| Author |
 Replies: 885 / Views: 27,921 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
4934 Posts |
OK, so I asked about this in the How Far Back thread and there was general acceptance that this is probably a good idea.
Rules (to be clarified if required)
1) The coin must be dated. It can be an AD date, an AH date, some other calendar (with explanation and preferably some kind of citation), or even a regnal date (again, with explanation and preferably citation), but it has to be a date.
1.1) In particular, single-year types are not allowed unless they also have dates. However, a coin where the date is off flan or otherwise illegible but can be uniquely identified by other evidence would be allowed with explanation/citation of said other evidence.
2) Since this thread fundamentally works on AD dates, any dates in other calendars would need to be converted. The usual rule is that we choose the AD year that the majority of the local year falls into; e.g. a local year starting in May 1538 and ending in April 1539 would be assigned to 1538.
2.1) In cases where the coin would otherwise have been assigned to an AD year that is incompatible with other dating evidence [e.g. a coin dated to a local year mostly in 1538 from a ruler whose reign started in 1539], I am willing to admit the coin under the AD year that it has to be from rather than the direct conversion, with, as usual, sufficient evidence. [The same rule would apply to dates in multiple calendars, but I'm not aware of any pre-1600 examples of such.]
2.2) Situations where the Julian/Gregorian distinction makes it unclear which AD year the majority of the local year falls into would probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. I'll see how it goes.
3) This thread would be progressing backwards by one year per day, starting from 1600 AD. This means today (3 July 2024) would be for coins from 1600, tomorrow for coins from 1599, and so on.
3.1) This is independent from any actual coins being posted. Regardless of whether any coins from 1581 (or 1582 or 1583) had been posted, this thread would progress to 1580 on July 23rd.
3.2) As a consequence of this, catch-ups are not only allowed but encouraged! Feel free to enter coins you missed posting for the appropriate year, and/or new acquisitions you weren't able to post before. Please do not post too many at once, though.
3.3) Unless it becomes unmanageably long, I will try to maintain a listing for which of the dates we've been through hadn't seen a coin posted for them yet. Hopefully at least early on it would be a short listing.
3.4) As a minor clarification, the date change is based on forum time (UTC-4). Yes, this means the first day would be only 3/4 as long as the others. I apologize.
...Unfortunately I don't have (photos of) any 1600 coins, so I cannot contribute at the moment. I do have a contribution ready for 1599, though.
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
32709 Posts |
I'm in. Here is a Livonian Schilling dated (1)600:   "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Moderator
United States
157664 Posts |
I am glad to see this topic up and running!  Nice start, Spence.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Sweden
2079 Posts |
Good to see this thread launched! Nice schilling, Spence! Here is a French liard, dated 1600.  |
|
Moderator
United States
157664 Posts |
Quote:
Here is a French liard, dated 1600. Nice example! As I have learned, one has to love the liard!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2231 Posts |
A great start!. Thanks to @january1may for getting the ball rolling.
Sadly at this stage I have nothing until 1585, and then only sporadically until the 15th century. But I'm in, and loving the examples being shown.
The Ox moves slowly, but the Earth is patient.
|
|
Moderator
United States
32709 Posts |
Here is an Albus from the German Archbishopric of Trier that is dated (15)99 AD.   "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Russian Federation
4934 Posts |
Excellent coin @Spence! My own 1599 coin is a tricky one...   Tsardom of Russia Boris Godunov (1598-1605) AR kopek, Pskov mint dated [7]10[7] AM = 1598/9 AD (mostly 1599) KG 193, Numista 111618The last digit of the date is illegible of my example, but dated Pskov mint kopeks under Boris Godunov are a single-year issue (there are three reverse types; KG 193 has the tsar's name fully spelled out as Boris Feodorovich). Sorry for the shaky pictures; I took them with a webcam (!) in 2014, and then never got around to doing better pics of that coin. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6895 Posts |
Great idea j1m. I realize that on How Far Back we've gotten into territory where some references may claim the coin is dateable, and others not (some of my coins being prime examples), so this will make things a lot cleaner Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth, (15)99 6 groats, Malbork mint:   Edited by tdziemia
07/04/2024 2:34 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
4934 Posts |
Quote:
Great idea j1m. I realize that on How Far Back we've gotten into territory where some references may claim the coin is dateable, and others not (some of my coins being prime examples), so this will make things a lot cleaner Indeed! This was mostly created to shore up the preparations for the 8th edition (it would probably be too late for the 7th edition, but might still help as we progress across the 14th century and [hopefully] into the 13th), such that we can be sure that all the dates are covered by definitively-dateable coins. Note that some coins (e.g. coins from very short reigns, or Florentine mintmaster-dated issues) might be definitively-dateable without actually being dated for the purposes of this thread! So there will probably be more gaps in this thread than in How Far Back. To the best of my knowledge, the first date likely to be a gap is 1464 (which is, likely-not-coincidentally, also the most recent date for which there are no known AD dated coins). If I hadn't miscounted, we should get there on November 16th. [Realistically we'll probably see some temporary gaps before that, as members who have coins from specific 16th or 15th century years might not be around to post them immediately, but those would hopefully be filled in reasonably quickly.]
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6895 Posts |
My guess is that we will progress smoothly through the 16th... I think from 1500 to 1474 there are just a few dates where only one person has a dated coin, but you've probably got a better handle on that. Anyhow, for me it will be mostly Poland/Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth this century. Here is Sigismund III again, on a trojak (3 groat) coin struck at Bydgoszcz   |
|
Moderator
United States
32709 Posts |
Me too! This 3 Groschen from Livonia is dated 1598:   "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Moderator
United States
157664 Posts |
Quote:
Sadly at this stage I have nothing until 1585, and then only sporadically until the 15th century. But I'm in, and loving the examples being shown. Sadly I have nothing to share in this topic except my appreciation for what everyone else has been able to accomplish.  
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Sweden
2079 Posts |
Lovely Siggies! Here is a 1597 liard from the French feudality Dombes.  |
|
Moderator
United States
32709 Posts |
Quote:
Lovely Siggies! Thx. This one from the Olkuz mint and dated (15)97 is showing a bit more wear:  
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6895 Posts |
Shiny Siggy for me, 1597 Vilnius mint:   |
| |
Replies: 885 / Views: 27,921 |
Posted 07/03/2024 09:04 am
