Yes, I just noticed. I'm not an expert in this kind of coins, but the one in the catalogue was minted in Baht, while in the photo I read a LVND, maybe it refers tu Lundinium, so minted in London?
Yes, I just noticed. I'm not an expert in this kind of coins, but the one in the catalogue was minted in Baht, while in the photo I read a LVND, maybe it refers tu Lundinium, so minted in London?
Yeah, mine is minted in London.
Wooh, I think I might've found it! I was just gonna write “And I think it says Leofryd”, but just before I wrote that I just googled “leofryð” and got thjs result. Could it be it? https://www.spink.com/lot/19026000561
I've been searching like crazy without finding an exact match.
Status changed to Solved(ngdawa, 9 Nis 2025, 14:51)
Yes, I just noticed. I'm not an expert in this kind of coins, but the one in the catalogue was minted in Baht, while in the photo I read a LVND, maybe it refers tu Lundinium, so minted in London?
Yeah, mine is minted in London.
Wooh, I think I might've found it! I was just gonna write “And I think it says Leofryd”, but just before I wrote that I just googled “leofryð” and got thjs result. Could it be it? https://www.spink.com/lot/19026000561
I've been searching like crazy without finding an exact match.
Great find! Information like this shouldn't go to waste, is it worth adding a year line to the catalogue page with ‘Leofryd at London’ in the comment?
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
Yes, I just noticed. I'm not an expert in this kind of coins, but the one in the catalogue was minted in Baht, while in the photo I read a LVND, maybe it refers tu Lundinium, so minted in London?
Yeah, mine is minted in London.
Wooh, I think I might've found it! I was just gonna write “And I think it says Leofryd”, but just before I wrote that I just googled “leofryð” and got thjs result. Could it be it? https://www.spink.com/lot/19026000561
I've been searching like crazy without finding an exact match.
Great find! Information like this shouldn't go to waste, is it worth adding a year line to the catalogue page with ‘Leofryd at London’ in the comment?
I'm thinking more if I should add a new page for it. Would be nice to have each mint separated, no?
In theory, the different mints and moneyers would have different reverse designs, so that would justify listing separate pages. However, in the practical world, there must be hundreds of different mint and moneyer combinations so the catalogue would be grossly inflated and if a member can determine what type they have from the obverse design but can't identify the mint or moneyer, then they don't know in which page to list their coin.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
In theory, the different mints and moneyers would have different reverse designs, so that would justify listing separate pages. However, in the practical world, there must be hundreds of different mint and moneyer combinations so the catalogue would be grossly inflated and if a member can determine what type they have from the obverse design but can't identify the mint or moneyer, then they don't know in which page to list their coin.
That's true. But the reverse lettering is different (not just the mint).
On the coin in the page the lettering is +EDSTAN M.Ω.O BAÐ and on my coin the lettering is +LEOFRYD M'O LVND.
But I agree. The result would be hundreds of pages with very similar coins. I still reckon this difference is too signicant for sharing the page. What do you reckon?
I agreed with @radrick007 that there would simply be too many pages that would need to be created even though this is what the catalogue guidelines ask for. Better to have a new year line with the legend present on that coin. One would hope the search function would find the lettering appropriately.
