In the Project AFONSO for portuguese monarchy coins @PCarmo , we have countermarks on coins which we know the period of stamping, the reason for it and the authority behind the decision. With that we have a second moment of use of the coin which a pack of information different from the original die (authority, date, value, ...).
As an example is the coin below: Initial coin from Philipus II, 4 cruzados made in Lisbon between 1598-1621, with a value of 1600 reais. The coin has 3 countermarks, and therefore 3 more authorities, denominations, values and
chronologies. Those being 3000 crowned, (below 4 crowned) used to revalue the coin of 4 cruzados to 3000 reais by a law of 1644 during the reign of Joannes IV. After that is 4 crowned used to revalue the coin of 4 cruzados to 4000 reais by a law in 1662 during the reign of Afonsus VI. Finally, 4400 crowned used to revalue the 4 cruzados coin
to 4400 reais by a law in 1668 during the reign of Petrus Príncipe Regente (Regency).
As per meeting today, this situation was presented and debated and we concluded it should be registered as a type, since it changes the authority, date, value,... of the coin, and so the coin has different periods of use and all should be registered, following the correct order of application. In this case the original coin from Phillipus II, than the 3000 countermark, the 4 countermark and the 4400 countermak.
In type there is a possibility to determine the "type of type", sorry I dont have access to dédalo right now and dont remember the correct terminology, this field can be type, uncertain, variation... and could inclune countermark as a possibility.
I think this situation also apply to other projects as breefly mentioned during the meeting, so it would be good to have everyone's perspective on it.
@Numismatics Ontology Group
