The overlap in attribution between Henry II (d. 1248) and Henry III reflects a genuine scholarly problem: these deniers are nearly impossible to assign by reign on physical evidence alone, and the date range straddles both. Witte's split references — #111 and #116 — acknowledge distinct die groupings rather than a clean dynastic boundary.
Brabant's mid-thirteenth century coinage was under constant pressure from neighboring Flemish and Lotharingian issues competing for regional trade circulation. The low weight standard here is not degradation — it was deliberate, aligning Brabantine small change with the lighter penny conventions then spreading through the Low Countries.
The overlap in attribution between Henry II (d. 1248) and Henry III reflects a genuine scholarly problem: these deniers are nearly impossible to assign by reign on physical evidence alone, and the date range straddles both. Witte's split references — #111 and #116 — acknowledge distinct die groupings rather than a clean dynastic boundary.
Brabant's mid-thirteenth century coinage was under constant pressure from neighboring Flemish and Lotharingian issues competing for regional trade circulation. The low weight standard here is not degradation — it was deliberate, aligning Brabantine small change with the lighter penny conventions then spreading through the Low Countries.