Brunswick Taler; NGC Question

harasha

I recently acquired this Taler and it was certified by NGC. Nevertheless, I am puzzled by the obverse condition at 5:00.



(and by the way, the freakin' image uploader STILL is not working for Flickr).

JCMhouston

Mount removed?

ajaan

Looks like a mount removed to me also.

worldcoinguy

I am not convinced that it was mounted. The crude nature of the rim in general suggests to me that it was a problem with the die.

worldcoinguy

Harasha - I neglected to mention that is a very nice example.

Zohar

I agree with Brent. The location is atypical for a mount, as it is generally at 12 O'clock. The planchet flaw is common as noted on my coin. You see the similar inconsistency on the rim



1741 Olmutz

marcmoish

Seems like as typically struck more or less, as these don't usually come all crisp and dandy.



Congrats on the newp.

jdmern

Beautiful example- I also think that is a planchet issue

brg5658

Originally posted by: Zohar

I agree with Brent. The location is atypical for a mount, as it is generally at 12 O'clock. The planchet flaw is common as noted on my coin. You see the similar inconsistency on the rim



1741 Olmutz

Mounts are often not at 12 O'clock. Coins were often mounted in bezels around the full rim of a coin or often at 3 or 4 points where "fingers" were used to hold the coin in place.



Now, with regard to the posted coin -- I don't see any signs of a mount. I see a planchet problem.



I liked this coin when I saw it the first time in the Stacks auction on Nov 5th. I still liked it when I saw it in the CRO earlybird email 5 days later. Great detail, nice horse, and I'm glad to see it go into a permanent collection. Congrats!

CIVITAS

Die chip/break. Very common on the rims of 17th and 18th century thalers.

harasha

Thanks for all the feedback, guys. It was very interesting. What I really was wondering about was the discoloration. Would this be found commonly on coins of this period?

lordmarcovan

Nice piece.