French Pretender Coinage

A reference to an almost complete set of the 1816 series of Napoleon II coins, missing the 5, 3, and 1 (and perhaps 10) centime pieces:




This documents that at least the higher value coins were all being minted by at least 1862.

I hope I'm not boring anyone with all of these posts. My enthusiasm is perhaps carrying me away.

Although I'm not quite ready to close the book on this, I'd like to summarize what I think are the pertinent points regarding the Napoleon II "1816" series of coins.

1. Coins of Napoleon II, most likely from the 1816 series, were struck in France in the late summer of 1815 ("most likely" because no examples with the date 1815 have been found and because of evidence that coins from the 1816 series were struck well before the 1870s--see below). According to the testimony of Gruner, the set of coins issued in 1815 included denominations of one demi-franc and one franc. According to the account in The Bury and Norwich Post, coins of "one or two franc" denominations were seen in Paris in the fall of 1815. I'm not sure if there's any significance to that "or" between the account of one and two franc coins, but the mere fact that multiple coins were being referred to makes it at least possible that there were examples of both denominations. If true, this would mean that Napoleon II coins in at least three denominations were struck in 1815. Other official reports from late 1815 state that "vast numbers" of these coins were being circulated in southern France and Switzerland.

2. The dies for the Napoleon II coins were kept in the possession of Bonapartists and the coins were re-struck when it was felt advantageous to stir up public support for the Bonapartist cause. Restrikes are pretty much proven by evidence of deteriorating dies. This is shown by the fact that there are examples of the "1816" 3-centime piece with clearly struck stars appearing in the lower part on the reverse side of the coin, and examples where the area of the coin where the leftmost star appears shows signs that the die has rusted (the coin that I recently added to my collection was apparently struck from the eroded die, which would make it a later restrike). Another example that this is true is the fact that a replacement die was used for the reverse side of the 2 franc coin in the 1870s (I initially thought that a replacement die was also used for the obverse side of that coin, but now I'm not so sure--the differences between it and the earlier strike may be due to erosion of the obverse die). Other evidence of later restrikes is the presence of ridges along the edges of some of the reissues of various denominations of the coins. This would be caused by rusting of the outer portions of the images of the coins on the dies.

3. The continued re-issue of the Napoleon II coins is also demonstrated by the later official reports made by the police and other officials that the coins were showing up in various parts of France in the 1820s, the 1830s, possibly the 1860s, and the 1870s. Note that the account of Napoleon II coins issued after Napoleon's death in 1821 are a bit confusing in that it is reported that these coins bear the inscription "The Hope of France," which does not appear on any coins from the 1816 series. Adding to the confusion is a report from April 1821, prior to Napoleon's death, that Napoleon II coins were circulated on the Anniversary of Saint Napoleon's day, which was on August 15th. Does this mean that the coins reported in April had been circulating since August 1820, or that they had been issued in April 1821 in anticipation of Saint Napoleon's day on August 1821? In any event, there are apparently no surviving examples of coins of Napoleon II bearing the inscription "The Hope of France," so it may be that the report of this inscription was mistaken.

4. A published example of the 1816 5-franc Napoleon II coin shows that the coin was circulated at least by 1861, and there is a description of a set of 1816 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, demi, and quarter franc pieces in existence as early as 1862. Since all of the 1816 coins were apparently engraved by the same hand, and there is evidence that the dies for the smaller denomination coins have deteriorated in addition to the larger denomination coins, I now think it likely that the original dies for the entire series probably date from 1815.

Sorry for another lengthy post. If anyone has anything to add or any contrary suggestions I hope they'll post it here.

In the case of the Napoleon IV coins, this is quite possibly true. In the case of the Napoleon II coins I'm not sure.

If the Napoleon II coins were originally struck in 1815, the fact that they had been struck at all would have been a criminal offense carrying severe penalties, as was the circulation and possession of the coins. Adding the word ESSAI to the Napoleon II coinage would seem to have been done for a reason other than to avoid prosecution. I ordered a book that I hope may provide an additional clue on this, though it may turn out to be a false lead.

By the 1870s, it would not have been illegal to have items mentioning Napoleon or his family, so adding ESSAI on the obverse and the "E" to the reverse may indeed have been an attempt to avoid charges of forgery.

I have a few Henri V issues - will try to attach pics

The first is a 1/2 franc piece, dated 1833:

Thirdly, an undenominated piece the size of a 5 franc coin, probably medallic in nature, bearing a date on the reverse of 2 August 1830 and struck in a silver metal:

As someone who has an interest in Napoleonic coinage this thread has been fascinating, particularly regarding the Napoleon II essai's!

Below are scans of the pages from my copy of Histoire Monetaire et Numismatique Contemporaine by Jean Mazard. This would suggest that at least the silver 5 francs was struck later, 1860.



In the upcoming sale at Editions Gadoury Manoaco 2020 on 30-31 October lot 640 is the silver set (5, 2, 1, 1/2 and 1/4F) and lot 641 is a complete copper (or bronze?) set (5, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4F and 10, 5, 3 and 1 centimes) - in what appears to be a contemporary case.

https://www.gadoury.com/en/auction

In an attempt to document the subject of the Napoleon II pretender coins to death, I'm planning to post a series of posts that will demonstrate the deterioration of the dies used to strike the coins. Since I've found a number of examples, I'll post these on a per denomination basis. I'm assuming that the deterioration is due to rust that has eaten away at portions of the dies over time and has been brushed away upon the occasion of subsequent re-strikes, but welcome any other suggested explanations. The first example is the 1-centime piece, with deterioration increasing from top to bottom.








Note the progression of the ridging between about 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock on the reverse side. I think this may show that rust had built up in this area over time and had been cleaned away before each re-issue of the coin, which could explain the growing ridging obscuring the tick marks around the rim.

I don't speak French either, but running the image through Yandex Translate, and cross-checking with Google Translate, shows that the Mazard entry is simply describing the obverse of the 5-franc coin as:

"NAPOLEON II EMPEROR. Childish effigy to the left. unsigned"

The reverse is described as:

"FRENCH EMPIRE. In a crown of foliage 5/FRANCS./ESSAI at the bottom *1816*"

Below that, it says:

"smooth posterior strike (circa 1860)"

"Circa 1860" means that they don't know the exact year it was struck, but assume it was around 1860. I believe that they were mistaken or misinformed about the year it was struck (unless purely by chance it's an example of a re-strike from the 1860s).

Although the first mention of a Napoleon II 5-franc piece in a Numismatic publication that I can find on the Internet dates from 1861, police and other public officials in France were aware of Napoleon II coins of various denominations circulating in France and Switzerland as far back as 1815. Unfortunately, numismatists in the 19th century apparently did not have ready access to these French police reports.

I note that the Mazard book was published in 1965, so there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe that they had first-hand knowledge of when (or how often) the Napoleon II coins were actually struck. It looks to me like they were simply repeating what numismatists believed at the time.

And welcome to the board, if a fellow newbie may be so bold.