How thick is your coin? Share an image of the edge.
For what it is worth I have a 1764 version F-VF that weighs 1.8g, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the 1.98g weight.
Maybe the .368 silver content changed 34 years later or the silver price had devalued by a half resulting in a higher weight coin? Or maybe you weighed it wrong, scales broken? Check your scales with a modern coin weighed for comparison.
Anyway the thickness of your coin will help.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Hi, well the weight of my coin is 2.88g so there is a big difference (scales is fine :) ).
Unfortunately I have only to a ruler to measure it - the thickness is around 0.9mm (just below 1mm).
The silver content theory is interesting when comparing with 1/24 thalers from 1764.
However I checked many auctions with coins from 1798 and all of them are just below 2g.
Well mine is definitely thinner than 1mm, I would say 0.6mm or less (which would account for weight difference) but measurements at this level are really hard to get accurate even with callipers.
As you asked about forgeries, they are often thicker and viewing of the edge would be a good place to start. Other than that how many examples have you found with the same initials IEC for weight comparison? It seems a pretty rare version.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Definitely too heavy then, I have seen examples of medieval coins stuck together. I can only assume because one side was so worn or damaged it wasn’t worth saving, if there was then an opposite equal damaged coin the two would complement each other and with a bit of work fit together to produce one coin.
Although I have to admit the coins I have seen were easily spotted as two coins stuck together by the edge.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I think we need to also consider the possibility of a counterfeit.
There is NO coin of too low a value to be counterfeited. The famous Polish copper schillings of the 1660s are the clear proof of this.
The coat of arms should have alternating “filled” and “unfilled” bars on the right. This coin does not. Also the “beaded” handle of the sword is unusual.
I can find one other example made from this die, so it's possible that this is just a die variant (or they are both counterfeits. That other example does not give a weight). But all other examples I could find have the correct representation of alternating filled and unfilled bars.
You are correct tdziemia, these details differ. I've re-checked all 1798 IEC references and all of them have the same filled/unfilled bars and different hand of the sword.
Could You send the link to the other, similar coin like mine please?
Actually, looking again at this one, it DOES have the alternating filled and unfilled bars, but they are not so clearly visible as on examples in better grade.
I am not completely sure it is a counterfeit because most of the details are quite good. The A in THALER reverse is mis-aligned, and I could also not find that on other examples. But again, these are slight differences, and could just reflect a pair of dies that were not used often.
(except there is the much larger problem of the weight).
It occurs that the diameter is a little bit above 20mm as it's 20,5cm. I missed that in a first place focusing more on weight.
I've also tried to get a photo of 11 o'clock where You can see an irregularity - end of a metal sheet maybe? It also reminds me a mark left after pendant but I doubt it in this case as 11 o'clock doesn't fit for it in my opinion.
Tried to get as good photos as possible but I always have problem with keeping focused photos accompanied with a keeping sharp details.
