Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
AMERICAN
NUMISMATIC
MUSEUM
SOCIETY
NOTES
VII
THE AMERICAN
NUMISMATIC
SOCIETY
NEW YORK
1957
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:54:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALL RIGHTSRESERVEDBY
THE AMERICAN
NUMISMATIC
SOCIETY
GLCKSTADT
AT J.J.AUGUSTIN,
PRINTEDIN GERMANY
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:54:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTENTS
ANCIENT
Margaret Thompson, A Hoard of Athenian Fractions
i
Sidney P. Noe. Overstrikesof Magna Graecia
13
Alfred R. Bellinger. The Earliest Coins of Ilium
43
Edmund Zygman, A Tetradrachm of Azes II struck at Sangala-Euthydemia
52
Theodore V. Buttrey, Jr. On the Retariffingof the Roman
Denarius
57
C. H. V. Sutherland. Diocletian as "Aeternus Augustus."
67
Aline Abaecherli Boyce. Coins of the Roman World:
Selected Accessions, 1953 and Other NoteworthyPieces
71
Mabel Lang. A Roman Bronze Weight fromEgypt
91
Louis C. West. The Relation of Subsidiary Coinage to Gold
under Valerian and Gallienus
95
Howard L. Adelson. A Note on the MiliarensefromConstantine
to Heraclius
125
mediaeval and modern
Henry Grunthal. A Hoard of Rhenish Schsselpfennige
137
Herbert J. Erlanger. Some German Counterstamps of the
Late SeventeenthCenturyand the Standard of the Leipzig
Convention
143
Robert I. Nesmith. The Coins of Luis I of Spain
185
ORIENTAL
George C. Miles. Some Arab-Sasanian and Related Coins
181
Earle R. Cale y. ChemicalComposition of Some Early Dirhems 211
Paul Bedoukian. The Bilingual Coins of Hetoum I (1226-1270)
King of Cilician Armenia
219
iii
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:54:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
iv
CONTENTS
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:54:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
257
GERMAN
OF THE LATE
SOME
COUNTERSTAMPS
SEVENTEENTH
AND THE
CENTURY
STANDARD
OF THE LEIPZIG
CONVENTION
(See Plate XXI)
In 1955 the American Numismatic Society acquired a guldiner
of August Frederick, Bishop of Lbeck with two counterstamps
(Plate XXI, 1). One is a counterstamp showing the three crowns,
the arms of the city of Cologne and the figure48 indicatingthe value
of 48 Albus; the other shows a lion rampant to the left,the arms of
the Duchy of Jlich.1The date is partly obliterated, but appears to
be 1688, and the design of the coin shows it is Lange no. 508 a.2
At about the same time the writeracquired a guldinerof Henneberg
of 1692, with two counterstamps (Plate XXI, 2), one being that of
the Franconian Circle and the other an oval with the monogram
COLNin script.
This may serve as a convenient occasion to publish several other
counterstampedpieces of the period that are in the collectionsof the
American Numismatic Society and the writer,and to examine the
monetarysignificanceof these various counterstamps,their history,
and their relation to one another.
I. As is well known in the latter part of the seventeenth century
the Holy Roman Empire experienced a monetary inflation that
upset the relative stability which, based on the Imperial Laws of
1559/1566,had reignedfora centurywithbut forone brief,ifviolent,
interruptionat the start of the Thirty Years War.
Unlike that earlier inflationwhich had consisted largely in the
flooding of the Empire with debased minor coinage, this later
inflationconsistedchieflyofthe excessive coinage ofguldenorguldiner
which claimed to be equal in silver countent to two thirds of a
1 It was erronneously
describedas a counterstamp
of Holland in the ProoftheAmericanNumismatic
Society1956,p. 25.
ceedings
2 Lange,I, p205.
IO*
I43
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
145
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
147
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
149
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
151
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
153
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
154
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
155
is just across the Rhine from Cologne and the use of two different
counterstamps in the same geographical territorycould not have
failed to cause confusion.But these are speculations and possibilities,
perhaps probabilities and no more.
We do know for certain, however, that the stamp was used, that
it designated guldiner of the full Leipzig standard and that it was
affixedby the City or the Elector ofCologneorboth. The cityprobably
did so at the behest of the Westphalian Circle and the stamping
probably started prior to 1693. As shown by the Hildesheim guldiner
of 1695, it continued at least into that year.
c) Anothercounterstampthat was applied to designate pieces that
were of the full value of the Leipzig standard was that of Johann
Wilhelm, Elector Palatine and Duke of Jlich-Berg.It consists of
an orb with cross in an oval and apparently alludes to the dignity
of Archdapiferwhich the Electors Palatine had possessed until 1623,
but no longer possessed in 1691. It was by an edict of Sept. 5th of
that year1 that this counterstamp was instituted and it is there
described as "the sign of the world," the orb, indeed, being a symbol
of the Emperor's domination over the world.2Accordingto the edict
only guldiner of "counts" that reached the full value of the Leipzig
standard were to be counterstamped,but actually the only coin with
this counterstamp that seems to be known to anyone is a guldiner
of Emden of 1689.
Friederich3erroneously calls it a counterstampof the Palatinate,
but Schttle4 corrects this. The decree of Sept. 4, 1691, shows
clearly that the counterstamp was meant for the Duchies of Jlich
and Berg only,although JohannWilhelmwas also Elector Palatine.
The fact that the counterstampappears on the guldinerof Emden
although Emden is not a "count" is explained if it is remembered
that in the hierarchyof the Empire the Free Cities ranked behind the
counts and thus theircoins were ipso factosubject to counterstamping
if those of the counts were. Actually, and apart of these questions of
1 Reprinted,
Hgen,p. 435i.
"
2 Wrterbuch
p. 226 under Globus."
3 P. 80; similarpieces,possiblythe same pieces,are listedin Jungfer
Coll.,
no. 2487,and Noss,JlichII, no. 800.
P. 48.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
157
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
159
And, indeed, these are exactly the coins we know with the stamp
with the horse.
We may thereforeconclude that the counterstampwith the horse
is the one mentioned in the Recess of 1688, and was applied in the
period immediatelyfollowing.Moreover,even if,despite the language
of the Recess, the stamp was not affixedon the guldinerof the standard of the Recess beforethey left the mint- and we do know specimens without the stamp- it is highly unlikely that the counterstamping continued after the adoption of the Leipzig standard. All
the tariffspublished after that time show quite clearly that the
guldinerof the Leipzig standard circulated at exactly the same value
as the older ones of highersilvercontentand so therewould certainly
have been no reason to continue to counterstamp separately those
on the 1688 standard. Equally unlikely is the assumption that the
stamp could have been used after1690, to mark guldinerofthe Leipzig
standard. As already said, none are known and in addition we know
that forthis purpose the coln stamp was used in the main commercial
city of the Circle and perhaps elsewhere.
Our finalconclusion thus would be that the use ofthe counterstamp
with the horse was discontinued before the adoption of the Leipzig
standard in the Westphalian Circleand that thereafterthe coln stamp
came in use at some subsequent date for the purpose of marking
guldiner according to that standard (or a better one) that could
continue to circulate.
As for Schttle's statement that the Rietberg guldinerof 1688apparentlythe only one he knew with the counterstamp- was insufficientto justify its counterstampingin 1688, there seems to be no
evidence to support it. Schttle himself quotes none, while Hess1
says specificallythat the guldiner of Cologne of 1689, are exactly of
the same weightas those of Rietbergof 1688, and the Cologne guldiner
of 1688 and 1689 are known to have been coined in compliance with
the Recess of 1688.2 It might be objected that Hess refersto the
weight only, and that the alloy of the Rietberg guldiner might be
insufficient.
Now it is in itselfnot very likely that the Count of Rietberg, one of the least powerful Estates of the Westphalian Circle
1 P. 166.
2 Noss,Cologne
, p. 226.
ii*
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i6o
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
should have dared openly to flout an edict of the Circle in the very
year in which it was issued and especially when he was under obligation to deliver specimens to the Warden of the Circle for assay.
Moreover, Buse1 says specifically that the Rietberg guldiner and
half-guldinerof 1688, were struck in conformancewith the standard
set by the Westphalian Circle in 1688, had a weight of 18.705g.
and contained 14.029g. of fine silver. If, as the Recess seems to
stipulate, each piece was examined and stamped by Post, Longerich
or Newers even before it left the mint, then there can certainly
be no doubt that they must have met the required standard.
Schttle's opinion of the intrinsic value of the Rietberg guldiner
of 1688 cannot, therefore,be accepted and it can only be surmised
that he was misled by the fact that this guldiner appears in a set of
coin illustrationsappended to an edict of the Senate of the City of
Frankfurtof February 16, 1693, (where it is labelled "Ostfriesland").2
This edict validates all the illustratedguldinerforfurthercirculation,
most of them being obviously struck according to the Leipzig
standard. But, of course, in 1693, Frankfurt was only interested
whether these guldinerhad that value as a minimum. If they had,
they could continue to circulate and if they were better it was immaterial.
8. The second category of counterstamps connected with the
standard of the Leipzig Convention are those that were affixedto
show that a coin was insufficientaccording to that standard. Since
it was the predestined fate of such coins eventually to be called in
and melted down, they are naturally much less plentifultoday than
those bearing stamps testifyingto their full value according to the
Leipzig standard. In fact, in one case, at least, not a single specimen
seems to have survived.
a) The earliest of these stamps in chonological order is that of the
County of Hanau.3 It has its origin in an instruction of the
Hanau government to its mintmaster Sebastian Mller dated December 29, 1690,4 which ordered him to counterstamp all guldiner
1 P. 313 (63).
2 Lucius,II, pp. 188if.,Plate g
8 Suchierp. 105; Schttle,p. 47; Friederich,
p. 53.
4 Reprinted
in Frankfurter
, 1905,p. 292.
Mnzzeitung
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
161
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i62
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
163
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i6
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
165
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i66
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
no. 40 of the Friederich Collection, Weise no. 1780 and the piece
fromthe Helbing Auction. The Solms piece has N and the remaining
ones could not be verified. Joseph, on the other hand, mentions
signs of use on all punches except 44 N, 46 P and 46 N.
While the differentiationin value affordedby this method of
counterstampingwould have made it possible to withdrawthe undervalue guldinergradually,this did not, in fact, take place. The assay
meeting of the Westphalian Circle of July 1695, decreed that they
should all be withdrawnfromcirculation at once after a final grace
period of three months.1 The pieces with the coln counterstamp,
as will be recalled, remained in circulation for a long time thereafter.
b) There is, finally,another counterstamp indicating a value in
figuresthat appears on guldinersof the period. It consists of an eagle
looking left with the figureabove. The followingtwo pieces with it
have come to the writer'sknowledge:
Value: 34, FrieLbeck (Bishopric):FriedrichAugust1688, Bust/Arms,
derichColl. no. 1265, (on Lange 508).
Gustav1676, (the final76 is conjecturedbyMenadier
Sayn-Wittgenstein:
and notlegibleon the illustration)Bust/Arms(date dividedby arms),
Value: 32, Menadier.Zschr.f.Num.,XXX, p. 400, no. 250; illustrated
p. 422.
Both Friederich and Menadier accept the counterstamp without
any furtherexplanation for Aachen although the one-headed eagle
could stand for many other estates, particularly free cities such as
Frankfurt or Lbeck. In fact, Menadier in his coinage history of
Aachen2 never even mentions any counterstampingactivity of that
city nor has anyone as yet explained what the figuresmean.
What may or may not be a referenceto this counterstamp,however,
appears in an edict of the Council of the Free City of Aachen dated
6 April 1691, that is reprintedin the extensivecollectionofdocuments
pertainingto the coinage historyof Aachen published by Menadier.3
This document as well as the immediatelyfollowinglist of guldiner
that could for the time being remain current (which includes inter
alia those of the partners to the Leipzig Convention) contains a
1 Noss,Cologne
, p. 257.
2Menadier,
pp. 2170.
3 Menadier,
pp. 386ff.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
167
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i68
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
169
It must, of course,be stated again that the listingis not and cannot
be complete and that any conclusions drawn must be regarded
accordingly. In explanation of the attached schedule the following
must be added.
The fourclasses oftheTariffoftheThree Circlesindicate: I - guldiner
of fullLeipzig standard,II - guldinerof | of that value, III - guldiner
of I of that value, and IV - prohibitedguldinerof less than of the
Leipzig standard including several "Beischlge" and counterfeits.
When the tariffin class I shows only one year, but there are other
years of the same design which bear the contemporaneous stamp of
the Franconian Circlethen the listingin tariffI is consideredto apply
to those years as well since the presence of the stamp shows conclusively that the listing must have been intended to be thus understood. Occasionally a similar assumptionhas been made in connection
with one of the other tariffsbut these are based invariably on supporting evidence and thus could be disregarded without changing
the result. The valuations forthe Hamburg tariffare given in grams
of fine silver content as calculated by v. Schrtter,1those in the
tariffby Lucius are in Kreuzer at 60 to a guldiner of the Imperial
standard or 45 to that of the Leipzig standard. In the schedules of
the Cities of Nuremberg and Frankfurt and of the Emperor for
Bohemia a checkmark means that the guldiner are listed there as
being at least of the Leipzig value.
In the coin type descriptionsCypher means a large monogram or
initial; value a large ; Inscription, several lines of letteringwhich
may or may not contain an indication of face value; All., an allegory;
and DE, a double-eagle.
If there are two counterstamps on one and the same specimen of
an undertypethis is indicated by a double headed arrow.
ii. The guldinercounterstamped with the firstcategory of stamps
appear to permit several kinds of deductions.
a) In the firstplace we find that of the vast amount of guldiner
issued by the partners to the Leipzig Convention practically none
are ever found with a counterstamp.There is just one of the Elector
of Brandenburg,namely the guldinerforCleves with the Franconian
stamp; of the Dukes of Brunswick there are only the one or two half
1 Heckenmnzenwesen,
p. 101.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
guldinerof Ernst August with the coln stamp and they were issued
for the Bishopric of Osnabrck before he succeeded in Calenberg
(Hanover). Of the Elector of Saxony there is none at all, nor is there
one of his brother Augustus of Magdeburg. In addition, there are
hardly any of the other Electors. The three ecclesiastical electors
coined great numbers of guldiner and yet we have just one each of
Cologne, Mayence and Treves, the firstwith the Hildesheim and the
last two with the Franconian stamp. The only guldiner of the
Electors Palatine that we findstamped are those of Johann Wilhelm
forhis Duchy of Jlichand some of these,at least, were struckbefore
he inherited the electorate fromhis father and reigned as Duke of
Jlich-Bergonly. The Elector of Bavaria and the Emperor who was
Elector of Bohemia did not strike guldinerat all.
Clearly the coins of the Electors as well as those of the Brunswick
dukes and of Augustus of Magdeburg were generally accepted as
good, but it is remarkablethat the same is true formany of the Free
Cities. Tariffaftertariffshows long lists of "good" city guldinerand
yet the only ones we actually findwith a counterstamp are those of
Emden, Frankfurt,Hildesheim and Magdeburg, and of the latter
city we have only one.
b) The bulk of counterstampedguldiner thus consists of those of
princes, both temporal and spiritual and of counts, and one should
expect that those known with one of the fourstamps should also be
known with one of the others or, since some of them are so very
scarce, should at any rate be attested to as being of the fullLeipzig
value by one of the contemporarytariffsor assays. By and large this
is, indeed so, and were it otherwise we would have to conclude that
the whole counterstampingprocedure of the period was a worthless
farce. Still, there are far too many exceptions from the rule to be
dismissed as mere errors.The main problems are connected with the
coinages of Prince Carl Wilhelm ofAnhalt-Zerbst,Duke August Friedrich of Schleswig-Holstein,Bishop ofLbeck, Duke JohannErnst II
ofSaxony-Weimarand Count Gustav ofSayn-Wittgenstein,but there
is also a minordiscrepancyin the case of the City of Hildesheim.
To dispose of this firstwe know the guldinerof Hildesheim of 1681,
1690, 1692, 1693, and 1695 each with either the stamp of the Franconian Circle or the coln stamp or both and yet the guldinerof 1690,
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Counter
stampsindicating
fullvalueofLeipzigstan
COUNTRY
DATE
DESIGN
FRAN
CONI
AN
CIRCLE
Anhalt(jointissue)
1670
1689
arms/bear
arms/insc.
x
x
Anhalt-Dessau
1674
1675
1692
1693
bust/arms
x
X
X
X
Anhalt-Harzgerode
1675
1677
1679
n. d.
Anhalt-Jever
Anhalt-Zerbst
1690
helmet/mono.
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
bust/arms
x
XX
x
1693
Brandenburg-Ansbach
1675
1679
bust/all.
Cologne(Electorate)
1694
bust/arms
Cologne(City)
Dortmund
1689
1688
DE/arms
Emden
1687
1688
1689
1691
DE/arms
Frankfurt
1691
1693
DE/cross
x
x
Friedberg
Gronsfeld
(Bronkhorst)
1674
1688
DE/knight
Hildesheim
bust/arms
x
x
x _
x
x
arms/value
x
*
x
1692
1693
1693
bust/arms
Hanau
1691
1693
>,
x
x
Henneberg
1691
1692
1693
1694
hen/arms
,,
x
x
xx
1693
arms/insc.
1683
OTHERS
x
xx
x
x
Brandenburg
(Cleve)
Hildesheim(Bishopric)
Hdesheim(City)
COLN
monogr./arms
x
<- >
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
x
x
x
Jlich
Guldiner
with Counterstamps
valuebelow
indicating
Counterstamps
Leipzigstandard
alueofLeipzigstandard
OTHERS
Known
COUNTERSTAMPWITHOUT
OFWESTSPECIFIC
PHALIAN
CIRCLE VALUES
COLOGNE
WITH
VALUES
OP"
THRTF
AACHEN TA5TF
SC
CORRESPONDING
WITH
II
LUCIUS
VALUES CIRCLES,
N
pp. l6in.
======================i=================================-m======^^
I
I
I
I
I (1693)
I
I (1679)
I (1679)
I
I (1679)
I
III (1676)
III
Jlich
Hanau
IV
I (1676)
I
Hildesheim
X
X
I
I (1689)
I (1689)
I
I (1689)
I (1672)
I (1672)
I
Jlich
I (1692)
I
I (1692)
I (1692)
I (1680)
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Valuationsin Contemporary
assaysand tariffs
IMPERIAL
MANF OFTHREE SCHEDULE
ASSAYBY HAM- FRANKFURT DATEFORBOOF
ESPONDING
BURG
WARDEN
OF
EDICTOF
DATED
HEMIA,
CITY OF
II
LUCIUS
NOV.28
CS,
26, 169O FEB.l6, 1693
VIENNA,
NUREMBERG MARCH
). 161ff.
Luciuslpp. I33ff.lucius II pp.188f. 1693,lucius II
p. I99
1
I
1
1
(1693)
I
(1679)
: (1679)
I
: (1679)
i
I (1676)
III
IV
TARIFF
WITHVALUES
LUCIUSI
pp. 6of.
14.412(1686)
X
X
57d
14-173
14-173(1674)
X
X
50 (1675)
50
50
50
X
X
X
11.863
X (1677)
xx
(1676)
I
X
(1675)
50/,
50
I
(1689)
(1689)
I
(1689)
13-097
X (1672)
X (1672)
(1672)
(1672)
I
X (1692)
XX
X (1692)
X (1692)
(1692)
I
(1692)
(1692)
X
(1680)
51/.
x
showing
westph.
connterstamp
50/,(1672)
50/,(1672)
X (1692)
X (1692)
X (1692)
X (1680)
inte*.w/n
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Henneberg
TTilHfigheim
(Bishopric)
Hdesheim(City)
1691
lg?
1693
1694
hen/arms
x
x
xx
1693
arms/insc.
1690
1692
1693
1695
tt
Lauenburg
1678
bust/arms
Leiningen-Westerburg
1676
Lippe-Detmold
Lbeck(Bishopric)
1683
arms/insc.
1678
1688
bust/arms
(City)
Magdeburg
1675
arms/insc.
Mayence
1690
1688
bust/arms
1676
bust/arms
1675
1678
1679
1690
169(2)? arms/insc.
1693
x
x
x
x
Mecklenburg-Giistrow
Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Montfort
Mnster(Bishopric)
XX
X
x
x
<- ->
x
x
bust/value
x
x
1675
1676
1677
bust/arms
x
x
x
Oldenburg
Palatinate(Jlich)
1690
1688
1690
1691
bust/value
arms/ship
bust/arms
x
x
Rantzau
1689
Reuss(YoungerLine)
1678
Rietberg
1679
1688
'
1690
insc/heart
bust/all
bust/arms
x
x
x
x
<
>
arms/value
bust/arms
1691
1693
Oettingen-Oettingen
Saxony-Eisenach
1683
<- *
Saxony-Eisenberg
1692
bust/4/cyphers
& arms
bust/arms
Saxony-Gotha
1679
cypher/arms
Saxonv-Tena
1690
1691
1692
1693
1674.
bust/arms
,,
..
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Xiiuyx/
I
I (1692)
I (1692)
I (1680)
1 (l68)
I (1680)
I (1680)
I (1680)
I. Ill
Jlich
J
II (1677)
->
Jlich
50
48
34
I#II
I
I
Jlich
II
<-->4
I
I (1679)
I (1679)
I
I
I
I (1692)
I
i (1675)
i (1675)
i
i
I (1690)
II
Jlich
I
I
I
II*
1
X
Jlich
Schaumburg
Hanau
Schaumburg
m
TTTtt-x
^
I
I
Jlich
42
III w/oGFS
I
I (1690)
I (169O)
I (169O)
I
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
'
liuyx;
I
(1692)
(1692)
XX
X (1692)
X (1692)
X (1692)
X (1692)
X (1680)
intpxtw/oyear
(1680)
(1680)
(1680)
(1680)
(1680)
I. III
13.154
i (1677)
v
/x
x ,(1676)
501/.(1676)
12.819(1676)
"988
I, II
50
X
x (1678)
X
!
I
II
"-730
12.572(1678)
5V. (1680)
5
x
x
13*858
! (1679)
(1679)
T
I
50V
x
*
I
(1692)
t
I7S
<75
(1675)
I
X (i678)
* (l678)
X (1678)
* ' '
I
(1690)
I!
X
X (1690)
50
X
X
X (1690)
12.053
I
T
J
II*
t*
fin
r
131601
x
X
4lly*
50
491lt
49V,
III
II (1690)
I
I
w/oGFS
I
(1690)
(1690)
(1690)
I
'
X
x
x withGFS
11.478(1678)
w/oGFS
x
x (1690)
x (1690)
x (1690)
x
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50s/,withGFS
Saxony-Gotha
1679
cypher/arms
1690
1691
1692
1693
bust/arms
,,
Saxony-Meiningen
1674
1680
Saxony-.Rmhild
1691
Saxony-Weimar
1674
1675
1676
1677
,,
Saxony-Jena
1678
1679
n. d.
1690
yn-Wittgenstein
I^75
1676
1677
1678
1681
1689
1691
n. d.
Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg 1675
1676
x
x
x
x
x
arms/insc.
*6 gutegr.
bust/arms
armsbet.date
bust/arms
dateinlegend
16 gutegr.
bust/arms
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
?
bust/arms
24 mariengr.
arms/cypher
bust/arms
x
x
Schleswig-Holstein-Pln
1690
Schwarzburg-Sondershausen
Christian
Wilhelm
1676
xx
1675
1678
x
x
AntonGnther
Solms-Hohensolms
1676
1677
n. d.
J 289
J 290/1
J 292
n. d.
bust/insc.
x
x
x
xx
x
x
Solms-Rdelheim
1676
Sulz
1675
SwedishPomerania
1689
1690
1692
1695
tt
x
x
x
x
bust/arms
x
Treves
1693
I
* The guldinerillustrated
whichis in sc
in MuseumNotesIII, pl.XX, 2 is thetypeofthe1678guldiner
** The designsoftheWeimarguldinerare discussedpp. 174-75.
#*The guldinerofAntonGnthercomewith'large*and 'small'head, the former
in scheduleII, thelat
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42
Jlich
I
I (1690)
I (1690)
I (1690)
I
111W
Hanau
111
44
III**
Hanau, Jlich
Schaumburg
42
I
Jlich
Hanau
Jlich(?)
Hanau (?)
<
Jlich
32
>36
36
36 ( ?)
42
36
36
42
Jlich
IV
IV
IV
IV
u
I
I (1676)***
I (1676)***
50
I
I
I
I
I (1689)
I (1689)
I (1689)
I (1690/1)
I
inerwhichis in scheduleI of theTariffand notone ofthe typesfor1679thatare in scheduleII.
heduleII, thelatterin I, oftheTariffoftheThreeCircles,theNuremberg
schedulehas bothfor1675; theH
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"/vv*w
x**w,
I
(1690)
(1690)
(1690)
I
V-~/
~/
w/oGFS
X
X (1690)
x (1690)
x (1690)
x
II (1678)
III
I
III**
IV
IV
IV
IV
50V
x
X**
x **
x **
v *
13.467**
11.301**
10.822**
50s/,
IO.3288.678
9.2967.668
50
x
X
x
x
13.481
i
[676)***
x***
".247
12.066(1676)***
[676)***
X***
12.066(1676)***
50
II
X
X (1676)
X
x
12.973
50
x
(1690/1)
le II.
50
14.019
I
I
(1689)
(1689)
(1689)
J?
50
T2768
XX
x <i689)
X (1689)
X (1689)
(1690)
x
X (1690)
X (1690)
X (1690)
X (1691)
hav 'small'head.
h for1675; theHamburgassayand Luciusapparently
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5
505/(1673)
171
also exists with the Jlich lion stamp. If we turn to the tariffswe
find that the Franconian Circle places the Hildesheim guldiner of
1680, in class I and lists no other.The Frankfurttariffalso depicts the
1680 specimen, but the accompanying text simply mentions Hildesheim guldinerwithoutspecifyingthe date1 and the list accompanying
the Aachen edict of April 6, 1691, does the same. Under these circumstances the Jlichcounterstampingmay perhaps indeed be explained
as an erroror else the specificpiece counterstampedmay have been
a "Beischlag" of low value.
In the case of Carl Wilhelm of Anhalt-Zerbstwe findthat according
to Mann there is a continuingcoinage of guldinerfrom1674 through
1679, all of which show on the obverse the bust of the prince to the
right and on the reverse the coat of arms. The Tariffof the Three
Circles in its preamble says flatlythat "all guldiner of Anhalt" are
forbiddenbecause they are undervalue. It would, however, appear
immediately that this statement can not apply to "all guldiner of
Anhalt," because those by the princes of Anhalt jointly as well as
those of Johann Georg of Anhalt-Dessau and of Wilhelm of AnhaltHarzgerode appear amongstthose declared as offullvalue in schedule
I of the Tariff.
The flatprohibitionthus can only apply to those of Anhalt-Zerbst,
and even here we find Schedule III permitting"those until 1676"
to pass for45 (new) Kreuzer or for of a Leipzig guldiner.Moreover,
the Memorandum of the City of Nurembergsays that some batches
of Anhalt guldinerare good and the Schedule connectedwith it shows
guldiner of Carl Wilhelm of 1674, 1675, 1676, and 1677, amongst
those to be counterstamped. Actually, too, we know guldiner of
1675, 1676, 1677, with the counterstamp of the Franconian Circle of
1676 and 1678, with the coln stamp. On the other hand we have
specimens of 1678, with the Jlich lion stamp and of 1679, with the
stamp of Hanau attesting that they both are undervalue.
As for the tariffswe findguldiner of 1678, "and other bad ones"
specificallylisted in the "forbidden" Schedule IV of the Three Circles,
we have one of 1679, marked as containing only 11.863g. f &ne
silver in the Hamburg assay of March 26, 1690, and find a piece of
1 Lucius,II, p. 191. For thefact thattheHildesheimguldiner
from1690are
on theLeipzigstandardsee also Buck & Bahrfeldt,
p. 75.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
173
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
which are fromfourdifferentdies and bear the Franconian counterstamp have the mintmark.
According to v. Schrtter there was no mintmaster other than
Ridder who took part in the coinage of these guldinerwith the 1678
date in Eutin and Lbeck, and we must thus conclude that Ridder
placed his mark on those coins that were minted in accord with the
contract he had signed and leftit offthe others.
The guldiner of Johann Ernst II of Saxony-Weimar like those of
Carl Wilhelm of Anhalt-Zerbst run from 1674 through 1679 and in
addition there are pieces without date. All have the bust to the right
on the obverse and the coat of arms on the reverse.The counterstamp
of the Franconian Circle appears on all of them, and the coln stamp
on those of 1676, but those of 1677, come with the counterstamps
of Hanau and Schaumburg and with the Jlichlion stamp- all three
of which say that the pieces are undervalue. Furthermore,there is a
piece of 1678 with the Cologne stamp for42 Albus. Again, obviously,
there are good ones and bad ones and the question is how they can
be told apart.
There are this time some minor differencesin the design of the
obverse. In the earlier years the Duke appears without a wig, later
he wears one. Weise1 has the dates 1674, 1675 and 1676, as well as
the undated pieces without wig and and the dates 1677, 1678 and
1679 with. In the writer'scollection (which contains only pieces with
the Franconian counterstamp) there are the years 1674 and 1675
without and the years 1676, 1677 and 1678 with wig. Furthermore,
the pieces come with and without a circle within the obverse legend.
Weise does not differentiateexcept that in the one case of 1677, he
says that guldiner exist both with and without such circle. In the
writer'scollectionthere are guldinersof 1674, 1677 and 1678 without
and of 1675, 1676 and 1677 with such circle.The piece with the Hanau
counterstampfromtheFriederichCollectionillustratedin theDresden
Yearbook has a wig and no circle, and the piece with the Cologne
42 Albus stamp also has a wig and no circle.
The piece of 1675, the only one contained in Schedule I of the
Tariffof the Three Circles has no wig and a circle inside the legend.
On the other hand the piece of 1677, contained in Schedule III, of
1 Nos. 1420,1421,1422.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
175
the same Tariff,shows a wig and no circle (but is labeled "with the
circle of the legend"). The Schedule belonging to the Nuremberg
memorandumshow guldinerof 1676 without wig and 1677, 1678 and
1679 with, and on the otherhand 1676, 1677 and 1678 with the circle
and only 1679 without. The illustrationsto the Hamburg assay are
drawn in such a way that we cannot say whether there is a wig or
not, but we can clearly see that the good one of 1677 has no circle,
while the bad one has, and the even worse one of 1678 has not.
Obviously the authoritiesin Hamburg did not considerthe differences
in design important.But what then was ? The Frankfurtassay warns
that there are many bad Weimar ones that can easily be told apart
by the design and shows in its illustration of good ones a piece of
1675, that clearly has no wig, but a circle and is labelled an "old"
guldiner. Exactly the same guldiner is shown in the illustrations
with valuations in Lucius I, while among a few guldiner pictured
as an annex to an edict of the City of Nurembergdated October 17,
1
1689, we finda guldinerof 1677 with wig and without circle that is
valued at 43! (old) Kreuzer, thus at less than the Leipzig value.
If we are to draw a conclusion fromall this, it would be that all
the "old" pieces, i.e., those without wig are "good" by the Leipzig
standard. As forthose of the later years with wig therewere obviously
good and bad ones and 1677 apparently had particularlymany bad
ones.2 The Tariffof the Three Circles shows a specimen of 1677 with
wig and circle in Schedule IV but adds that it looks coppery and
v. Schrtterrightlysays3 that it was doubtless a forgery.Otherwise
none of the later ones with the circle are shown by a contemporary
illustration or a counterstamp as being undervalue, and, therefore,
considering the statement in the Frankfurt edict "that the good
and bad ones can easily be told apart by differencesin design" it
may perhaps and with all the reservations that an argument ex
silentio commands in a situation such as this, be conjectured that
the later ones with circle are the good ones, though perhaps not the
only good ones.
1 Lucius,I, pp. 124i.
* Thereis one worthonly
LuciusI,
Tariff,
37^ (old) Kreuzerin theAugsburg
pp. 151ff.
8Heckenmnzenwesen,
p. 58, note5.
it*
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
177
all cases also the examination revealed that there were good and bad
specimens of the same or nearly the same design which we cannot
now tell apart any more with any degree of certainty.The question
suggestsitselfwhether the authoritiesreally could do so at the time,
or at least whetherthe criteria were altogetherthe same in Nuremberg and in Cologne. We can't answer that question today directly,
but to illustratehow rough and ready the judgment was at the time
it might be interestingto look at the guldiner of Duke Julius Franz
of Lauenburg.
Like those of his neighborAugust Friedrich of Lbeck they come
with only one date- 1678, like his they continue to be struck with
that date until much later, perhaps until 1689, like his they were
originallycoined on a standard superiorto that of Leipzig but ended
up on one much lower, like his, finallythey come froma multitude
of dies with slight variations in design. Dorfmann1has painstakingly
examined this coinage and has classifiedit accordingto the variations
in design into six types and has even given the silver content of each
type and their chronological sequence. But when we turn to the
evidence available fromcounterstampswhat do we find? By merely
consulting his own collection the writer finds the counterstamp of
the Franconian Circle on each of Dorfmann's six classes except the
fifthwhich is a scarce sub-variety of the fourth.2Why should this
be so? Apparently, simply because this guldiner is illustrated in
schedule I of the Tariffof the Three Circles. And not even the fact
that it is also illustrated- and with no material differencein the
design- in Schedule III preventedits counterstampingby the Circle.
To make thingseven worse both illustrationsshow the obverse legend
continuous- the one in Schedule III even making a special point
of this, and yet according to Dorfmann only the sixth group, which
has an average of9.989g. offinesilver, has dies that do not interrupt
the legend on the obverse.
The very least that can be deduced fromsuch facts is that little or
no effortwas made in Nuremberg to tell good and bad guldiner of
similar designs apart, and the same is true, if perhaps to a lesser
1 Pp. 6ff.
2Dorfmannhimselfhas a tabulationshowingthe firstfiveclasseswiththe
Franconiancounterstamp
and thefirstfourwiththecoln stamp.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
179
the date of any of the pieces examined and is thus of very limited
value for comparative studies. In this case, however, it confirmsthe
Cologne stamp on these 1688 guldiner since 48 Albus are equivalent
to 11.693g. of silver.
Next we have a guldinerof Gustav Adolf of Mecklenburg-Gstrow
of 1688, with the Cologne stamp for 46 Albus and the Jlich lion
stamp. Forty-six Albus are equivalent to 11.206g. of silver and this
comes very close to the value mentioned in the notificationgiven by
Duke GeorgWilhelmofBrunswick-Celleto the (Swedish) government
in Stade in 1688, which says that Mecklenburg-Gstrowwas minting
according to a 12^-taler standard.1 This standard works out at
11.45g. of silver. On the other hand we have the Hamburg assay of
the same coin that shows 11.730g. while the Three Circles put the
coin in Class II. Regarding this latter classificationwe must always
take into account that the Tariffof the Three Circles puts the coins
in fixed classes which are necessarily determined by the value of
the worst coin in them and must thereforecontain coins of a higher
value. The Mecklenburg-Gstrowpieces were thus simply not worth
the full Leipzig value but had 10.827 or more grams of silver and
had to go in Class II.
The guldinerof Friedrichof Saxony-Gotha with the large initial F
on the obverse and the coat of arms on the reversepresent a different
problem. We possess a piece with the Jlichlion stamp and one with
the Cologne stamp for 42 Albus which is equivalent to 10.232g. of
silver. We also findthe coin in Class III of the Tariffof the Three
Circles which corresponds to a minimum value of 9.744g. and we
have a Hamburg assay indicating 11.478g. On the other hand we
find the piece in the Nuremberg memorandum as being of the full
Leipzig value and in the valuation in Lucius at 50 1 Kreuzer which is
even higher. Accordingto Weise2 these pieces come from1675 until
1679, except for 1676. The arms on the reverse come in different
designs and, what seems to be significant,the pieces come with and
without the mintmasterinitials GFS standing for George Friedrich
Staude. The illustrations of the "good" pieces in the Nuremberg
memorandumand in Lucius clearly show the initials,the illustrations
1 Heckenmnzenwesen,
p. 80.
2 Nos. 1450-52.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i8o
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
of the "bad" ones in the Tariffof the Three Circles and in the Hamburg assay equally clearly do not.1
This would seem to tie in perfectlywith the statementby v. Schrtter2that Staude ceased to be mintmasterin Gotha in 1680, but that
the guldinerwith the earlier dates continued to be coined thereafter
and got "worse and worse until 1690/' The mintmastersucceeding
Staude could of course not continueto use Staude's initials,nor could
he put his own on the coins since this would have shown up the
predatingof these coins. Thus theyhave no mintmasterinitialsat all.
The guldiner of Heinrich of Saxony-Rmhild of 1691 exists with
the Cologne stamp for44 Albus equivalent to 10.719g. of silver. The
Three Circles put them in Class III with a minimumvalue of 9.744g.
and, indeed,they are just below the minimumvalue of 10.827g.f the
second class, v. Schrtter3tells us that the coinage of these guldiner
started in the Rmhild Castle in 1690, and lasted until 1691, by far
the most pieces bearing the 1691 date. He again quotes the assay by
the General Warden of the Franconian Circle where the "older' '
pieces had 12.126g. There is no assay of the "newer" which those of
1691 must have been.
Finally we have a piece of Ludwig of Solms-Hohensolms without
date with the Cologne counterstamp for 50 Albus equivalent to
12.181g. but also several with the counterstamp of the Franconian
Circle, v. Schrtter4 doubts Joseph's statement that the Solms
guldinerwere "among the better ones" and says that more research
si needed concerning them. Actually the evidence of the counterstamps seems to clear up at least some of the questions. According
to v. Schrtteronly a few of the undated guldiner have the motto
"HERR NACH DEINEM WILLEN." They are Joseph no. 285 and
as there is a specimen with the Franconian counterstampthey must
be presumed to be of the full Leipzig standard. They also appear
in Schedule I of the Tariff of the Three Circles and the tariffin
Lucius at a value of 50 Kreuzers. All other undated ones have the
bust of count Ludwig to the right on the obverse and the coat of
1 The piece Friederich
no. 161 is not sufficiently
describedto permitdeterminationwhether
or notit has initialsand onlyits obverseis illustrated.
2Heckenmnzenwesen
, pp. 57f.
3 Heckenmnzenwesen
, p. 60.
4 Heckenmnzenwesen
, p. 69.
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
181
1 P. 253.
2Heckenmnzenwesen
, p. 69.
Herbert J. Erlanger
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I82
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
183
ractatvon apprbirten
(C. L. Lucius), Neuer Mntz-T
unddeva'vierten
Guldinern
VonCL. Lucio,Nrnberg und Leipzig (1691)
C. L. Lucii, Neuen Mntz-T
ractats von Guldinern
LuciusII
AndererTeil
1694.
Nrnberg,
David SamuelMadai, Vollstndiges
Madai
-Cabinet(KThaler
1765ff).
nigsberg,
Mann
MnzenundMedaillen(Hannover,
J.Mann,Anhaltische
1907).
Menadier
und Mnzumlauf
Aachens
J. Menadier,"Mnzprgung
"
in ihrergeschichtlichen
Entwicklung,Z sehr./.NumisXXXI (1914),pp. 217ff.
matiky
Merle
derKllnischen
des DomBeschreibung
Mnzsammlung
herrn
undKurfrstlich
weltlichen
Hofgerichtsprsidenten
vonMerle(Kllnam Rhein,1792).
Adolf
Meyer
Meyer,Die MnzenderStadt Dortmundy
(Wien,
1883).
Mus. NotesIII
of the FranHerbertJ. Erlanger,"The Counterstamp
conianCircleof 1693," A.N.S. MuseumNotes, III
(1948),pp. 67ff.
von Cln,
AlfredNoss, Die Mnzen der Erzbischfe
Noss,Archbishopric
2 vols. (Cln1913, 1925)
AlfredNoss, Die Mnzender StdteKln und Neuss
Noss,Cologne
(Kln,1926).
AlfredNoss, Die Mnzen von Berg und Jlich-Berg
Noss,Jlich
2 vols.,(Mnchen,
1929)
Num.Zschr.XX
Paul Joseph,"Die Mnzstempelund Punzen in dem
historischen
MuseumderStadtKln/'Num.Zschr. XX
(1888),pp. 9iff.
Schmidt
Max Schmidt,Die Mnzenund MedaillenderHerzge
vonSachsen-Lauenburg
(Ratzeburg,1884).
Schmidt& Knab
BertholdSchmidtund Carl Knab, ReussischeMnz(Dresden,1907).
geschichte
Schttle
Gustav Schttle. "Nachstempelunggroben SilberVereinszu
geldes," Jahrbuchdes Numismatischen
Dresdenaufdie Jahre1919 und1920, pp. 41ff.
Friedrichv. Schrtter,Beschreibung
der neuzeitlichen
Schrtter,
undderStadtMagdeburg
MnzendesErzstifts
1400-1682
Magdeburg
(Magdeburg,
1909).
Suchier
ReinhardSuchier,Die MnzenderGrafenvon Hanau
(Hanau, 1897).
P. Weinmeister,
"Die schaumburgischen
Weinmeister
Mnzendes
nach der Teilungder Grafschaft/'
17. Jahrhunderts
BltterfrMnzfreunde
, 1906,cols. 35400.
Weise
Gulden-Cabinet
Adolph ChristophWeise, Vollstndiges
2 vols. (Nrnberg,
1780and 1782).
FriedrichFrhr. v. Schrtter,Wrterbuch
Wrterbuch
der Mnzkunde(Berlin,1930).
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
I84
SALE
CATALOGUES
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
XXI
GERMAN COUNTERSTAMPS
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:53:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions