Amazing 1612 Gold Medals from Holy Roman Emperor Matthias and his wife Archduchess of Austria Anna

Zoins

The following two pieces are amazing to behold as they are large, gold and in beautiful condition.

They are very easy on the eyes, but I'm wondering why they look like full brockage errors with a full negative impression on the reverse? Why were they done this way? It's hard to imagine that these are both errors.

(1612) Holy Roman Emperor Matthias - PCGS MS64 POP 0/1/0

• Cert: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/38204026
• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

(1612) Anna Archduchess of Austria - PCGS MS65 POP 0/1/0

• Cert: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/38204025
• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_of_Tyrol

Rexford

They certainly aren’t errors, and I would hesitate to call them trial strikings. They look like clichés in gold. I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Zoins

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after his brother Emperor Rudolf II's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Byers

They are listed and illustrated in Forschner.

•PCGS determined that these were trial strikes, and authenticated and certified them as such.

•Three IAPN coin dealers ( Kuenker, Peus and Sonntag) reference these as from that time period.

•The translation from the Forschner reference book where both PCGS and NGC use Forschner #’s on their inserts, and by Sonnag ( auction house) both describe these as a ‘one sided test’, which is a die trial strike.

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after Emperor Rudolf's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Sure, it’s commemorating an event of 1612, but that doesn’t mean it was actually produced then and isn’t a restrike or reproduction of a medal of 1612.

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after Emperor Rudolf's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Sure, it’s commemorating an event of 1612, but that doesn’t mean it was actually produced then and isn’t a restrike or reproduction of a medal of 1612.

What causes you to think it’s a restrike or reproduction?

PCGS calls them trials. Why do you think they are not trials?

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after Emperor Rudolf's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Sure, it’s commemorating an event of 1612, but that doesn’t mean it was actually produced then and isn’t a restrike or reproduction of a medal of 1612.

What causes you to think it’s a restrike or reproduction?

PCGS calls them trials. Why do you think they are not trials?

It’s a big assumption to state that they were produced for any particular purpose. One would have to prove that they are produced as trials in order to call them trials. As far as I can tell the type only exists in clichè form. Here are two more pairs, one in gold and one in silver, from the same dies (also uniface clichés, uniface sides not shown):

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after Emperor Rudolf's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Sure, it’s commemorating an event of 1612, but that doesn’t mean it was actually produced then and isn’t a restrike or reproduction of a medal of 1612.

What causes you to think it’s a restrike or reproduction?

PCGS calls them trials. Why do you think they are not trials?

It’s a big assumption to state that they were produced for any particular purpose. One would have to prove that they are produced as trials in order to call them trials. As far as I can tell the type only exists in clichè form. Here are two more pairs, one in gold and one in silver, from the same dies (also uniface clichés, uniface sides not shown):

Those are neat! Are they yours? It would be great to see the reverses and any other descriptions of those if available?

Also, why did you speculate they were from medals if you’ve only seen them as clichés? Do you think the medals exist but you haven’t seen them yet?

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after Emperor Rudolf's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Sure, it’s commemorating an event of 1612, but that doesn’t mean it was actually produced then and isn’t a restrike or reproduction of a medal of 1612.

What causes you to think it’s a restrike or reproduction?

PCGS calls them trials. Why do you think they are not trials?

It’s a big assumption to state that they were produced for any particular purpose. One would have to prove that they are produced as trials in order to call them trials. As far as I can tell the type only exists in clichè form. Here are two more pairs, one in gold and one in silver, from the same dies (also uniface clichés, uniface sides not shown):

Those are neat! Are they yours? It would be great to see the reverses and any other descriptions of those if available?

Also, why did you speculated they were from medals if you’ve only seen them as clichés? Do you think the medals exist but you haven’t seen them yet?

They’re not mine, but presumably the reverses would look roughly the same as the one in the original post, with slight variation in depth of the inversed impression.

A cliché is just a thin uniface striking of a coin or medal created by striking two thin blanks together. I know it’s a cliché of a medal because it’s a medallic design and size, and it commemorates the coronation. PCGS and Förschner (cited above) both describe it as a medal, so we’re in agreement there.

Rexford

@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Zoins

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
I would guess they were struck later than 1612, but who knows.

Matthias was elected Emperor after Emperor Rudolf's death on January 20, 1612. Also, Matthias married Anna on December 4,1611, so he was at least married in 1612.

Sure, it’s commemorating an event of 1612, but that doesn’t mean it was actually produced then and isn’t a restrike or reproduction of a medal of 1612.

What causes you to think it’s a restrike or reproduction?

PCGS calls them trials. Why do you think they are not trials?

It’s a big assumption to state that they were produced for any particular purpose. One would have to prove that they are produced as trials in order to call them trials. As far as I can tell the type only exists in clichè form. Here are two more pairs, one in gold and one in silver, from the same dies (also uniface clichés, uniface sides not shown):

Those are neat! Are they yours? It would be great to see the reverses and any other descriptions of those if available?

Also, why did you speculated they were from medals if you’ve only seen them as clichés? Do you think the medals exist but you haven’t seen them yet?

They’re not mine, but presumably the reverses would look roughly the same as the one in the original post, with slight variation in depth of the inversed impression.

A cliché is just a thin uniface striking of a coin or medal created by striking two thin blanks together. I know it’s a cliché of a medal because it’s a medallic design and size, and it commemorates the coronation. PCGS and Förschner (cited above) both describe it as a medal, so we’re in agreement there.

How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die actually a hub?

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

Zoins

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

Zoins

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Here's the translation for Auction 407, Lot 2487 from Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger:

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

https://pro.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=Forschner+34+and+1612&s=1&results=100

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

It seems like something would be needed so it's not just air between them. If it's just air, I can't believe you would get a good strike on either side.

Do you or Mike know how thick this is?

It's interesting to think about how this is made, from a mechanical perspective.

Zoins

Calling Dan Carr @dcarr

Perhaps our resident minting expert would know how these are made!

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

It seems like something would be needed so it's not just air between them. If it's just air, I can't believe you would get a good strike on either side.

Do you or Mike know how thick this is?

It's interesting to think about how this is made, from a mechanical perspective.

There wouldn’t be air between them, they would be resting on top of one another between the dies…

It’s very thin. My math could be off, but given the weight of 2.5gm and diameter of 39mm, I calculate the thickness as roughly 0.2mm, assuming it is 100% gold (it’s probably a little less).

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

It seems like something would be needed so it's not just air between them. If it's just air, I can't believe you would get a good strike on either side.

Do you or Mike know how thick this is?

It's interesting to think about how this is made, from a mechanical perspective.

There wouldn’t be air between them, they would be resting on top of one another between the dies…

It’s very thin. My math could be off, but given the weight of 2.5gm and diameter of 39mm, I calculate the thickness as roughly 0.2mm, assuming it is 100% gold (it’s probably a little less).

If there's nothing between the two planchets, I don't think you would get such a strong negative impression on the reverse of these. It would be interesting to make something like these to see how it's done.

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

It seems like something would be needed so it's not just air between them. If it's just air, I can't believe you would get a good strike on either side.

Do you or Mike know how thick this is?

It's interesting to think about how this is made, from a mechanical perspective.

There wouldn’t be air between them, they would be resting on top of one another between the dies…

It’s very thin. My math could be off, but given the weight of 2.5gm and diameter of 39mm, I calculate the thickness as roughly 0.2mm, assuming it is 100% gold (it’s probably a little less).

If there's nothing between the two planchets, I don't think you would get such a strong negative impression on the reverse of these. It would be interesting to make something like these to see how it's done.

Why not? The blanks are extremely thin. Where else is the displaced metal from the strike going to go if not poking out of the other side of the blank?

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

It seems like something would be needed so it's not just air between them. If it's just air, I can't believe you would get a good strike on either side.

Do you or Mike know how thick this is?

It's interesting to think about how this is made, from a mechanical perspective.

There wouldn’t be air between them, they would be resting on top of one another between the dies…

It’s very thin. My math could be off, but given the weight of 2.5gm and diameter of 39mm, I calculate the thickness as roughly 0.2mm, assuming it is 100% gold (it’s probably a little less).

If there's nothing between the two planchets, I don't think you would get such a strong negative impression on the reverse of these. It would be interesting to make something like these to see how it's done.

Why not? The blanks are extremely thin. Where else is the displaced metal from the strike going to go if not poking out of the other side of the blank?

I imagine a lot of the metal just wouldn't move. For example, when you strike a medal and one side is using a flat uniface die, often times that side is flat, but it could be due to the planchet being thicker than is used here. I don't have that much experience with things this thin. 0.2mm is thin!

Byers

Rexford-

Now that there are 2 known sets, and obviously this second set is one sided and the same as the PCGS set, ofcourse I will change it. Monday my webmaster will change on my ebay listing and my website, from unique to 2 known.

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

https://pro.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=Forschner+34+and+1612&s=1&results=100

Thanks!

Does the lot description provide any provenance for the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger piece? Or should it just be known as the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimens?

Byers

If anyone can locate this second set, I will purchase it!

Thanks!

Mike Byers

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Zoins said:
How would using two blanks result in the reverse impression? Is the other die a flat die or a hub?

One die is the obverse and one is the reverse. The blanks are struck back to back and are thin enough that the strike shows through the metal.

Do you mean something like:

• Matthias die
• Matthias blank
• Anna blank
• Anna die

Yes.

For this to work, it seems like there would need to be something in between the blanks pushing against the back of each blank.

If anything, there could be a third blank resting between them to prevent the impression of the obverse blank bleeding through onto the reverse blank. There may be some of those opposite impressions bleeding through on these though, it’s hard to tell.

It seems like something would be needed so it's not just air between them. If it's just air, I can't believe you would get a good strike on either side.

Do you or Mike know how thick this is?

It's interesting to think about how this is made, from a mechanical perspective.

There wouldn’t be air between them, they would be resting on top of one another between the dies…

It’s very thin. My math could be off, but given the weight of 2.5gm and diameter of 39mm, I calculate the thickness as roughly 0.2mm, assuming it is 100% gold (it’s probably a little less).

If there's nothing between the two planchets, I don't think you would get such a strong negative impression on the reverse of these. It would be interesting to make something like these to see how it's done.

Why not? The blanks are extremely thin. Where else is the displaced metal from the strike going to go if not poking out of the other side of the blank?

I imagine a lot of the metal just wouldn't move. For example, when you strike a medal and one side is using a flat uniface die, often times that side is flat, but it could be due to the planchet being thicker than is used here. I don't have that much experience with things this thin. 0.2mm is thin!

Yes. The relief on this design is much deeper than 0.2mm. There’s nowhere else for the metal to go. It’s not going to just disappear. If the other side were flat then both sides would have to be flat. Look at bracteate coins, it’s the same concept.

Rexford

@Byers said:
Rexford-

Now that there are 2 known sets, and obviously this second set is one sided and the same as the PCGS set, ofcourse I will change it. Monday my webmaster will change on my ebay listing and my website, from unique to 2 known.

Thank you Mike.

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

https://pro.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=Forschner+34+and+1612&s=1&results=100

Thanks!

Does the lot description provide any provenance for the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger piece? Or should it just be known as the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimens?

No provenance, but I wouldn’t call it the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimen as it’s just the name of the auction house. The first one was actually sold at Peus once as well.

Zoins

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

https://pro.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=Forschner+34+and+1612&s=1&results=100

Thanks!

Does the lot description provide any provenance for the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger piece? Or should it just be known as the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimens?

No provenance, but I wouldn’t call it the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimen as it’s just the name of the auction house. The first one was actually sold at Peus once as well.

Very interesting. Is there any provenance listed for the other one?

Rexford

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:

@Zoins said:

@Rexford said:
@Byers will you remove “Unique” from your eBay listing now that I’ve found a second example in gold?

Very interesting! That looks like a website. Can you provide the link?

I can’t, it’s Coinarchives. It requires a paid subscription.

You should still be able to provide a link. If someone clicks on it, they should just need to login with their paid account, but the link should still work.

https://pro.coinarchives.com/w/results.php?search=Forschner+34+and+1612&s=1&results=100

Thanks!

Does the lot description provide any provenance for the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger piece? Or should it just be known as the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimens?

No provenance, but I wouldn’t call it the Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger specimen as it’s just the name of the auction house. The first one was actually sold at Peus once as well.

Very interesting. Is there any provenance listed for the other one?

Nope.