Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Denier misattributed to Charlemagne


Carloman879
 Share

Recommended Posts

Peus Auktion 400 has lot 1099 identified as a denier of Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne), Morrison/Grunthal 172. The reverse legend has METxVLLO. This feature relegates the coin to the reign of Charles the Bald and later (see Morrison/Grunthal 1064). Six days ago I sent an email to Peus expressing my concern.

So far they have not responded or changed their attribution. The difference in value is significant, and I hope that some collector isn't burned by paying way too much for the coin.

 

Carloman879

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, there are two examples of this type on French ebay, each with the title, "CHARLEMAGNE - Denier de Melle - Qualite!" In each instance, the finer print goes on to give the qualification, "Charlemagne ou Charles II le Chauve."

The scholarship establishing the METxVLLO variant as being of Charles II or later appears to be recent. It certainly goes sailing over my head --other than what I've seen online, versus in print. Roberts, The Silver Coins of Medieval France (the best reference in English) is of no help. Varieties of Melle (Roberts #1012, attributed to Charlemagne, and 1257, attr. to Charles II /the Bald) are entirely different. Roberts' listings of this issue (#1271-87) inexplicably neglect Melle, one of the commonest mints for Charles the Bald. Generally, his later variety, with the 'GRATIA D_I" legend (issued from 864) is better known... allowing for this measure of ambiguity regarding what are, according to the best and most current numismatic consensus, issues of Charles the Bald.

Caveat emptor!

 

quote name='Carloman879' date='Apr 10 2010, 07:33 PM' post='492454']

Peus Auktion 400 has lot 1099 identified as a denier of Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne), Morrison/Grunthal 172. The reverse legend has METxVLLO. This feature relegates the coin to the reign of Charles the Bald and later (see Morrison/Grunthal 1064). Six days ago I sent an email to Peus expressing my concern.

So far they have not responded or changed their attribution. The difference in value is significant, and I hope that some collector isn't burned by paying way too much for the coin.

 

Carloman879

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

A staff member of Peus finally responded to me stating that I am correct, the coin is of Charles the Bald and not of

Charlemagne. As far as I can tell the on-line description at Sixbid was never corrected but no harm was done as the

coin remained unsold.

 

Carloman 879

 

 

 

Currently, there are two examples of this type on French ebay, each with the title, "CHARLEMAGNE - Denier de Melle - Qualite!" In each instance, the finer print goes on to give the qualification, "Charlemagne ou Charles II le Chauve."

The scholarship establishing the METxVLLO variant as being of Charles II or later appears to be recent. It certainly goes sailing over my head --other than what I've seen online, versus in print. Roberts, The Silver Coins of Medieval France (the best reference in English) is of no help. Varieties of Melle (Roberts #1012, attributed to Charlemagne, and 1257, attr. to Charles II /the Bald) are entirely different. Roberts' listings of this issue (#1271-87) inexplicably neglect Melle, one of the commonest mints for Charles the Bald. Generally, his later variety, with the 'GRATIA D_I" legend (issued from 864) is better known... allowing for this measure of ambiguity regarding what are, according to the best and most current numismatic consensus, issues of Charles the Bald.

Caveat emptor!

 

quote name='Carloman879' date='Apr 10 2010, 07:33 PM' post='492454']

Peus Auktion 400 has lot 1099 identified as a denier of Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne), Morrison/Grunthal 172. The reverse legend has METxVLLO. This feature relegates the coin to the reign of Charles the Bald and later (see Morrison/Grunthal 1064). Six days ago I sent an email to Peus expressing my concern.

So far they have not responded or changed their attribution. The difference in value is significant, and I hope that some collector isn't burned by paying way too much for the coin.

 

Carloman879

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...