Should I be Selecting Latin (Blackletter) Script More Often?

I am responsible for one issuer with many coins most struck before 1500, and I am wondering if I should be selecting the Script “Latin (Blackletter)” much more often for these coins.

The Wikipedia article on Blackletter mentions that this script was the most common one in much of Western and Northern Europe starting around 1150, and lasting until the 17th century, and is synonymous with “Gothic”. 

On coins from this period, the letters C and E are often “closed” by a vertical stroke rather than open, the letter Z looks like 3, the letter O often has internal points, the letter L often has an upright stroke on the right, and so on…

If my guess is correct, we probably have thousands of coins in the catalog that should be assigned this script (today a search brings up only 93, only half of which are medieval/Renaissance issues)

Sounds more like something akin to Lombardic capitals, especially with the closed E.

Edit. Reading more up on it it come from certain Gothic scripts so the similarities don't come from nothing.

If they belong to the Black or broken letter family what would speak against adding that information to the page?

Do you have examples for reference? I am interested in discussion, as I am adding scripts all over. Sorry guys. :D

Like the one 011A and 12BA http://www.numisbel.be/NumisMed_GB.htm

I think a problem is that these terms (Blackletter) pertain to writing, which involved the use of a writing tool (stylus) and a pliable (soft) substrate like papyrus, vellum, paper (until the mid-1400s and mechanical printing)

For coins, we have an engraver using a chisel on hard metal to make a die.  So, the technology to create the letter form has a large difference in capability, and in the outcome.  This is probably the reason that when I look for examples of “Blackletter” I am not finding things that match the fonts I see on coins. 

Regardless of this, we certainly have a different kind of script/font on coins before the 1500s.  Many catalogs note the change in font when it occurs during a specific type … for instance the long-running Lithuanian polgrosz (1509-1527) of Sigismund I of Poland, and the Pomeranian schilling of Boguslaw change over from the older font to the modern font in the first quarter of the 16th century. 

So here are some examples of coins in the catalog currently called “Latin (blackletter)" 

Large Blanc with shields - Philip III - Duchy of Burgundy – Numista

Plappart - City of Thann – Numista

1 Albus - Johann III - United duchies of Jülich-Kleve-Berg – Numista

Grosso - Francesco I Sforza - Duchy of Milan – Numista

Pieter d'Or - Johanna and Wenceslas - Duchy of Brabant – Numista

They do not look like examples of printed blackletter script I can find online, but they also are certainly not the same as modern scripts in many ways.

I am not suggesting creating additional scripts.  I think all of us would recognize these examples as an older (different) style from modern Latin scripts.  I'm just seeing if there is a consensus that what we see on the above coins is what we mean by Latin (Blackletter) because it means I should change a few hundred coins in my area.

There is also carolingian latin to take into account: https://www.artsandjustice.org/graphic-design-1/carolingian-minuscule-5012/

Hm … Carolingian minuscule, as the name suggests, only has small letters no capitals. I think this was the start of use of small lettering if I remember correctly. So I don't think that there are many if any coins with that script out there.

A coin that claims this script contains the E and O described above but I would put them rather under the blackletter umbrella.

N#138696 

Yes, the Tyrol coin demonstrates the letterforms I was talking about:

- the O with interior points

- the E that is closed by a vertical stroke (and is essentially a mirror image of the D)

- the C that is closed by a vertical stroke

- the A with a pronounced horizontal bar on top (which may also have downward strokes on each side..especially pronounced in Italy)

- the T with downward strokes on each side of the horizontal stroke

- the use of what today are miniscule n and h.

I can offer this example of a Low Countries coin from 1489 which to me shows the transition to a more “modern” font (though not completely) 4 Stivers - Philip the Handsome - Burgundian Netherlands – Numista

- the letters E and C are open (though the C has some remnants of the horizontal stroke)

- the T is modern

- the A retains half of its “hat"

- however, the O still has points, and the letters h and n are still not the H and N we would expect in these legends, and the L still has a second vertical stroke.

But at this point, I find it easier to apply “Latin”

So if we can agree on what is the proper Script assignment for the Tyrol coin, I think this would help answer my question.   I have no problem changing the Script field on early coins in my area from Latin to Latin (Blackletter) but I want to get it right.

The transition from gothic (blackletter) to the Antiqua (Roman) typeface family is very important in numismatics, with undated coins often being dated based on this, or attribution to specific mints or die cutters. Here are two examples of coins that transitioned from Gothic to Roman, with transitional types too, which mix both typefaces. You can see the varieties in the see also section:

N#90022

N#290004

I think when both typefaces are present, they should be recorded in the scripts in Numista

I was hoping you would comment!

Interesting examples.  If I were filling the Script fields for the first one, the obverse would be Latin, the reverse as you say looks transitional, so one could list both Latin and Latin (Blackletter).  DIfferent styles of A, E and L on obverse versus reverse make it look like two different engravers.

I am taking from your post that you are equating “gothic” = Latin (Blackletter) and hence that my starting premise (that we have very many coins in the catalog that should be assigned Latin (Blackletter)) is correct?  Certainly in the Low Countries the gothic letterforms are dominant in the 13th, 14th and first half of the 15th century, and it is only in the mid 15th that the more modern letterforms begin.  I would guess that of the 850 coins in Low Countries, Feudal and Burgundian Netherlands, something like half would warrant some modification of the Script field (many of which were coins I entered in the catalog anyhow).  

The amount is irrelevant we have tens of thousand of “normal” Latin script coins and I still would add Latin where it is applicable.

Yes, of course it is a minor point in the broad scope of Numista and all the coins we have here. 

But I thought if we have this script, and the areas I am responsible as referee are spaning 1000 - 1795, I could at least try and use it correctly (which I was not doing until recently).

And also that the thread could help clarify the issue for others who are refereeing places with coins in 12th - 16th centuries and might have a similar question.

I'd probably use different terminology for the “Gothic” (maybe Carolingian?) capitals that are the default for European medieval coinage (in the 1000-1500ish range), as opposed to actual Blackletter Gothic script used on coins like N#128172 and N#314349 [thanks for the new link format, incidentally].

(I could swear I've seen a standard circulation coin from some German place where the whole denomination was set up in that script, but I forgot which it was, and searching for that sort of thing is nontrivial.)

Of course both can be used on the same coin - N#22922 is one example - and on the other side it's a hard question if we should use the same “Blackletter” script in cases like the Gothic florin.

Mind you, with that sort of thing it's a hard question what counts as a different script. Do we need a “Latin (cursive)" script for N#64331? I think I've seen some Swiss coins that also had cursive parts.

Hmm, there is also a question what is meant by cursive… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive I guess some guideline is in order for scripts.

January First-of-May

(edited for brevity)

 

Mind you, with that sort of thing it's a hard question what counts as a different script. Do we need a “Latin (cursive)" script for N#64331? I think I've seen some Swiss coins that also had cursive parts.

That's the only easy part of your comment @ .  We do have a Latin (cursive) script as a dropdown option, and it could be added as a second script for that coin (as stratocaster said, we can have multiple scripts on same coin).