For me it would be sufficient that KM, Schön DM, and Gräßler attribute it to Erfurt. That is the case for the two coins mentioned above.
(Although in the future I expect to argue for other coins that the German language references should be given higher trust when KM places some Erfurt coins under Mainz.)
Below is the start of the background material from Gräßler. The summary: Erfurt isn't geographically close to Mainz was ruled by the Archbishopric of Mainz (so the archbishop should be a ruling authority) through a governor. Political and coinage issues made trade difficult in Erfurt so the governor requested and was given permission to mint coins for Erfurt in the name of the archbishop.
The background material below doesn't cover up to the dates on these coins – please let me know if you think additional material would help you come to a conclusion.
The Erfurt coinage 1756 - 1802
The minting period 1756-1763
under Archbishop Johann Friedrich Carl Graf von Ostein
After 1693, coinage was stopped in Erfurt. The city, which had become economically insignificant, had long since lost its once leading role as a strategic trading center. The silver trade, which had been extremely important and profitable for many centuries, had almost completely come to a standstill. The consequences of the 30 Years' War, including the coinage law, still burdened the city. The loss of independence had a particularly disadvantageous effect. Erfurt was administered by the Archdiocese of Mainz through a governor. The electors and archbishops in Mainz subsequently saw no reason to continue to mint coins in the easternmost province of their widely scattered area. Minting coins in Erfurt seemed too expensive. especially because the archdiocese did not have any corresponding mines. In Erfurt, in addition to the good old silver coins that were initially quite common at the time, those of the surrounding states were also valid, some of which were extremely active. Friedrich Carl Graf von Ostein (1743 -
shaped. However, during the reign of Elector Johann (1763), a completely new situation arose in the coinage system, and Erfurt was particularly affected by this because of its geographical and political location. Over time, the previously valid old imperial coinage system proved to be too high and was therefore more or less circumvented by more and more coin-minting states. This ultimately led to many states minting their small coins poorly with lower silver content. As a result, the coins with good content disappeared and coins with low content flooded the area in and around Erfurt. The particularly dramatic development for the city of Erfurt due to the many neighboring states could have been avoided, because as early as 1738 it was proposed at the Regensburg Reichstag that the small coins should generally be minted in copper. The intrinsic value of these separate coins no longer needed to correspond to their face value, since they essentially represented credit coins. Many states had long since recognized this correctly and to their advantage. In Erfurt, however, this was very difficult; the conservative administrative bodies responsible were too indifferent for a long time and did not pay the necessary attention to the new developments. When events began to unfold, people were surprised and helpless. The governor initially banned the low-quality small silver and copper coins that were flowing into Erfurt in large numbers, with the exception of the coins from Electoral Saxony, Brandenburg, Hanover and, in some cases, those from Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
see Hummel page 150
10
which, however, could only be accepted in limited quantities. Prevent the dissemination of unpopular foreign small coins. In addition, the pockets of citizens and the city's coffers had long since been full of these coins. The people in neighboring Weimar and elsewhere got into serious difficulties because traders and neighbors increasingly refused to accept bad small coins, some of which they had previously cleverly sold themselves for good money. The situation became constantly more confusing and difficult - also for traders and manufacturers. Complaints from all classes of citizens became increasingly louder and the government, faced with its own coffers burdened with inferior small coins, was now forced to vigorously renew its completely run-down coinage policy. The fatally long hesitation resulted essentially from the years. The opinion that has long been held by the responsible officials is better not at all than out. expected to mint copper coins. The silver coins once minted in Erfurt still had a good reputation. Only once before had copper coins been minted in Erfurt; this happened during the infamous Kipper period of 1621/1622, which was only remembered with great reluctance. But the situation at that time could not be equated with that around 1750-1755. Under increasing pressure from business and citizens, the right rethink finally began. At the same time, political tensions between Austria and Prussia became increasingly noticeable. The government knew very well that in the event of war this could mean the complete collapse of the strained monetary system and thus the economy. The distress caused by the neglected monetary policy became so dramatic in the second half of 1755 that immediate action had to be taken. Above all, the growing threat of war between Prussia and Austria with its foreseeable financial consequences absolutely required timely countermeasures. There was only one way left - to mint your own copper coins in order to be able to effectively put the others out of circulation. Since the copper required for this was very cheap and therefore cheap to obtain from Erfurt and the elector in Mainza was faced with very similar problems, he approved the request from Erfurt. Of course, state representational purposes also played an important role, to which Johann Friedrich Carl Graf von Ostein in particular attached more importance than his last predecessors. It was also a fortunate circumstance that the test pennies and pennies minted with the stamps of the medalist and engraver Georg Heinrich Werner made a lasting impression on the Elector. What was remarkable here was that Werner was stylistically excellent at creating artistic coat-of-arms cartouches with the entire abbreviated title in a relatively small space. A short time later, in 1756, coins were produced again in Erfurt after a minting period of over half a century. The issue of our own copper hellers and pennies - which were minted in different versions - was also accompanied by a ban on all foreign copper coins. The immediate success of the money, which was actually only intended for Erfurt, was astonishing, as it was also valid in Mainz and was particularly popular in the distant western countries. The minting volume had to be increased considerably
become. At a particularly difficult time - the Seven Years' War had broken out -
11
hen, the coinage even largely stabilized for a few years. In 1758, the electoral chancellor Wirschmitt, who was in charge of the mint, noted that the new copper money was very common and that there was therefore a necessary need for these means of payment. In fact, the Erfurt hellers and pfennigs almost completely replaced foreign coins in the third year of minting. Up to the Kreuzer (4 Pfennig) they had completely disappeared; even the Groschen and Doppelgroschen were only available for a considerable premium. The successful Erfurt copper coins not only promoted their further minting, but even the additional production of 3 Pfennig pieces from 1759 onwards. There were many good reasons for this, because enormous quantities of copper coins were now also being delivered to Mainz because people were there a similar or even better success as hoped for in Erfurt. In addition, they wanted to be as well equipped as possible in terms of money management for the increasing number of troop movements and billetings. Erfurt was occupied by Prussian troops eight times between 1757 and 1762 alone, as the Elector was an opponent of King Frederick II. The city had to pay the considerable sum of over 3 million thalers in contribution money to Prussia, despite a citizenry that only paid taxes on a total of 700,000 thalers. This certainly also explains the fact that the huge amount of copper minting came from Erfurt and not from Mainz in these years, which far exceeded the city's own needs for payment transactions. The Thuringian possessions
were much more severely affected by the burdens of war than Mainz itself. The foreign armies of both sides brought a lot of new money with them as they marched through, but at the same time they took a lot of copper money with them from Erfurt and exported it to other states. The demand for coins continued to increase, which was also clearly reflected in the artistic and extremely impressive variety of variants. In order to continue to be able to mint as cheaply as possible, the coat of arms stamps from previous years were often reused - as long as they were still suitable. Even damaged stamps were sometimes used until they were completely broken. However, the valuable side dies were coupled particularly intensively, as they were also subject to greater wear and tear as the upper dies and therefore had to be replaced more often than the lower dies due to the minting.
However, it happened that several times entire series of coins were rejected during occasional inspections and then re-coined. The years 1759 and 1760 are particularly noteworthy. The reasons for this are large denominations on planchets that are too small, the use of actually unauthorized stamps or recognized errors in the title or the coin image.
Encouraged by the success of its own coinage, but also for special national economic considerations and interests, the government, with the support of the Leipzig banker Frege, drew up plans in 1761, according to which, among other things, new thalers would be issued according to the convention base with the inscription on the value side: X EINE FEINh MARCK (instead of 9, now 10 Thalers from the fine mark) and gold ducats according to the Dutch foot - which was mined less than others, but
2 see Hummel page 152
Prof. Dr. A. Overmann, Erfurt in twelve centuries, 1929, p. 298-
12
was one of the most important trade coins and should be minted. Although Frea wanted to take over coinage on his own account, the Elector rejected sot's plans because they ran counter to the imperial mint regulations. In fact, a further rejection probably had far more complex reasons than was the case. A further request from Erfurt, according to which the testers and workers employed at the mint would be obliged exactly in accordance with the imperial and district regulations and also with the district itself, could appeal to the Elector convince. Thus, the plans with which Erfurt had hoped to make considerable profits and at the same time avert threatening financial and economic problems failed. The effects of the war were already severe enough and their further consequences were unpredictable. A little later, the government in Erfurt had to painfully learn how quickly 4 could happen. The filter and defense mechanism of our own copper coins, which had worked for quite a long time, finally failed because at that time there was only bad foreign money in circulation everywhere. Trade fell and prices rose. The state treasury had declining income, too much foreign and inferior war silver money with high denominations, but also suddenly increasing stocks of its own copper money. Towards the end of 1761, the situation in the coinage of the city of Erfurt was completely different than at the beginning of the year. The demand for our own coins was already more than satisfied. In Mainz there was no longer any interest in further deliveries from Erfurt. The actual needs had been overestimated for far too long. The mintings have been discontinued. On February 15, 1763, the Peace of Hubertusburg was concluded. The coin
The economy and the entire economy suffered badly everywhere, with Erfurt being the worst affected. Complicated negotiations regarding common evaluation tables with neighboring states were initiated. As a result of the Seven Years' War, many previously little-known foreign currencies, such as French ducats, Spanish pistols, etc., came to Erfurt and the neighboring small states. New courses constantly had to be coordinated and determined with the neighbors. At the same time, particularly severe action had to be taken against the bad silver money from Prussia, Bernburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin or the 8 Gröscher from Electoral Saxony that suddenly appeared in large quantities and were minted with old stamps (Ephraimites). Even the new Electoral Saxon 8 Gröscher was reduced to half the price in Erfurt when it was released. But the low-value sixes and groschen from Hildburghausen also made decrees necessary. In particular, the trade, which was essentially carried out via Leipzig and Frankfurt/Main, brought Ephraimites from Leipzig, who were banned in Frankfurt. From there, bad cruiser money came to Erfurt and the neighboring states. While Erfurt initially took a wait-and-see approach, the Duchy of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg took the initiative. It was about a general valvation (uniform coin rates) of the Thuringian states. Because of the different interests, these negotiations turned out to be extremely complicated and cumbersome. The good and bad types of coins had to be reassessed or banned without harming the economies of the negotiating states. In addition, the coin values of Leipzig and Frankfurt, the most important trading centers for Thuringia, were constantly closely monitored.
13
Finally, as Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, the Leipzig coin base was 12 thalers
rejected and adopted the 24 guilder foot, there became more and more interest in the Frankfurt rates (Kreuzer rates), which depended on the latter foot. Finally, Erfurt agreed to a patent based on these courses (March 30, 1763). The new imperial convention foot increased to 16 thalers (Rhenish or 24 guilder foot) was created alongside the actual 13 1/3 thaler. 20 guilder feet because the southwestern states were oversaturated with bad small coins of high denomination, so the value of the good conventional coins there increased. Since 1755 (agreement between Austria and Bavaria from 1753), Bavaria counted the convention guilders at 1 guilder 12 kreuzers, so the fine mark was contained in 20 payment guilders, but these were considered 24 accounting guilders. Most southern and western German states adopted this Rhenish FuB since 1760. But a short time later, the Frankfurt exchange rates took a back seat again, as on April 30th the Duchy of Saxony-Gotha-Altenburg adopted the convention coin base planned by Electoral Saxony based on its model. In fact, the convention mint standard was introduced in Saxony by decree on May 14, 1763. From one mark of fine silver weighing 233.85 g, 10 conventional species thalers were minted, -20 pieces of 2/3 thalers, -40 pieces of 1/3 thalers, = 80 pieces of 1/6 thalers, = 160 pieces of 1/12 thalers, 320 Piece 1/24 thaler and = 960 1/48 thaler. However, 288 was calculated in conventional terms, which means: One Reichstaler = 24 groschen, Pfennige = 576 Heller. The penny (1/24 thaler) was divided into 12 pfennigs or 24 hellers (the pfennig was 2 hellers). Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach also followed this example on May 25th. In Erfurt, however, it was again difficult to come up with a binding regulation. There were reasons for this, as trust was particularly severely and permanently shaken here; it was initially assumed that the neighboring states were once again a short-lived provisional arrangement. In the meantime, exchange rate tables were hardly or only difficult to understand for most citizens. There was a risk of unrest. Furthermore, the electoral permission from Mainz had to be obtained again, and the change of regent also took place at this time, because the archbishop and elector Johann Friedrich Carla Graf von Ostein died on June 4, 1763. This marked the end of an extremely remarkable coin chapter for Erfurt, which was particularly characterized by an impressive variety of artistically designed copper coins.
The minting period 1763-1774
Archbishop Emmerich Joseph Freiherr von Breidbach-Bürresheim
Under his successor, Emmerich Joseph Freiherr von Breidbach zu Bürresheim (1763-1774), an inventory and review of the coinage in Erfurt was immediately carried out. In this context, the responsible officials also criticized their own three-pfennig coins, especially those from 1761 because they were usually too small in diameter and weight. Was it an expression of perplexity in view of the complicated situation, or the search for a justifiable excuse for a nominal devaluation? Both were embarrassing and could certainly be an explanation. In fact, some of the threes of this vintage were only the diameter of some two-pfennig pieces. There is no record of why the planchets of the Dreier suddenly became so small towards the end of the minting period under Johann Friedrich Carl Graf von Ostein. The reason for this is probably
O fuso horário usado é UTC+2:00.
O horário atual é 16:46.