Volledige afbeeldingen bekijken — gratis registratie
Doorgaan met Google — het is gratis of registreer met e-mail

Waarom registreren? Alleen om bots buiten ons catalogus te houden. Uw e-mail blijft privé — we delen het nooit en sturen u niets zonder uw toestemming. Dat garanderen wij u!

Denier - Henry II / Henry III Esslingen mint

Uitgever Holy Roman Empire
Jaar 1002-1056
Type Standard circulation coin
Waarde Log in om details te zien
Valuta Log in om details te zien
Samenstelling Log in om details te zien
Gewicht Log in om details te zien
Diameter Log in om details te zien
Dikte Log in om details te zien
Vorm Log in om details te zien
Techniek Log in om details te zien
Oriëntatie Log in om details te zien
Graveur(s) Log in om details te zien
In omloop tot Log in om details te zien
Referentie(s) Log in om details te zien
Beschrijving voorzijde Log in om details te zien
Schrift voorzijde Latin
Opschrift voorzijde Log in om details te zien
Beschrijving keerzijde Central cross dividing the reverse field into four quarters, each containing elements of the abbreviated Esslingen mint inscription. The letters are arranged in a cruciform pattern with pellets and annulets filling the quarters, consistent with the Ottonian-Salian penny tradition. The inscription IIC-X IIC-S is distributed around the cross arms, referencing the mint and issuing authority. The overall design is executed in the flat, graphic style typical of southwestern German hammered deniers of the early 11th century, with a beaded border encircling the composition.
Schrift keerzijde Log in om details te zien
Opschrift keerzijde Log in om details te zien
Rand Log in om details te zien
Muntplaats Log in om details te zien
Oplage Log in om details te zien
Aanvullende informatie

Esslingen am Neckar held imperial mint rights under the Salian emperors, and deniers struck there during the reigns of Henry II and III circulated primarily within the Swabian economic sphere. The overlap in attribution — spanning both rulers across a half-century — reflects the difficulty of distinguishing dies when no regnal markers were systematically applied. KR#12 and Dann Sa#1272 both acknowledge this ambiguity rather than resolving it.

MISSCHIEN OOK INTERESSANT