1696 Nurnberg CV Taler questions.

1jester

What do you folks know of this Taler? Is it real? I suspect so. Is it worth buying, and for what price? Is it rare? What do you make of the toning? Is it some kind of green cruddy slime or maybe some nice toning? Is this a milled coin?

Thanks a lot for your comments.

CIVITAS

Looks real enough to me. Neat type. Dated on both sides.


Rare? Not really. Worth buying? Absolutely.

Definitely some sort of green slime on top of dark splotchy toning. Possibly a removed mount at 9 o'clock on the obverse, but maybe not. Why would they mount it to hang the standing figure or city sideways?

The green might come off with a q-tip and some acetone. Looks like a Good VF. With the potential problems, buying from an image, I'd stay between $300 and $400 on this one as a collector.

cacheman

Your talking about a 1696 GFN "Norimberg" Taler., Davenport #5668. Eye of God over City View with date in cartouche below. Angel with 2 shields and G.F.N. below. Date is in chronogram*, Values ; Fine $125, VF $350., XF $750, UNC $1450. Scarce. I'm not positive on the milling but I believe it was made by way of a screw press.

*Chronograms; One of the most interesting forms of dating to appear on coins involves the use of chronograms. Most examples are found in the German talers from the 17th and early 18th century. Chronogram dating presents the date hidden in a coins Latin ledgends. Deciphering such dates requires removal and rearrangement of the large letters from the the legends into a logical Roman numeral sequence. Thus the larger letters here of X C D I X X V V M V L could be rearranged to form MDCLXXXVVVI or, 1696. Yes, this isn't how we learned to represent Roman numerals other wise it would just be the MDCXCVI you see on the CV side of the coin. Sort of like a Cracker Jack puzzle I guess...

Here are some images of mine. After digging these out I realized I had purchased this coin before I had my digital camera. These were the dealers images. Damn, now I need to redo these too. Hope this helps! S

1jester

Thanks so much, Josh. I also thought the grade should be around VF/XF, with a little weak strike in the center of the reverse. Perhaps that could also explain the strange looking part at 9:00? I don't know. However, it seems to be a decent coin to have. Opening bid is $325.

ajaan

I agree the coin probably had a mount removed at 9:00/3:00

1jester

Dang, Cacheman!!! IT doesn't help at all, since now I want one as good as yours!!! I guess Ajaan's right that there's been a mount removed since the edge doesn't exactly line up right. So probably I'll pass on this one.

Cache, do you think these are from the same dies?

cacheman

I bought mine as an EF, granted, the adjustment marks didn't help but you might note the lustre still remaining on and around the two shields the angel is holding. The price for mine a year or ago was $450 but that was on ebay too...

cacheman

<< <i>Cache, do you think these are from the same dies? >>



It's possible, I mean look at the alignment of the date in the cartouche...I'd still be hard pressed to to say yea or nay unless I had better images or the two of them side by side to compare. But now that I've taken a closer look at mine it appears both of them have the same unintentional die mark in the lower field to the right of the Angels knee. I had always assumed that this was a hit and now that i've looked at it under 10X it is small mounds of metal suggesting a defect in the negative die. Your example has it too....Cool.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>I had always assumed that this was a hit and now that i've looked at it under 10X it is small mounds of metal suggesting a defect in the negative die. >>



Of course, it coulds also be indicative of a counterfeit. Probably a question for Civitas; but is counterfeiting a problem with these CV Talers?

And yes, I agree, something is 'going on' on that edge. However, looking closer, I think Cache has an earlier die state because it also has evidence of a rim cud on the CV side. This would appear to have grown somewhat on the specimen jester shows. Also, the 'mounting' edge on the other side may just be adjustment marks at the rim to take the weight down.

elverno

They're both nice coins. The first one looks like it might have an old lacquer job on it. Of course it might just be the pics but that darkish brown is similar to the color that eighteenth century lacquer tends to darken to... Thanks for showing them both to us guys!

1jester

I don't believe it's counterfeit, and I've bought from the seller before, who always has very nice quality products, in original condition.

It does appear that this coin has the exact same die characteristics as Cacheman's coin.

Elverno's probably right about the coating of old lacquer. I've seen very old lacquer coatings on medieval copper and silver, and it tends to turn a greenish-gray dull color.

cacheman

Actually removal of the lacquer would probably expose a very beautiful coin. I have been looking closer at mine it it appears to have a bit of a waver to the planchet which indicates it was minted on a roller...is that your thought too Jester? All of my other 17th Century pieces have the same characteristic in different varying degrees.

Donovan

<< <i>
*Chronograms; One of the most interesting forms of dating to appear on coins involves the use of chronograms. Most examples are found in the German talers from the 17th and early 18th century. Chronogram dating presents the date hidden in a coins Latin ledgends. Deciphering such dates requires removal and rearrangement of the large letters from the the legends into a logical Roman numeral sequence. Thus the larger letters here of X C D I X X V V M V L could be rearranged to form MDCLXXXVVVI or, 1696. Yes, this isn't how we learned to represent Roman numerals other wise it would just be the MDCXCVI you see on the CV side of the coin. Sort of like a Cracker Jack puzzle I guess... >>



Good post. Not something I knew.