AnYangMan

Should anyone here have bought lot 228 by any chance, I would love to know!

@DonnaMLYou seem to have your heart set on calling it a coronation medal, which is perfectly fine. After all, the design does reference William III with his crown (though it seems to forget Mary!). I however doubt anyone handling this medal in the 17th century would have thought ‘wow cool, a coronation medal!’. The ‘PRINCIPI PATRIAE QUE’ inscription is already present on the designs by De Hooghe, so the only addition that references his coronation really is his relatively small portrait up top. But sure, it does reference it in some way and it must surely have been the major thing in the zeitgeist of 1689. But it is just as factually correct as calling it a medal celebrating the ’67-anniversary of the erection of Hendrick de Keyser’s statue of Erasmus’, as neither of these truly had any impact on the function of the medal. In the Netherlands, especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century, collecting medals connected to the house of Orange (‘Oranjepenningen’) was extremely popular, so overstating that connection in (museum) catalogues does not surprise me. As for the amount of council members, this is not quite as visible on the smaller medal as on the larger module (even if it is just a couple of mm larger). The ones that are easily overlooked are the individual right below the book of Erasmus, whose head just peaks out over his fellow councilman seated right and the one towards the left edge of the opening in the arch, who is only visible form the nose upward. See this detail on my example: On the smaller reverse die the first individual is rendered properly, but the second of these is reduced to a mere few strokes barely recognisable as a human head. It is there, however. Due to the strike the individual to the absolute right sometimes also gets obscured, as on your example. I’ve handled quite a few of these over the years; how well the individual towards the left edge of the opening is rendered, is actually a very easy manner of discerning the two varieties when diameter is not given.

The numismatic club of Rotterdam published a 53-page book(let) on the Rotterdam Vroedschapspenningen in 1982 ('penningen uitgegeven door de Rotterdamse Vroedschap'), but I don't believe there is a digital version of that available. It is partially based on an article from 1888 by J.H.W. Unger, titled 'De vroedschapspenningen van Rotterdam'. That's (largely) available here.

Nice medal @DonnaML! Unfortunately, the story in Medallic Illustrations is quite incorrect and simply based on a 19th century numismatist wrongly interpreting the obverse and taking that interpretation to be a historical fact. Such a ‘great dinner given in the place where the statue of Erasmus is erected, and where this small medal was distributed upon the occasion’ simply did not exist. In fact, in traditional Dutch numismatics, this medal does not even fall under the term of ‘historiepenningen’ (historical medals)! It instead is a so-called ‘vroedschapspenning’ or as they are known in English city-council tokens. People serving in the city council, both the ‘Burgemeesters’, ‘schepenen’ and the secretaries, received financial compensation whenever they attended city council meetings. Initially this was paid out directly once a year, which required thorough and detailed administration. So instead, towards the end of the 17th century, quite a few Dutch cities switched to a system of using silver tokens. For every meeting, the attending members would receive a token. In Rotterdam, the ‘burgemeesters’ (mayors) received a slightly larger token worth 24 stuivers, while the other members of the vroedschap (city-council) would receive a smaller one worth 18 stuivers. They could either be used for ordering wine during these meetings or exchanged with the city-treasurer for actual circulating coinage. Though in many cases, member also kept examples, as they quickly became prestige objects! The idea to start producing Vroedschapspenningen for use in Rotterdam came in September 1688. One of the great Dutch artists of the late 17th century, Romeyn de Hooghe (1645-1708), was asked to design them. The letter he sent the city-council in January 1689 is still preserved in the city archives, showing some interesting alternative versions. Unfortunately, it seems to not have been digitized yet. These vroedschapspenningen were very much a symbol of local pride within the upper circles. Hence why they have strong local imagery; those from Haarlem depict the saw-ship of Damiate, Gouda’s shows three important historical figures in their history, Alkmaar references their role in the eighty years’ war, etc. Rotterdam naturally had to depict Erasmus and being one of the most pro-Orange cities in the republic, had to make a small reference to William III. The scene on the obverse is not meant to depict a banquet, but rather an idealized/classicized city council meeting, with all the 18 members of the vroedschap depicted in Roman togas. The tokens themselves were struck in the mint in Dordrecht, where the dies were cut by master engraver Daniel Drappentier (1643-1714). Two pairs of dies were cut, of which 3 individual dies are still kept in Rotterdam. In total, 1200 large medals for the mayors and 3000 small medals for the rest of the vroedschap were struck. While the designs of these two varieties only shows minor differences, the diameter is often decisive. Yours for example, is one of the 3000 smaller pieces. Tokens with this design were first handed out in the meeting of 26 September 1689 and continued to be used until 1705, when a new token, also struck in Dordrecht, was introduced. So while not so much a medal commemorating the coronation of William III, an incredibly fascinating piece of Dutch local history and certainly a piece of art! My example (one of the 1200 for the mayors):

I may be biased, but whoever bid on your behalf at Theo Peters did a stellar job! That series BZ is beyond incredible, it really is incredible how high relief and crisp the fields are on that piece. Ditto on the Herstal; fantastic acquisitions! Now where to store all these lovely cabinet-piece 😜

It's a very neat mr. Vernus and one I am glad to have helped in the acquisition of! I'd almost keep it myself, purely because of how well it fits in the cabinet 😛

Stunning gold as usual @panzerman! Bourgundian coinage is some of the most gorgeous coinage we have here in the Netherlands. Although one small point: not actually from the Hague! That mint would only briefly exist in 1454-56. Instead, like virtually all coinage from the county of Holland, it was struck in Dordrecht!

Behind the scenes, @Roerbakmixand I have been vigorously discussing this piece! We often discuss new purchases and a couple of weeks ago he showed me this piece, asking me for advice on the price. I’m not an expert on these in any way, shape or form, but had some time to dive into it today: some interesting results! Namely, some mould-identical pieces (?), a different mould of virtually the same design and some research already done into this type by Boukje-Jan Van der Veen! Not the best pictures, but they get the point across. Same basic design and inscription, different mould: Same mould (?) Credits to Bouke-Jan van der Veen for largely compiling these! These other examples shed some light on Roerbakmix’s piece (which has to be said, is of remarkable quality, especially when compared to these): 1. The findspot in Zeeland was not a fluke; most of these were found in Zeeland, meaning a production centre producing these fibulae somewhere in Zeeland is relatively certain! 2. The brooch is definitely not Merovingian, but based on the reverse of the other-mould-examples, is instead derived from a Carolingian Solidus of the MVNVS DIVINVM type, placing the dating to the 9th or 10th century. The last piece above, of identical moulds (?) as @Roerbakmix's fibula, was found in Middelburg around 1965; in its publication in the JMP, they argued it was derived from a coin of Chlotar II. Including the inscription, which would be a blundered form of his name. Given the other mould with a later Carolingian reverse, I however am not really convinced of this. 3. The inscription seems to not be meaningless, since it appears in almost similar forms on at least two moulds. If it was an analphabetic craftsman producing these with a nonsensical inscription, a blundered legend would likely not appear twice in the almost exact same form. So at least some sort of thought went into writing it. It’s very appealing to call it the name of the craftsmen casting these, although that is not necessarily so. A local chieftain/high-ranking member should also not be discarded as a possibility, although again, it is unlikely we will ever be certain about the identity behind the name. Still, many of the inscriptions on these Pseudo-Nummular brooches are also what we call ‘Pseudo’ inscriptions. It’s remarkable that these so closely match, yet that the inscription might just be nonsensical after all should also not be discounted just yet. 4. As for the reading itself, the other mould sheds some light: the first three letters are definitely ‘EVO’ and the last three either ‘DVS’ with retrograde ‘D’ or ‘CVS’. It’s the 4th and 5th letter that remain enigmatic. By comparing the two moulds and other examples, it becomes clear that the 5th letter is not an E (as I personally first thought, given the similar blocky appearance to the first letter), but rather has a distinct crossbar. N seems most likely imho, although H or A are also possible. Based on the (percieved) open top on the other mould, I’d argue for either of the first two. The 4th letter is the most difficult. Interpretations of ‘R’, ‘P’ and ‘L’ become tricky when looking at the other mould. Yet, what is it? Perhaps a C, turned down on the other mould? G? A sort of Lombardic N, which would make reading the 4th letter as a N difficult? An Omega? Something nonsensical? Any Ideas? All this is underpinned by the assumption that these inscriptions show the exact same letters, a fact which is not even that certain! It remains an absolutely fascinating piece of history and happy it has a direct wider context in which it can be put. Maybe Bouke-Jan has some more theories! It only rests me to say: I think you got an absolute steal on this gorgeous piece....

Woah! Terrific piece @robinjojo! The move of the mint of Holland to Amsterdam in 1672-73 is an amazing story. These piedforts and similar strikes were specifically produced in relatively large quantities as souvenirs (to the financial benefit of the mint master) for the citizens of Amsterdam that could visit the mint after the initial danger of the French invasion had subsided and the collected silver from the special loan was transformed into the rough ducatons from the initial 1672 and early 1673 type (in total ca. 1.4 million ducatons were struck!). The amount of different types/dies and also the amount special strikes is simply mesmerizing for a series that officially lasted just 12 months. The former was likely due to the haste with which the mint was set up and the relative inexperience of the mint workers, the latter due to the fascination of the Amsterdam people with the fact that they now had their very own mint! A fact they were all too proud of, as testified by some of the edge inscriptions on the later souvenir pieces (TER GEDACHTENISSE VAN DE MUNTE VAN AMSTEDAM ‘For remembrance of the mint of Amsterdam’). Most of these special strikes were produced after the mint already closed in the private studio of the famous Christoffel Adolphi, who was the only person in Amsterdam with a milling machine and the only person in the whole of the Northern Netherlands with a machine that could apply edge inscriptions. At that time, these piedforts and related strikes could simply be bought from him for a fee, as with a lot of the designs made by Adolphi (1671-2 Dukaton trial for Holland, Utrecht rijksdaalder 1680, etc.). The exact typology is rather complex, but yours belongs to a group that used dies produced by Roelof Hensbergen, but which we are not entirely sure where to put in the relative chronology. It seems to have been either just before or after the closing of the mint in November 1673. One of these, preferably with the edge inscriptions from Adolphi, is also on my wishlist! I’d love to see the 1578 siege coin! I am still looking for a larger denomination, as I only have a single small 5 stuiver piece (which I need to reshoot in a proper resolution): Blockade of Amsterdam 1578, emergency silver five Stuiver. Emission of january 5th 1578. ‘Briquet’ Hallmark above, identity of silversmith unknown. Crowned coat of arms of Amsterdam – V S 1578 / Engraved ‘IM’ or ‘WI’. 3.32 grams. CNM 2.02.16; Van Gelder 116a. Ex. Künker 2017

Some fascinating Dutch coins have already been shared here; from very early sceattas to the modern kingdom! I haven’t posted a lot here and over on CT recently, mostly due to having shifted away my primary interest of Chinese coinage, from which some of you might know me, onto a particular subset of coins my home country, which just so happens to be the Netherlands! So naturally, I have some nice additions to the topic… Earlier in the topic, @The Eidolon shared a ‘Mokumse’ florijn, a coin you could pay with in Amsterdam for a very short time in 1975 to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the city. The design we see on the obverse of that token was actually derived from a particularly rare and monumental series of coins issued in 1601; perhaps one of the first coinages struck on the orders of a private company! United Amsterdam Company, Silver Reaal or schelling (of 48 duiten), 1601. Struck in the provincial Dordrecht mint by mintmaster Jacob Janszoon De Jonge. Coat of arms of Holland - 1601 INSIGNIA HOLLANDIÆ / Coat of arms of Amsterdam - ET CIVITATIS AMSTELREDAMENSIS. 3.32 gram, 24 mm. CNO 1.4; Scholten 4. Ex Prof. Dr. J.W. Wurfbain (1816-1888). Full resolution. Before the founding of the United East-India company in 1602, the Dutch trade with the east was a rather decentralized affair; lots of different companies, funded by wealthy merchants and bankers, often formed for single journeys, competing with each other for maximum profit. One of the larger ones, the Company of Distant Trade was founded in Amsterdam in 1594 and proved with its first voyage that the trade was definitely profitable if done on a proper scale. It later merged twice with the New Company in 1598 and again with the Brabantsche company in 1600 to form the United Amsterdam Company that held a monopoly granted by the city of Amsterdam on the trade with the east. The preferred payment there naturally was the Spanish reale; the whole situation in Europe meant acquiring the huge quantities required was difficult for these Dutch merchants. Thus, the company enquired with the Estate-General and the city council of Amsterdam if they were allowed to strike their own reales. This was confirmed on the 7th of march 1601, after having checked with the governor in Bantam, albeit on two conditions. They could not circulate within the Netherlands and they needed to carry the coat of arms Holland and Amsterdam specifically, to further the reputation of these entities in the east. The inscription directly testifies to this. The contract to mint these reales was given to Jacob Jansz. De Jonge, the mintmaster in Dordrecht, who due to the private nature of this contract, did not need to pay any commission to the estates of Holland or the estates-general. The emission must have been rather small and I have yet to see evidence they were actually exported. According to the Salvesen count, 17 examples of this one reaal denomination are known. While with all the examples in museum collections the accurate amount of surviving examples is surely a little bit higher, it is an exceptional rarity and one that had been on my wishlist forever. To complete the full set of all denominations of this emission (Eight Reaal to the quarter Reaal) is considered a major feat in Dutch numismatics, with the rarity and desirability of especially the higher denominations making it exceptionally difficult, even on a limitless budget. While it was certainly a bit easier in the 19th century, even then only a few dedicated collectors have managed it. One such collector was J.W. Wurfbain (1816-1888), a wealthy Amsterdam banker that collected everything related to his city, from old maps to books, Rembrandts to even a few coins/medals. His collection sold via auction house Müller between the 18-21th of March 1907. Lot 260 in that catalogue, luckily fully pictured, is his complete set; the one reaal is my example! Now only to re-complete the rest of his set… Another fave of mine: Province of Zeeland, Silver Piedfort Dukaat 1694 (on double weight). Middelburg mint, mintmaster Hendrik van Dusseldorp. Standing knight with coat of arms of Zeeland - MO NO ARG PRO CONFŒ BELG COM ZEL / Crowned arms of the Generality – CONCORDIA RES PARVÆ CRESCUN. 56.15 gram, 40 mm. CNM 2.49.50; Delmonte 976a. Ex Van Stockum auction Feb 1943. Full resolution. A piedfort is a special type of strike using the regular dies, but on a much thicker planchet and thus a higher weight than the usual coin, in this case double the standard weight (for other types, even triple or quadruple piedforts are known!). Silver Ducats/Dukaten are already somewhat hefty at around 28 grams, so this piedfort is massive at 56.15 grams! it is difficult to see from these pictures, but its thickness is truly absurd. These were obviously not meant for circulation, but rather presentation pieces gifted to high ranking officials within the republic. The 1694 piedfort Dukaat from Zeeland is known from less than 10 examples in total, of which less than half are in private hands. The sheer size, patina and provenance make this one of my all-time favourite coins. Another Daalder of Thorn (which is not and has never been in Belgium 😁) : Imperial-abbey of Thorn, Margaretha Van Brederode (1531-1577). Daalder of 30 stuivers 1563. Coat of arms of the abbess complete with tourney helmet – MARGARE D BREDEROD AB FVN SE THOREN / Single-headed eagle from the coat of arms of Thorn – DENARIVS NOVVS TRIGINTA STVFERORVM. 28.23 grams, 40 mm. CNM 2.42.16. Ex Virgil M. Brand (1862-1926). Full Resolution A family member of Margaretha that also struck coins, perhaps the most well-known Van Brederode, for his founding role in the Dutch revolt: Lordship of Vianen, Hendrik Van Brederode (1556-1568). Silver Daalder, ca. 1557-1567. Bust of the lord left with helmet – NISI DOMINVS FRVSTRA / Coat of arms of Vianen-Van Brederode with their respective tourney helmets – MONE NO HE D D BRE LI D VY. 27.97 gram, 41 mm. CNM 2.45.11. Very neat medal! These weren’t actually struck in 1574, but rather later from ca. 1585 onwards as part of the extensive series of Triomfpenningen (‘triumphmedals’) ordered by the estates-general and the estates of Holland made by Gerard Van Bylaer (1553 – 1617), the head engraver of the provincial mint of Holland. They were first struck in Dordrecht ca. 1585, although the dies were kept and used to strike examples up until at least 1622. From the archives, we known of a few specific instances where off-metal gold strikes were made for different foreign ambassadors, as well as important Dutch figures in the 1590’s. Two different reverse dies are known; your example shares the same one as all known gold off-metal strikes and the example we know to have been struck ca. 1622. Whether this means that the other die (with a more heavily burning entrenchment of Zoeterwoude), which is MUCH rarer, was used first remains up for debate. I am unaware of anyone having dove deeper into the weights of these pieces. At 48.2mm yours is slightly bigger than most examples as well. The medals of Van Bylaer remain some of the most gorgeous pieces of the early republic and have this unique fabric and style you instantly recognise!

Excellent coins and fantastic breakdown @Lhevae! And to illustrate; Chinese coins don't even need inscriptions and calligraphy to be beautiful!