NumisMattic2200 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Tari of Naples and Sicily, Carlo II (1689AGA) (Pannuti 17). Small area of dark deposit on edge, otherwise about Extremely Fine. Have acquired a real beauty at auction! Unfortunately, I have no information on this lovely-looking coin, so I thought I'd make a post... Does anyone know what the AGA after the date stands for? Any information on the portrait? All other information gladly gleaned. Other link to a 1689 Tari http://www.muenzauktion.com/sesambestcoins...=es&id=4498 (lovely grade Others.. http://www.coins2.com/imgsearch/italy/50/1...-of-Naples.html http://cgi.ebay.it/Napoli-Carlo-II-1674-17...=item3a543d7c57 This one looks scratches, is it really worth it? (250 Euros) http://auction.nomismaweb.com/item.php?id=11587 Another!!.. http://auction.nomismaweb.com/item.php?id=11586 (From this latter, I get a useful Google translation) "Lot description:Charles II (1674-1700) Tarì 1689 Naples - · CAROLVS · - · II o DG REX · · HIS · bareheaded and draped bust, armored collar of the Golden Fleece, right and behind, AG /? Following · (Antonio Junior, Master of the Mint and Francesco Antonio Aryans, the master of evidence) and below, within, · IM · in link (John Montemein, engraver). - R / · VTRIVS · SICI · - · HIERVS · G · XX · crest crowned hanging from the Golden Fleece and below, within, 16-89 - CNI 298. P.R. 17. AG (g 5.07) Beautiful patina of old collection, beautiful specimen" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Don't know the slightest about it, but that is nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lopezcoins Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 http://numismatica-italiana.lamoneta.it/moneta/W-C2/11 AG = Andrea Giovane A = Marco Antonio Ariani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiho Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Beautiful coin and in amazing condition, looks AU to me. Are we 100% sure it's the real deal? It almost seems too good to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Beautiful coin and in amazing condition, looks AU to me. Are we 100% sure it's the real deal? It almost seems too good to be true. Yeah, how much do you think it's worth? So the 'AGA' mysteru has been solved - anyone know what the fancy 'M' monogram is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 If you compare the reverses, they are from different dies. Most noticeable differences are; 1. The XX on the worn coin they are overlapping and touching the crown, whereas on yours they are spaced apart from each other & the crown. 2. The VT on yours are touching & the T very thin & missing the left downstroke, whereas the VT on the worn coin are spaced apart with very clear downstrokes on the T. 3. The V in HIERVS is above the curve on the shield on one & below it on the other. The obverses are also different, just not quite as obvious though. All this shows is different dies were used for the 2 coins, not if both or either are genuine, or both or either are fakes. I have never seen one of these coins before so can offer no other help to you Matt regarding value or authenticity. I hope yours is 'the real deal' though, because in that condition it must be quite valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Hi Constanius - I know it's worth "something"... because it was paid (by me for the coin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Hi Matt, It could also be a contemporary copy and be worth a lot! Good luck with it, hope you make a packet PS. Great looking coin. Could that fancy M be SA? have another look for me, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Hi Matt, It could also be a contemporary copy and be worth a lot! Good luck with it, hope you make a packet PS. Great looking coin. Who said I was selling it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Who said I was selling it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 If you compare the reverses, they are from different dies. Most noticeable differences are; 1. The XX on the worn coin they are overlapping and touching the crown, whereas on yours they are spaced apart from each other & the crown. 2. The VT on yours are touching & the T very thin & missing the left downstroke, whereas the VT on the worn coin are spaced apart with very clear downstrokes on the T. 3. The V in HIERVS is above the curve on the shield on one & below it on the other. The obverses are also different, just not quite as obvious though. All this shows is different dies were used for the 2 coins, not if both or either are genuine, or both or either are fakes. I have never seen one of these coins before so can offer no other help to you Matt regarding value or authenticity. I hope yours is 'the real deal' though, because in that condition it must be quite valuable. The reverse die for the 1689 piece illustrated at the link listed by coins appears to be the same die as Matt's piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 No blaming the Duke of Berry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The reverse die for the 1689 piece illustrated at the link listed by coins appears to be the same die as Matt's piece. It sure does look like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The reverse die for the 1689 piece illustrated at the link listed by coins appears to be the same die as Matt's piece. Oh yeah, was missing that.. must've been too busy. That would make it an incredible copy A couple more I found - still trying to find good information on the designs etc... One on eBay now: http://cgi.ebay.it/Napoli-Carlo-II-1674-17...=item3a543d7c57 A slashed and pierced Charles II found on Vcoins (designs are also different) http://www.coins2.com/imgsearch/italy/50/1...-of-Naples.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 At least you found some idea of its value, the 'Duke' said well done Matt & enjoy the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 ... & enjoy the weekend. You too! The Rovers are playing soon this afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Charles II of Spain Charles II of Spain (Carlos Segundo) (November 6, 1661 – November 1, 1700) was king of Spain, Naples, and Sicily, nearly all of Italy (except Piedmont, the Papal States and Venice), and Spain's overseas Empire, stretching from Mexico to the Philippines. Charles was the only surviving son of his Habsburg predecessor, King Philip IV of Spain and his second Queen (and niece), Mariana of Austria, another Habsburg. His birth was greeted with joy by the Spaniards, who feared the disputed succession which could have ensued if Philip IV had left no male heir. That is why the coat-of-arms/shield is so crowded, Spain on its own includes Aragon, Castile etc, then add in Naples, Sicily and all the rest mentioned........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Charles II of Spain Charles II of Spain (Carlos Segundo) (November 6, 1661 – November 1, 1700) was king of Spain, Naples, and Sicily, nearly all of Italy (except Piedmont, the Papal States and Venice), and Spain's overseas Empire, stretching from Mexico to the Philippines. Charles was the only surviving son of his Habsburg predecessor, King Philip IV of Spain and his second Queen (and niece), Mariana of Austria, another Habsburg. His birth was greeted with joy by the Spaniards, who feared the disputed succession which could have ensued if Philip IV had left no male heir. That is why the coat-of-arms/shield is so crowded, Spain on its own includes Aragon, Castile etc, then add in Naples, Sicily and all the rest mentioned........ WOW! Great information , and a pretty powerful King! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 WOW! Great information , and a pretty powerful King! Charles II from The Columbia Encyclopedia: Charles II 1661-1700, king of Spain, Naples, and Sicily (1665-1700), son and successor of Philip IV. The last of the Spanish Hapsburgs, he was physically crippled and mentally retarded. His mother, Mariana of Austria, was regent for him and continued to rule after his majority. Her bias in favor of Austria aroused opposition, and she was forced into exile (1677) by Charles's illegitimate brother, John of Austria . After John's death (1679) she again exercised power. Charles's reign saw the continued loss of Spanish foreign power, as was evident in the War of Devolution and the War of the Grand Alliance , and a severe decline in Spain's economy, society, and intellectual life. The indolent grandees and the clergy regained a political role. Tax exemptions for privileged groups brought high taxes on industry and agriculture, and emigration increased. Before his death the childless Charles named Philip of Anjou as his heir. Philip's succession (as Philip V) provoked the War of the Spanish Succession. That's what inbreeding does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.