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!
Denier Bracteate - Wladyslaw III Spindleshanks or Wladyslaw Odonic Gniezno or Poznań mint
| Issuer | Greater Poland, Duchy of |
|---|---|
| Year | 1202-1238 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| 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 | Round (irregular) |
| 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 | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | As a bracteate, this coin is struck on a single thin flan; the reverse presents an incuse mirror image of the obverse design, showing the faint negative impression of the seated figure and surrounding decorative elements pressed through from the obverse strike. No independent reverse design or legend is present, which is characteristic of all bracteate coinage of this period and region. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The attribution of this bracteate to either Władysław III Laskonogi or Władysław Odonic reflects one of the more stubborn disputes in Polish medieval numismatics. The two rulers were bitter rivals who traded control of Greater Poland repeatedly between roughly 1202 and 1239, sometimes holding different parts of the duchy simultaneously. Gniezno and Poznań exchanged hands more than once during this period, making mint attribution nearly impossible without documentary evidence that simply does not survive.
Kopicki 153 groups the type under both rulers precisely because no die or hoard evidence has conclusively settled the question.