Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
1 Groschen - Henry XIX Henry XX and Botho II
| Issuer | Stolberg, County of |
|---|---|
| Year | 1500-1502 |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Central field displays the Stolberg arms — a rampant stag — tilted slightly to the left, rendered in high relief with elaborate late-Gothic decorative flourishes surrounding the shield. A crested helmet surmounts the arms, with ornate mantling extending into the field on both sides. The entire device is enclosed within a beaded inner circle, beyond which runs a Latin uncial legend identifying the three co-ruling counts. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | H ... S … H … I … ET … BODO … COI … I … STALBERG |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Stolberg's joint coinage of this period reflects the county's partition among the three ruling lines following the division of 1429, which left the territory administered by competing branches of the same dynasty for generations. Henry XIX, Henry XX, and Botho II issuing under a single type was not collaboration so much as obligation — the county's mint rights required collective authorization when territorial shares were held concurrently. The arrangement was administratively awkward and short-lived, which is precisely why the type spans only a two-year window.