French Pretender Coinage

I'm not quite sure how to explain the change in die states for the 5-centime coins. Overlaying the images show that the same dies were used for subsequent restrikes, but there are two examples that I've found online where portions of the word "CENTIMES" on the reverse side have become obscured. Is this because the last two were weak strikes? Looking at the rest of the reverse side on both examples seems to rule this out. Is it because of rust build up in the letters of the word CENTIMES? If so, why wasn't it simply brushed away? At any rate, there seems to be a progression. In one example, the "NT" of CENTIMES is nearly missing. In the next, the NT are gone and the surrounding "E" and "I" are getting lighter.

I'd like to hear any opinions on how these changes can be explained.

No doubt, yes, a Swedish 1 skilling banco coin. Unexpected to find a Swedish connection here. Those coins were of course only used in Sweden, so someone has made the effort of collecting and bringing them (I suppose more than one coin was used) out if the country for this purpose. It's an interesting angle to the story.

The old copper coins with values in skilling could be used until 1876, after that they could only be exchanged for new coins at the Swedish Riksbank (National Bank).

About Bonapartists, I think they could very well have dwelled in Sweden at the time (just like supporters of French royalists and revolutionaries). There has been an appetite for everything French in Sweden since at least the 18th century, and the installment of one of Napoleon's marshals as crown prince and later king didn't diminish that. Napoleon IV apparently visited Sweden (according to Wikipedia), so there must have been active supporters here at least then.

Here's another contemporary reference to coinage minted bearing the likeness of Napoleon II in 1815. From the October 16, 1815 edition of The Bath Journal (UK):




Transcription for search engine purposes: "The Quidnuncs [gossips] of Paris have been made to believe, that the Austrians have caused pieces of money to be struck at Lyons, bearing the head of Napoleon II.--The following has given rise to this report:--There certainly do exist pieces of gold and silver coin bearing such an impression. They were struck at the Mint of Lyons, when Napoleon II. was proclaimed, in consequence of the decree of the Chamber of Representatives, and during the ten or twelve days on which the Federates held power in that city.

Note: The following quote is from my post to this thread on 10/11/2020:



I wonder if the "Chamber of Representatives" mentioned in the article from The Bath Journal was the same as the Chamber of Peers that decided to mint a series of Napoleon II coins in June 1815 and if they are both talking about at least some of the coins from the "1816" essai set? The Journal's mention of "gold" coins wouldn't fit, but perhaps it was mistaken and the mintage was of copper and silver, as was the essai set. If they are the same, then at least some of the Napoleon II pretender coins may have originated from a semi-official mintage at the Mint of Lyons in 1815.

Thanks, jbuck. And just to correct my last post, the Napoleon II coins were originally minted in silver and bronze. Not copper, though I believe some of the restrikes over the following years were copper.

The news blurb from The Bath Journal appears to be a repeat of a similar blurb originally published in the October 14, 1815 edition of the London Commercial Chronicle (minus the light hearted reference to quidnuncs).

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that the 1816 Napoleon II essai series of coins were actually minted at the Lyon Mint in June or July 1815 in response to the action taken by the French Parliament (whether the Chamber of Peers, Chamber of Representatives, or both) just after Napoleon's abdication. The Napoleonic garrison at Lyon didn't abandon the city until July 11, so it would fit with the news blurb's statement that the city had continued to be held by the Federates for 10 or 12 days after the change in government.

One of the chief arguments against the Napoleon II essai series being produced by a government mint is the somewhat shoddy work on the coins. I've checked other examples of actual coins minted in Lyon around the same time and the workmanship doesn't look much (if any) better. For example, the letters in the word "Francs" do not quite line up correctly in a number of official coins minted at Lyon under Napoleon. Perhaps the artisans at the Lyon Mint simply weren't quite as skilled as their brethren in Paris.

Back to the 1816 essai series of Napoleon II coins, we've earlier discussed a statement published in "Histoire Monetaire et Numismatique Contemporaine" by Jean Mazard that the coins were struck circa 1860. I think I've discovered how Mazard formed that opinion.

Google Books has a French coin catalog published in 1861 listing an incomplete set of these coins (they're missing the 2 franc piece and the 10 centime piece). Following the listing of the coins is the following note, in French:
"Toute cette serie de monnaies, au nom de Napoleon II, ont ete emises tout recemment, elles sont gravees et frappees sans gout et sans intelligence de l'histoire. La dade de 1816 ici est ridicule; on comprendrait encore 1815. Elle rappelierait la date de l'abdication."

Google Translate gives this in English as:
"All this series of coins, in the name of Napoleon II, were issued very recently, they are engraved and struck without taste and without understanding of history. The date of 1816 here is ridiculous; one would still understand 1815. It would recall the date of the abdication."

Although this statement sounds rather definitive about the coins being struck "very recently", it is not sourced and appears to simply be the cataloger's opinion, as evidenced by his statement that the series was engraved without taste or an understanding of history.

For example, it's almost inconceivable that an engraver working circa 1860 would be unaware of the fact that Napleon had abdicated in 1815 and was therefore simply making a foolish mistake in his dating. Surely the date of 1816 appearing of the coins was intentional, although we don't really have a clue as to why that date was selected. I'd also argue that the engraving of the series isn't tasteless. There are certainly alignment problems with some of the letters and numbers, but this suggests more to me that the coins may have been hastily engraved, rather than it being done without taste.

Also, as discussed in this thread, there are a number of police reports and newspaper accounts of coins issued in the name of Napoleon II dating back to the summer of 1815. Where are the examples of these coins issued in 1815, 1821, and 1830, along with other dates of distribution, if they weren't from this series? The fact that no such alternate coins have survived suggests to me that they did not exist (except for the King of Poland issue of 1829). Further, a recent origin of the coins circa 1860 wouldn't account for the apparent deterioration of the dies used for subsequent restrikes.

I think it likely that Mazard's opinion that the 1816 essai series had been struck circa 1860 was based on the note from the 1861 catalog entry. But I also think that the note itself was simply speculation on the part of the original cataloger, and doesn't adequately explain the known facts regarding the history of the coins issued in the name of Napleon II.

The earliest reference to the 1816 essai series of Napoleon II coins that I can find at Google Books comes from a catalog of an auction in Amsterdam that was to start on March 26, 1860. It's included in a bound collection of coin catalogs and starts on PDF page 597 (link to large file): https://books.googleusercontent.com...3JtYtjAsDCOg

The Napoleon II coins are listed on PDF pages 643 and 644. It's an incomplete set, as the 10 centime piece is missing.

The title page of the catalog says (according to Yandex and Google Translate) that some of the coins in the auction were from "a distinguished enthusiast" who had recently died in Amsterdam, though it doesn't specify whether the Napoleon II coins belonged to the deceased collector. However, since it presumably took some time to compile the catalog, and since it must have been issued at least some weeks prior to the March 26, 1860 starting date of the auction, it would seem likely that the Napoleon II coins must have been acquired by the auction house no later than late 1859 or very early 1860. In looking through the listing of items up for auction, the latest coin is dated 1857, and among the items up for auction is a coin catalog dated for 1858. Nothing for sale at the auction is dated later than that, so it seems likely that the Napoleon II coins probably predate 1858 and may have been a part of the collection for some years prior to that.

I'm attaching images of the title page to the catalog and of the listing of the essai series.