Ian

Hey Dave, I don't have a Hungarian denar that is older, but I have one that is just a year younger.

Here's a few examples of French `emergency' money or `monnaie de necessite' as it was called. The first two were issued during world war I. The first is a 10c from Marseilles dated 1916, the second a 10c from Besancon dated 1917. The next five were all issued post war and in order of appearance are Nice 10c 1920, Rouen 25c 1920, Eure et Loire 25c 1922, La Rochelle 25c 1922, and an Evreux 1 fr 1922.

The reason behind the issuance of these coins is fairly straight forward but requires a lengthy explanation. I'll try my best. After World War I the french economy was in dire straits, as was that of Germany and most other european countries. There was a general lack of coinagewhich in no small part was due to France doggedly sticking with the silver standard in issuance of its 50c, 1 fr and 2 fr coins up to and including 1920 due to the prevailing mantra of the time `Le bosche payera!' (the germans will pay!). They were of course relying on Germany making good on demands by the allies for war reparations, which frankly were very unrealistic. Germany simply did not have the resources to make good on expectations. Hence no silver and coin shortages. Although some coinage was being produced it was not sufficient to satisfy the demand throughout the land. This led on to the emergence of private tokens to facilitate trade locally.Then there was stamp money (monnaie de timbre) followed by numerous local Chambers of Commerce issuing their own token coinage (or `notgeld'). The latter were (with a few exceptions) usually small denomination aluminium coins for 5c, 10, 10c, 25c and 50c and only valid on a very local basis. It forms a whole collecting area in its own right. I've a few of these and will scan them sometime this week. However, although linked to the history and raison d'etre of the `bon pour' Mercury coinage , the brass `bon pour' coinages (using an engraving by Domard as its obverse) were official. The National Chamber of Commerce agreed with the government to issue nationally acceptable 50c, 1fr, and 2 fr coins. However because of the political sentiment prevailing mentioned previously (le bosche payera) and the belief that France would return to the use of silver coinage, the brass coinage was always seen as only being an interim feature and that these would indeed be replaced /exchanged in due course with silver. Hence the use of `bon pour' (good for). As we know, France never did return to silver coinage and as such they remained in circulation until they were eventually demonetised. The brass `bon pour' 50c was issued between 1921 -1929, the 1 fr and 2 fr between (1920 -1927). All bear the same obverse design . There are some variations which make for interesting collecting (including partial die fills with the engravers name and dates partially obliterated; open 5's closed 5's open 4's closed 4's, overstruck dates etc). It's a relatively cheap and rewarding way to start learning about die states and variations. The later dates for the 1 fr and 2fr of this type are very much sought after and can cost an arm and a leg in higher grades. Hope that provide you with some insight.

Charles IX was made king of France at the ripe old age of 10 following the sudden death of his brother Francis II. Charles ruled from 1560 to 1574 (mainly under the tutelage of his mother Catherine De Medici. In 1570 (november 26th) he married Elisabeth of Austria, (daughter of Maximillian II, Holy Roman Emperor. As to your item, I can't tell from the images what size the item is, what the metal is, and whether or not it is from the period concerned or a modern made item. Sorry. However, it in all likelyhood commemorates the marriage of Charles IX and Elisabeth in 1570. If it is circa 27 - 28mm diameter and silver, then the likelyhood is that it is a presentation piece made for the royal household staff and dignatories of that time. If larger, then it probably falls into the `medal' category...about which I know even less. ;-)

My thanks go to scoutjim99 for his excellent tracking skills!! He has managed to successfully attribute this coin to being a copper dirham of Nasir al-Din Artuk Arslan atabeg of Mardin (1200-39 AD), minted at Mardin in 620AH (that is, 1223 AD) The obverse is the bust of the Roman Emperor Claudius. The reverse of the coin cites Ayyubid al-Kamil (1218-38) and caliph al-Nasir (1180-1225). Apparently it is referenced in Stephen Album's "Checklist of Islamic" as A#1830.7, with a rarity rating of "scarce" (not really rare, but not common either). scoutjim99 managed to find the coin on Jim Robert's site (tenth coin down on the page) http://users.javanet.com/j/-/j-roberts/art.htm scoutjim99, my hat is off to you. Take a bow. Ian

Brilliant. Copy to your hearts content as far as i'm concerned. Ian

Any positive ID of this coin would be appreciated. It's copper, roughly half crown sized and i'm led to believe it is of Urtuk Arslan of Mardin (1200 - 1239 AD). Mediaeval Islamic coins are not exactly my hottest area of expertise so i'm lost on this. I had thopught that a portrait on an islamic coin was a no-no though (?) So i'm even more lost.....

A few years back I won a competition on r.c.c. The prize was a 1986 proof set which this coin is from. The competition went along the lines of `there's an Australian coin that provides positive evidence that there are aliens hiding right here on earth. Which coin is it?' Well, this is the coin. if you look very closely at Mrs Echidna's nose you'll see the alien in hiding.

Here's the `blue' one.

I was lucky. I managed to get hold of two of the first issue. I kept this up with the second and third, but decided to call a halt on my Austrian niobium collection when I saw the khaki coloured one. To me it looks like it has an alu/bronze centre. Mimicing a base metal doesn't exactly show off the potential of niobium to its best advantage IMHO. Ian

Very nice `potins' indeed. Fascinating subject area, and one which I have avoided (to date) because I can't afford to have any more `interest areas'. While I still have a goodly few coins on my `hammered's' list to acquire I can see that it is going to be a struggle for me to stay away from these little bitties for much longer...... Bill, not all that many people will know what a `potin' is, let alone where they come from. If you could say a few words concerning same it would (IMHO) add to the `backdrop' for these particular ancient pieces. Ian

Nice coins Jorge. I keep looking into the flames now on your Sassanians...... Out of interest how does the weight of the top decadrachm compare with the real McCoy? It looks to me that the word `copy' could be easily obliterated. It looks a lot more realistic than the one someone tried to foist off on me as the real McCoy a couple of years back.

Thanks for the info Art. That would explain. I would probably have leaned more towards brass than bronze, although it looks `bronzy' in places much the way you would imagine it showing through a thin coating. Hence my assumption that it was gilt bronze. Probably a combination of the metal mix and some natural toning. The effect is quite pleasant in any event. :-)

I know what you mean about `demand'. Even though the original issue number was low, if there ain't that many people actively interested in collecting them their value is pretty insignificant. I wonder how many out of that original 1,000 have survived through to present time though, given that this one has somehow managed to find its way across the Atlantic. :-) Through sheer co-incidence, my favourite US coin is the Oregon Trail $1/2. I also love the history of the Oregon Trail. Of course the gold coin depicted on this medallion fits very well indeed with these interests. Just on a point of clarity though, shouldn't your database read `gilt bronze' ? I wouldn't have thought that there would have been any of these issued in just plain bronze given that it is supposedly representative of a gold coin (?). Ian

A timely post since it reminded me of something i've had in my collection for a few years now. :-) It seems to have been issued for the 68th Annual Convention of the ANA at Portland, Oregon in 1959. Also commemorates 100th Anniversary of the State of Oregon. A rather posh kind of ID tag is it not? Presumably issued to officers (?). :-)

Absolutely brilliant! Couldn't ask for more info as to its origins and purpose. Many thanks indeed for taking the trouble ! I'm just slightly puzzled though, as this one certainly doesn't strike me as being gilt over a base metal, but yet it does not have any hallmarking either on the edge or per the location noted in your friends comments. No doubt i'll come across a reason for that particular anomaly at some point. Probably my perceptions at fault. I'll go dig it out again and have a closer look now cheers,

Thanks for the reference. I'm astonished to learn that it is noted as `rare'. I'd be interested to learn if your friends book has anything to add. Ian

This medal (auspiciously dated 1830) ended up in my possession about ten years ago as part of a job lot. I always intended to find out more about it, but that intention must have dropped off the edge of a cliff somewhere. If anyone knows anything concerning it that is likely to be of interest, please chirp in. Ian

when you want to add an image into your message just click on the box marked IMG You are then prompted to type in the web address where the image is located, then click `ok'. The board's software does the necessary for you. It is as simple as that. Of course, that is presuming that you have the image on a web page in the first place. Most ISP's provide you with webspace, but there are many image hosting services you can use. Omnicoin being one of them. Ian

The key difference is noticeable when you have the two types in hand. The mirror finish on the proof is in the fields and the devices are frosted. The `proof likes' are frosted fields but the devices have a polished look to them rather than the deep mirror effect produced with the proof strike. Different die finishes.

They are probably best described as `proof like'. The frosted surfaces achieved are amazing though, and produce some amazing colourations when they tone. Ian

That 1995 flying kook of mine is very definitely a proof coin. Heavily frosted devices in very deep mirror finished fields. Don't be put off by the occasional flecks. They are marks on the glass of the scanner. Ian

I dug out my 1999 copy of KM . In it the $1 series `Australian Kookaburra' (An Aussie Kook?) starts with KM 164 in 1992, but there's also KM209 `Kookaburra Feeding Nestling' (Kooky Times?) dated 1992. In 1993 we have THREE different designs. The same two from the previous year and a new one, 212.1 `Pair of Kookaburras' (Just a Couple of Kooks?). In 1994 we have two designs. KM212.1 again and a new design KM260 `Kookaburra on Branch' (Kook on a Stick to Go?) In 1995 we have two designs. KM260 again and a new design KM289.1 `Kookaburra in Flight' (as used in the aboriginal game of darts?). In 1996 the KM289.1 design was issued again.....and there my KM's referencing ends. Presumably there being at least two different designs each year, this trend has been maintained to present time (?). Can anyone with a more up to date KM than me confirm? Ah well, nothing untowards with the two different types I have for 1995 then. At least, my 1995 flying Kook is noted as a `proof' with a mintage of only 4,900. Maybe one day it'll be worth more than the $2 over the 1996 that KM notes . Then again maybe not. Maybe KM will issue a correction that the figure was really 4,900,000. Now THAT would be more in keeping with my luck of late. Ian

Here's the two different 1995's I have, and the 1999.