All your coins Database of coins

  Si vous avez du mal à voir ou comprendre les variantes ''avec fruit et raisin''...''sans fruit et avec raisin''..., cet article est pour vous. Tout d'abord, de quoi parle-on précisement? Il existe plusieurs coins différents. Et avec des combinaisons connues qui les différencient. Les coins sont les des morceaux de métal gravés en creux et qui servent à imprimer les monnaies en relief lors de la frappe. Il y a donc toujours un coin d'avers et un coin de revers. Ici, seul le coin d'avers contient des changements que je vais vous détailler ci-dessous:

  A Roman coin must always be analyzed in its entirety. When I look at a coin, I pay attention to the letters, the legend breaks, the drawing and its details. I am looking for an error, a variant or something special. These are often unnoticed items because they are well hidden or are not things that are usually important to watch. The coin I am going to present to you comes in this configuration.

  I start here a particularly difficult subject. Throughout this article, you will read my findings supported by evidence. Only, I can only emit hypotheses, so much the subject is complicated. Nevertheless, new discoveries will be useful to our numismatic and historical knowledge. I will make them live in order.

 Here is an article showing you how to classify Roman busts. You will be able to follow the analyzes of the clothes and see how sometimes it can be complicated. What adds the biggest part of the difficulty is the quality of representation of the clothes that the coin offers us. I also showed this coin on a forum to compare opinions and I quote in the article, the remarks made by a person who made the same findings as me. I wanted to compare my opinion with that of other people in this subject, because it seems presumptuous to classify this bust definitively. To classify this bust is very subjective. I think we can not reject a mantle on the bust or a simple decorated drapery. It would still be good for ancient numismatics, to look even more precisely on some busts like this one. Because it is not the only one to be discussed and the people who worked on the busts, may not have had these copies to analyze or have not seen the particular points that I emphasize below in the article.

Another curiosity that my friend Sylvain.D presented to me. A five-cent Napoleon III for the year 1856, minted in Lyon and in brass.

  The color is yellow and there is no doubt, it is brass. After analysis, I think this coin is official. Everything fits, including the reverse die which shows us a right star a little crushed down, common to all the coins of 1856. There is, for me, no element who permit to doubt about the l authenticity of this coin. The diameter is the same as an official coin and the weight is 4.95 grs, therefore quite good, since the coin is worn and the theoretical weight is 5 grams for a bronze coin. The difference in mass between brass and bronze is tiny. Of course, everything also depends on the dosage in the mixture of metals. Finally, I note that the edge is smooth, as for current coins.

  The Gadoury, 1989 edition, page 90, tells us that a essai of 5 cents in brass for the same year 1856 is already listed. But it is a coin marked ESSAI instead of CINQ CENTIMES and ZINC CUIVRE NICKEL instead EMPIRE FRANÇAIS. On the reverse, no difference except that the two mint marks are anchors. The indicated weight, is 4.70 grs. But, we have here a coin having exactly the type adopted on current coins. And as I pointed out, with the same obverse die as the current bronze coins! It seems to me, therefore, at this point in the investigation, that this coin is not a essai because nothing indicates it, except the change of metal and it does not appear to my knowledge, any essai to the adopted type of brass in the registers. A brass blank was probably introduced when minting coins for circulation. In any case, we know that this blank was present in the Lyon mint. This might perhaps teach us more about the origin and location of these brass essai.