and the introduction of a new type "Écu aux branches d'olivier et au buste habillé" !

But there are some reasons for why they did it this way :

1) In the last decades of the reign of Louis XIV, finances were in a dire state. Many wars had put the economy and the kingdom on the verge of bankruptcy. By avoiding the cost of melting the old coins and creating new planchets, they made substantial economies.

2) When the type of coins changed, you weren't allowed to use the old types, so you needed to go to the mint, bring your old coins there to get new ones. They would then modify the value and the purchasing power of the coin ! For example, an "Écu aux huit L du 1er Type" was valued at 3 Livres 6 Sols ; the next type, the "Écu aux Palmes", was valued 3 Livres 12 Sol ; the "Écu aux insignes" was valued at 3 Livres 16 Sols and the "Écu aux huit L du 2e Type" was valued at 4 Livres. But the coins remained the same in terms of weight, silver purity and silver content. The idea was that the King would repay the old loans contracted by the State with the new coins and their new value. The result was a very net benefice for the King and the State !

Imagine yourself lending 100.- $ to the State and receiving back a 10.- $ dollar note with a zero added by the Fed. You could also call that blatant fraud if you will, but nonetheless it prevented the bankruptcy of the french kingdom during really harsh times. It was an effective way to replenish the King's vault and to successfully support the war effort.

I hope those explanations to be helpful !

Sorry it was a little too long...

Best regards

Frenchie

coinkat

@Frenchie

Welcome… thanks for the write up and explanation