Question about Lucca deniers [resuelto]

Hi,

I've just saw a Lucca denier for sale in a local coin shop's site. Just wanted to look it's info on Numista, but the info there… I don't know if we are talking about the same coin.

First, there are two Numista pages:

N#555771 

N#555925 

This one at acsearch is near identical to the one in the local shop: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=12888526

Lots of other specimens there, all I did was type “lucca denier” at searchbar.

By the photos, all three look very similar, but the ones on Numista have a later date (late 12th century) and different catalog numbers.

And at acsearch, nearly all specimens are said to be from 11th or early 12th century and have the same catalog number, Biaggi 1056.

So, before I think about buying it, in what Numista page the Biaggi 1056 deniers fits in?

I think this requires a medieval Italy specialist.

I’ve got the top one it looks fine to me, what price is he asking for them 

Offa

I’ve got the top one it looks fine to me, what price is he asking for them 

He got only one, and it's at 300 reais (50 euros): http://moedametal.com.br/p-19506837-Lucca.-Estados-Italianos.-Enrico-II-ate-Enrico-V-(1004-1125).-Ar-denier-(billon).-0,65g_16,5mm

The thing here is that his description says one date range (the same of the acsearch specimens), but the same coins in Numista have a different and later date range. This is what confuses me and makes me ask if the ones in Numista and acsearch are the same or not.

I do not have any of the catalogs which have been referenced, and have not helped with any of the early Lucca listings, but can make these general comments on attribution of Italian coins of this era.  

The state of scholarship on early medieval (post-Carolingian) Italian coins has advanced a lot in the last 20-30 years, and in some place, earlier attributions have been modified.  The Biaggi catalog was very broad, whereas Matzke is very focused on Tuscany, and probably reflects more up-to-date scholarship.  Likewise Bellesia.

Here is an example of how things have changed for an earlier Lucca coin (notice Biaggi isn't even mentioned):  https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1281368

So …  sellers attributing a coin according to Biaggi are doing so because that's the catalog they own.  The specialist catalogs will have more current attribtuions, but it results in this kind of confusion you are experiencing. 

tdziemia

The state of scholarship on early medieval (post-Carolingian) Italian coins has advanced a lot in the last 20-30 years, and in some place, earlier attributions have been modified.  The Biaggi catalog was very broad, whereas Matzke is very focused on Tuscany, and probably reflects more up-to-date scholarship.  Likewise Bellesia.

 

So …  sellers attributing a coin according to Biaggi are doing so because that's the catalog they own.  The specialist catalogs will have more current attribtuions, but it results in this kind of confusion you are experiencing. 

 

This may explain the conflicting attributions at acsearch.

Most of them are attibuted to Henry III-IV-V (1039-1125), but there are attributions to Henry II (1104-1024) and even earlier, to Otto I (962-973).

Here's a random one attributed to Otto I: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2414064

The letterings are the same on both sides, only the name mentioned is another. Catalog numbers used: CNI 63.1, Metcalf 10, Biaggi 1056.

And let's not forget that the ones at Numista are dated later than all of those from acsearch (1160-1210, combined range of both), which adds more to the confusion.

Probably Matzke has attributed them later.

There are many Sicily types that have been re-attributed later by Grierson and Travaini in Medieval European Coinage, Vol. 14 based on hoard statistics and other evidence that was not used by previous catalogers.   

Also, some early Genoa types immobilized in the name of Conrad have been re-attributed by Day et al. in Medieval Coinage Vol. 12. 

It's good that numismatic scholarship keeps evolving and becoming more accurate but it causes some problems like this for collectors.

Ok, I've looked on the Numista page for Matzke: https://en.numista.com/L112619

(the N# function doesn't work for books?)

There's only a few coins associated, and a surprise: a third Numista page for the same coin - N#140452 

Same letterings, but under another issuer - that's why I haven't found it yet! (went straight to the Lucca issuer) This is the coin that appears a lot in acsearch, the Numista rarity is way lower than the other two.

Which leads to another question: What's the difference between all three types? The lettering are the same, the only thing I see is that the later types have a kind of “degraded” design compared to the earlier types. It is said that the silver percentage of the billon alloy has decreased, is that the main difference?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Matzke is downloadable at it's Numista page. I'm looking on it now. I see that he divided the denarius lucensis into various subtypes. The two under Lucca are the last two of them. The one under Kingdom of Italy covers the first two.

That's it. The one that's available in the local shop is the earlier denarius lucensis de rigo, which is the most common type at acsearch, and is at Numista under Kingdom of Italy.

And one last thing - if I buy it, I will add a new country - since Kingdom of Italy is under Carolingian states instead of Italian states.

Glad you found it!

As for the placement of the “medieval” Kingdom of Italy (which was ruled from Germany), Numista has it in the Carolingian Empire section.  “Italian States” only begins when local independent states emerge, typically in the 12th century.  

tdziemia

Glad you found it!

 

As for the placement of the “medieval” Kingdom of Italy (which was ruled from Germany), Numista has it in the Carolingian Empire section.  “Italian States” only begins when local independent states emerge, typically in the 12th century.  

Thank you!

And your last bit of info explains why they're under different issuers.

…And Carolingian Empire would be a new country to add to my dashboard.