Options
Gold duit/ducat
thelawnet
Posts: 107
The British Museum lists this 1755 gold VOC Utrecht duit
link
Diameter: 23.000 mm
Weight: 3.470 g
saying
"For use in colonial trade between the Netherlands and its dominions"
Krause however provides that is a gold duit:
Weight 3.502 g
Special presentation strikes produced by the mintmaster on demand.
The Krause description seems more likely to me, given that it is definitely in appearance a proof gold duit.
It doesn't therefore seem to me a particularly significant coin, although it is certainly handsome.
In terms of gold coinage the main feature of the East Indies was that they just used normal Dutch coins, sometimes counterstamped, and also the Javan rupee.
Am I wrong?
link
Diameter: 23.000 mm
Weight: 3.470 g
saying
"For use in colonial trade between the Netherlands and its dominions"
Krause however provides that is a gold duit:
Weight 3.502 g
Special presentation strikes produced by the mintmaster on demand.
The Krause description seems more likely to me, given that it is definitely in appearance a proof gold duit.
It doesn't therefore seem to me a particularly significant coin, although it is certainly handsome.
In terms of gold coinage the main feature of the East Indies was that they just used normal Dutch coins, sometimes counterstamped, and also the Javan rupee.
Am I wrong?
0
Comments
Your first statement should read .... "The British Museum lists this 1755 gold VOC Utrecht ducat" not "......... duit".
When I get home I'll see how Delmonte list the coin.
<< <i>Lawnet,
Your first statement should read .... "The British Museum lists this 1755 gold VOC Utrecht ducat" not "......... duit".
>>
Well no.....
Because this is a Utrecht copper duit (km111.1, 1741-1794):
Hundreds of millions of these coins were minted, and pretty much any date should cost less than $10 in VF
This is a much scarcer silver proof duit (KM111.1a):
these cost $50+ in VF depending on date
The gold duit is listed, KM111.1b, with nine dates, all proof, between 1742 and 1792
The coin is unquestionably a gold version of the very common circulating copper duit. Whether it is a ducat as well seems a little doubtful.
<< <i>The Link you provided to the British Museum list the coin as a gold "ducat" that is why I think your initial statement was incorrect. >>
Right, but the point of my post is that the British Museum description, and the statement that it was used in trade (making it de facto a ducat), are contradicted by the info in the Krause catalogue, and I think the Krause information more likely to be correct, even if the British Museum is generally more authoritative.
The other issue is that Dutch (non-VOC) ducats (including those of Utrecht) depict a knight in armour, don't look like their province's duits, and were not struck in proof.
Reference # 995
Rarity Scale: R.3 - R.4 ( Extremely Rare to Highest Rarity of only 2 or 3 known)
Regarding your statement:
"The other issue is that Dutch (non-VOC) ducats (including those of Utrecht) depict a knight in armour,.........."
You are correct except for this ducat:
1809, 1810 Ducat Holland (Louis Napoleon 1806-1810)
Now the question - why would they issue these coins ? I think given the denomination being a duit, typically copper and similar to our cent, there can be little doubt that they issued them for use as trade coins. They were minted far too often and with such varying weights to have been intended for use as anything else. Yes, some of them are quite rare, others are not.
I think the British Museum is merely defaulting here - any gold coin with a weight of 3.5gm was considered a ducat - regardless of the design it was minted with. And given that the weight was sometimes 6.95gm, they would probably consider those coins to be double ducats.
It is not like the Dutch intended these coins to circulate and be used as duits - the lowest denomination coin they have - that would be idiocy. I think it was rather they had the dies, as they would tend to be the most numerous, and they needed the coins so they minted them with the duit design but the coins traded based on the metal and weight.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>Something that most fail to realize is that the Netherlands issued duits in copper, silver & gold. Maqny of the provinces did and they did it rather often. Also the weights tend to vary greatly - 3.5gm, 5.25gm, 5.48gm, 6.95gm - all gold. Silver issues also varied in weight and fineness.
Now the question - why would they issue these coins ? I think given the denomination being a duit, typically copper and similar to our cent, there can be little doubt that they issued them for use as trade coins. They were minted far too often and with such varying weights to have been intended for use as anything else. Yes, some of them are quite rare, others are not.
I think the British Museum is merely defaulting here - any gold coin with a weight of 3.5gm was considered a ducat - regardless of the design it was minted with. And given that the weight was sometimes 6.95gm, they would probably consider those coins to be double ducats.
It is not like the Dutch intended these coins to circulate and be used as duits - the lowest denomination coin they have - that would be idiocy. I think it was rather they had the dies, as they would tend to be the most numerous, and they needed the coins so they minted them with the duit design but the coins traded based on the metal and weight. >>
The difference between the Netherlands gold and silver duits and the VOC ones seems to be the proof/business strike divide. The VOC coins were all proof, the normal Netherlands coins, business strikes.
Per Bucknill in 'Coins of the Dutch East Indies':
<< <i>'Utrecht'
'Silver'
In Silver the Province produced for the Company, Ducatoons, Three Guilder pieces, One Guilder pieces, and Half-Guilder pieces.
'Copper'
The Province issued a long sequence of Doits spread over many years and produced in large numbers at some periods.
Gold proofs of at least five years are known. Silver proofs of at least twenty-two dates occur.
The Province also produced Half-Doits. Gold proofs of at least eleven dates are known. Silver proofs also occur of at least twenty one years.
The gold proofs of both Doits and Half-Doits are very seldom met with, but some of those in silver are not uncommon.
The copper Doits and Half-Doits have a plain edge but in the gold and silver proofs it is obliquely milled. >>
Surely proof coinage was not intended for trade use? (The Netherlands coinage may well be a different story.)
<< <i>
The difference between the Netherlands gold and silver duits and the VOC ones seems to be the proof/business strike divide. The VOC coins were all proof, the normal Netherlands coins, business strikes.
>>
No, they were not all Proofs. There were business strikes issued as well. Krause lists them. Yes, they were presentation strikes minted upon demand, but they were not all Proofs. For example, look at the difference between KM70b and KM70a. B's were Proofs, A's were not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The difference between the Netherlands gold and silver duits and the VOC ones seems to be the proof/business strike divide. The VOC coins were all proof, the normal Netherlands coins, business strikes.
>>
No, they were not all Proofs. There were business strikes issued as well. Krause lists them. Yes, they were presentation strikes minted upon demand, but they were not all Proofs. For example, look at the difference between KM70b and KM70a. B's were Proofs, A's were not. >>
The difference between 70b and 70a is that 70b is gold, 70a is silver.....
In respect of 70a, Krause says
"Special presentation strikes produced by the mintmaster on demand. " I.e. proofs (even if they are not noted as such)
Bucknill states that they are 'silver proofs'. No non-proof silver duits are described.
I knew they varied in metal, but not so much in weight - that's new to me. That must have been terribly difficult to manage for trade if you couldn't even rely on the weights.
I do know that gold duit is be-u-t-full. Dutch coinage of this perious has such a lure.
<< <i>
The difference between 70b and 70a is that 70b is gold, 70a is silver.....
In respect of 70a, Krause says
"Special presentation strikes produced by the mintmaster on demand. " I.e. proofs (even if they are not noted as such)
Bucknill states that they are 'silver proofs'. No non-proof silver duits are described. >>
I am aware that one is silver and one is gold. Was only making the point that one is not listed as a Proof but as a business strike. Whenever a coin is a Proof, Krause makes note of it. And it is not safe for you to assume that a presentation piece is a Proof - there is a difference between them.
And just because Bucknill does not mention the business strikes, that doesn't mean that there wasn't any. There were absolutely business strikes issued in both gold and silver in the Netherlands itself. And since the coins for the VOC were minted in the Netherlands, at the very same mints - a certain logic comes into play. Granted, that is an assumption as well.