Flanders duplicate [solved]

Keep N#98067

Delete https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces310522.html

Unless I miss something @tdziemia ?

Hollow dots after PHS and DVX?

Reference book is available online in French.

Yes, according to Elsen, the type with a point/dot beneath the P in PhS and the D in FLANDRIE is attributed to Namur, and the type without this feature is attributed to Flanders:  https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5055699 .  I do not know the reference (probably an article in Revue Belge de Numismatique).  

I will add comments and links between the two types to make this clearer.

But secret points never change anything on the issuer, right?

It is only about mints in my point of view here

Image with arrow pointing at them might explain it better. Those dots are barely visible.

As best I can tell, both versions are struck in Namur.  Elsen seems to be saying that the variant with dots is for circulation in Namur before it is under Philip's control (1429), and the version without dots is for Flanders.

So, we have both types struck in the name of Philip as Count of Flanders, but struck in a mint in the County of Namur which is not yet fully under his control.

Confusing to say the least.  I tend to trust Elsen for having the most up-to-date info for attributions in this area.

Maybe we put two date lines in Flanders?

tdziemia

Maybe we put two date lines in Flanders?

Best approach in my opinion

Done.

Reading a bit in dePas, I was reminded that there was a promise by Jean Sans Peur to not change the composition of the coins in the Burgundian Low Countries for 15 years.

If I recall correctly, when Philippe le Bon came to power, he mostly upheld the promise, but found a few ways to “cheat,” and maybe this striking of coins in Namur was part of this (I think he also struck ecus of lower titre in some new mints).

Anyhow, yes, as the coin is sturck in the name of the Count of Flanders, and says it is “New coin of Flanders reverse” it makes sense to have it there, with a new date line and some comments.    

Very clear, thanks!