Ostfriesland 1 witten coin of Edzard II-Johann? [решено]

With the generous help of "apuking", we were able to attribute the first two Ostfriesing coins of the previous post. However, the third coin is still resisting full attribution. In this post, I write further on the third coin (illustrated below) in an effort to fully attribute it.

Previously, "apuking" suggested that it might be a Witten of Ostfriesing from the dual reign of Edzard II and Johann who reigned from 1566-91. There was a lot to recommend this attribution, but some problems existed.

1. It appears that all the Witten produced during this period were silver. The subject coin appears to be copper as explained in the previous post.

2. The inscriptions were concerning, as many key letters were missing, due perhaps to the poor striking of this particular coin.

Let me address 2. first:

Using my copy of Davenport's German Talers 1500-1600, I examined the inscriptions on the talers of Ostfriesland for the period 1566-91. There are 3 talers listed for the period: numbers 9613, 9614 and A9614.

Obverse inscription for 9613 - EDZ: E: IOH: CO: E: DO: PHRISI: ORIE:
Obverse inscription for subject coin - CO. E. D. P. O

Reverse inscription for 9613 ----------- .DA . PACEM. DOMIN DIEBVS. NOSTRIS::
Reverse inscription for subject coin - .DA . PAC. DO. IN

Except for the . IN, the abbreviated inscriptions for the much smaller subject coin line up properly.

On the 9613 coin, the date is rendered fully as 1575. On the 9614 coin a split half date is rendered as eg., (15)86, similar to the date rendering of the subject coin.

The above gives me confidence that the subject coin is as "apuking" indicated, from the reign of Edzard II and Johann, with the date 1586.

There is still the silver problem lurking. The Witten seems to be the smallest denomination for the period but I am pretty sure the coin is copper not silver. So, it would seem that the item may be a contemporary counterfeit or modern reproduction? If so, it is extremely well done.

As my knowledge of the coins from this period is minimal, I may have gotten it wrong. If a member can shed more light on this coin, please don't hesitate to post any further information. Any and all comments welcome.

I like the coin!
I hope someone can identify it
Did you contct Arie?
http://www.bonatiele.nl/

PetrusAscanus:
Thank you PetrusAscanus for the link...I did not contact Arie, but, I used the link and found a Witte of "1586", with the following caption and image (see below):

16th century
County East Frisia (Germany)
Witte 1586
Edzard II and John (1566-1591)
Literature: Kappelhoff 248 (variant)



Careful examination of the above digital image (magnified) indicates that it is mis-identified by date. It actually appears to be 1588 not 1586. It does appear to be identified correctly by Type (Witte - 1 at bottom of orb, silvery color). The silver problem remains, as my item appears to be struck in copper (see a new image below) not silver.

Lettring?

DA PAC: DO(M:) IN DI – EB – NOSTRIS  ?

EDZA . E . — IO . CO . E — DO . PHR — ORI ?
Edzardus et Ioannes comes et dominus Phrisiae Orientalis  ?
or variant

I did send your comment and pictures to Arie
Waiting for a reply

Thank you PetrusAscanus for taking the time to get in touch with Arie. It is much appreciated.

I am curious as to Arie's opinion of the coin. Please get in touch with me at your convenience.

Kindest regards,

lhnumis

I allready have the answer of Arie.
He really is a very nice helpful guy.
In return, he asks if he may use you picture on his site.
Nice coin!

This is his respons:
Bedankt voor het opmerken van het verkeerde jaartal. Mag ik de foto’s gebruiken die jij hier stuurt?
Dan is de fout direct verholpen. Ik denk trouwens dat de munt op mijn site het jaartal 1568 heeft en dat het een typefout van mij is. Excuses hiervoor.

Dit munttype is gemaakt van zilver met een heel laag gehalte, wij noemen dat ook wel biljoen.
Als een munt langere tijd in de grond heeft gezeten dan verdwijnt het zilver en blijft er een koperkleur achter. Ook als een munt sterk wordt gereinigd is dit het geval. Ik heb talloze munten gevonden waarbij dit zo is.
Als voorbeeld hier de tekst uit de encyclopedie die ook aangeeft dat het zilvergehalte bij dit munttype (hier de Nederlandse wit) laag is: http://wiki.muntenenpapiergeld.nl/index.php?title=Wit

In google translate:
Thank you for noticing the wrong year. Can I use the photos that you send here?
Then the error is corrected immediately. I think that the coin on my site has the year 1568 and that it is a typing error. Apologies for this.
This coin type is made of silver with a very low content, which we also call billon.If a coin has been in the ground for a longer time, the silver disappears and a copper color remains.T
his is also the case if a coin is heavily cleaned. I have found countless coins where this is the case.
As an example here the text from the encyclopedia that also indicates that the silver content of this coin type (here the Dutch witte) is low: http://wiki.muntenenpapiergeld.nl/index.php?title=Wit

Witte, common denomination in the Utrecht Nedersticht since about 1390. Originally the term white Dutch groat was the Dutch groat of 1388, which was adopted as the standard currency in Utrecht; very soon witte was used. As early as the beginning of the 15th century, white became the usual unit of account, the value of which fell by strongly declining currencies.
Since around 1440, the witte was subdivided into 4 sections and equal to 1/6 kromstaart or 1/12 Burgundian stiver. The term white remained in use until the 16th century. 1 witte and ¼ witte coins were minted by Bishop David of Burgundy in 1488, and 1 witte and ½ witte by the city of Utrecht in 1460-1469.

Many thanks PetrusArcanus for your generous help in solving this problem. Please convey my thanks to Arie for his analysis and help as well. Please inform Arie that he may use my digital images as he may choose.

Arie's considerable familiarity with the series shows in his thorough analysis. I agree with it and in my mind the case is now closed.

In my own defense, I can only say that I was led astray by the designation of "silver" in the NGC website and in the Krause World Coin Catalog, upon which the NGC website listings are based. I seems to me from Arie's analysis that the designations of the witten from the period should be changed to billon or perhaps to "silver wash"?

I wish once again to give many thanks to 'apuking', 'PetrusArcanus' and 'Arie' for giving of their time, knowledge and generous help in resolving this matter. Bravo!

lhnumis

OOps...Correcting Typo: Thanks to PetrusAscanus...strictly inadvertent error on my part.