It looks like a German States or Russian design, but it looks a little sloopy for a coin. I would guess it is a token. Sorry I can't help you more than that.
It's basically attempting to look like an Austrian trade ducat, which would have originally been done in a debased form of gold. There are several problems I see, however, namely:
The reverse is actually the reverse of a 1780 Maria Theresa Thaler (which was produced from 1780 until the mid-20th century), which includes the standard "1780" date as found on most/all MTT's, and an "X", meaning the metal was debased. A real Franz Joseph trade ducat would have looked more like this: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/photos/autriche/g1265.jpg
In going with the first point above, the reverse inscription is not really contemporary to Franz Joseph, in that the titles listed ("Archidux Austriae Dux Burgundiae Comes Tyrolis") were the titles used by Maria Theresa, which by 1848, when Franz Joseph took the throne, were a little dated. First, County of Tyrolia was not an independent title utilized by the Austrian Emperors after Napoleon, although the County of Tyrolia still existed. The title of Duke of Burgundy was only held until 1795; it was extinguished with the rise of Napoleon, and was not included as an official title after Francis II.
Franz Josef's titles on almost all his coinage are "Francis Iosephus I Dei Gratia Austriae Imperator -- Hungariae Bohemiae Galiciae Lodomiriae Illyriae Rex, Archidux Austriae"
Again, continuing on the same theme, the obverse features the correct -- or close to it -- list of titles ("Francis Iosephus I Dei Gratia Imperator Austriae Rex Bohemia Etcetera Et Rex Apostolicae Hungariae"). Why repeat titles on obverse and reverse, and why use outdated titles on the reverse?
The obverse looks like it's trying to be a real 20 Corona coin from the 1890's:
I think this is a counterfeit crafted by someone to pass off as a trade ducat. Because trade coinage was made under absolutely no restrictions, however, it could be a real trade ducat made by an overseas territory, or it could be a contemporary counterfeit. I would have the metal content checked out (or do a self-test), and perhaps contact a grading service to see if they can authenticate it as a contemporary, circulating trade ducat.
I tried a density test, but my scale was not accurate enough.
I looked at the scratches on it with a 45x microscope and it still looked gold color underneath.
Well, I am a collector of Austrian coins, and know them fairly well. Trade Coinage, though, is almost a different category. I think it looks weird and something about it isn't right based on the obverse and reverse not matching, but on the other hand it could be a contemporary counterfeit worth some money.
I just think its too crude and rudimentary to be anything ever put out by the Austro-Hungarian mints. Their coins tend to be impeccably "clean" starting with the Franz Joseph era, much "cleaner" and finer than German coins of the same time period.
More like play money even. Franz Joseph I was not the king of Austro-Hungary in 1780. I'm sure it was Maria Theresa.
Yeah, but what confuses the issue is that Austria produced a variety of coins for trade dated 1780 between 1780 and the present day, and those coins were copied, and many varieties of contemporary counterfeits (with some precious metal content) exist. I think its a fake too, but the reasons are a little more complicated than just that.
The obverse is crude, yet sharp. Look at the lettering. It's very faded although the rest of the features of the coin, most notably the edge, are sharp. Also notice the face. It looks almost plastic-like.
Then look at the reverse. The design is a little too small for the planchet, especially if you compare it to the obverse. Now look at the eagle's faces and feet. They're very poorly drawn. And, of course, being issued "1780," it's not real.
Kenny
- Verifying your Asian and British-territorial coins everyday with the best quality photos and the best information.
You're right on all those points, but let's be clear -- 1780 for this coin isn't right. That was the point of my post above.
There are very real coins, however, minted by the very real Austrian mints in, say, 1870, which say they are minted in 1780 -- and they're worth a ton of money.
There are also many, many counterfeit trade coins that are very valuable in their own right. I'm not denying this is fake, but let's not discount it could have some collector/numismatic/very potentially precious metal value.
Probably wasting money. If you can find a trade coinage expert who would look at it for free or for a nominal charge, I'd do it. It is definitely fake, or at least a contemporary counterfeit to the 1848-1945 period, but it may be worth a shot if it turns out this is a valuable counterfeit
Citeer: SmartOneKgBy valuable, tewcd, you mean contemporary counterfeit.
Yeah. The point is that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of Austrian trade coinage were contemporary counterfeits, and I'd imagine these days that well over half are either contemporary or modern counterfeits.
The purpose of the coin was basically to use it in trading with locals in Africa, Arabia, and Asia who didn't trust scrip, paper money, bonds, or even other currency. The Austrian trade coinage caught on because Austria -- at the time home to some of the largest silver and gold deposits in Europe -- could produce many trade coins cheaply, and they were relatively uniform.
By the time the 1800's rolled around, and other uniform coinage programmes were springing up (the Vereinsthaler, the Latin Monetary Union, etc.), the locals in Africa, Arabia, and near Asia didn't want to change from using what they trusted -- Austrian trade coinage. As a side-effect, the crude and simplistic counterfeiting of trade coinage became a profitable business, since most trade coinage bore the same date (1780) regardless of production. Where it gets easier to identify is in gold coins, which would have been more period-identifiable (to someone who was aware). To a Bedouin trader in Sudan, however, it might have passed for real.
So some of these contemporary counterfeits have real silver or gold, and are valuable as counterfeits, but it is highly unlikely this coin has much gold in it, and it is highly unlikely the coin is one of those valuable counterfeits.
All I'm saying is that I'm no expert in trade coinage variations and copies, so I can't tell you for certain.(I'm a lawyer -- when I can't give someone a good answer I hedge my bets and tell them to take their question to their accountant/insurance agent/probation officer)
I am going to go to a coin and jewelry show next week. I will take it with and at least have them do a scratch test to see if it has any gold. Maybe I might get lucky.
the coin is just a token. They said it is a combination of 3 different coins. Worth nothing.