13.92 mm diameter, 1.224 g, 99.9% gold, reeded edge Obverse: ROMANIA, face value 10 LEI, coat of arms of Romania, year 2018, Michael the Brave on horseback	Reverse: obverse of the 10 ducats coin with the bust of Michael the Brave, below, very small, the reverse of the coin, inscription ISTORIA AURULUI – MONEDA DE 10 DUCATI MIHAI VITEAZUL meaning HISTORY OF GOLD - 10 DUCATS COIN MICHAEL THE BRAVE Issuing date: 24th of December 2018 Mintage: 500 coins

About the Gold Coin or Medal Having the Mass of 10 Ducats and Bearing the Image of Michael the Brave. An Analysis of the Existing Bibliography

authors: Mario Homutescu and Adrian Homutescu

article published (English version) on Romanian Coins website on December 15, 2025; Romanian version published on December 7, 2025

Introduction

In recent years more and more numismatic books have become available in electronic format. Many old and renowned libraries have made scans of very rare books, which are part of the public domain, available to the public. This puts us in a very favorable position, because now many of the statements in the numismatic literature that were based on citations of works previously inaccessible to the average person can now be verified and challenged.

It ought to be emphasized right from the beginning that almost all authors considered that there is only one authentic coin/medal of Michael the Brave, currently located at the Vienna Museum of Art History, in the Coin Cabinet (Münzkabinett), and that all other pieces are fakes to the detriment of collectors. In fact, only four pieces with the specific mass of a 10-ducat coin appear in the specialized literature. Apart from the Vienna piece, there is one in Budapest and another in London. The London one, however, is unanimously declared to be a fake. A fourth piece appears in an auction catalogue from 1784 and is assumed to be the piece that finally reached Budapest.

As a result, the studies on the piece of Michael the Brave - Mihai Viteazul - basically consist of the analysis and reinterpretation of information already published in various older or newer works (drawings of the original piece, descriptions, interpretation of inscriptions, various hypotheses or comments). Until November 28, 2025, there were no good quality photographs of the Vienna piece. Thanks to a sponsor, images of the Vienna piece were uploaded to the online catalog of the Coin Cabinet of the Museum of Art History in Vienna (Münzkabinett Online Catalogue). Finally, one can see in detail how the oldest cited piece actually looks like, not in drawings made after the piece or after other drawings of later cited pieces.

In preparation of this article, surprisingly, we could not find any good photos on the Internet, even of the pieces considered or proven to be fake.

Besides the appearance of the first good images of the piece from Vienna, another justification for analyzing this topic again is the very age of the works dedicated to the piece with Mihai Viteazul. (Note. Considering that the dating of the piece to 1600 has not yet been proven - a date that remains as a hypothesis - we preferred the name "piece with Michael the Brave" instead of "piece of Michael the Brave".) Constantin Moisil published his work dedicated to this piece [1] in 1920, more than 100 years ago, Ștefan Tănăsescu [2] - in 1974, over 50 years ago, and Octavian Iliescu [3] - in 1993 (but the printed text appeared in 1996), almost 30 years ago.

The present work aims to correct several hypotheses and conclusions formulated previously and to bring clarity to some subjects that were presented previously on the basis of sparse knowledge and even erroneously in some cases.

When was this piece first reported in the numismatic literature? In year 1759, in year 1761 or in another year?

The first mention of the piece was dated back to 1759 in several papers: Moisil [1] - 1920, Tănăsescu [2] - 1975, Iliescu [3] - in 1993, Călian [4] - 1999 and Smaranda [5] - 2001. Iliescu declares in the cited article that the work [6] from 1759 was inaccessible to him (as well as The supplement to this work, published in 1769 [7]) and that the information actually comes from Sturdza D.A., Bibliografia numismaticei române, ASAR, sect. II, 11, p. 117, no. XIX, 1878 [8].

Since the publication of these articles and up to the present, at least two copies of the 1759 book have been scanned and have become accessible on the Internet. Surprisingly, in the place indicated by Sturdza in [8] and [9] and reproduced by Iliescu [3], i.e. on p. 235, we find only Transylvanian gold coins of princes Jean Kemeny (John Kemény, prince of Transylvania between 1660 and 1662) and Michel Apaffi I (Michael I Apafi, prince of Transylvania between 1661, when he was elected by the nobles, and 1690), and no trace of the 10-ducat coin of Michael the Brave!

In the article published by D.A. Sturdza in 1872 in Numismatische Zeitschrift [9], the reference appears as "(Du Val), Monnaies en or, p. 235", year 1759 not actually being mentioned.

The piece with the image of Michael the Brave does indeed appear in Duval, namely in the Supplement published in 1769 [7], on page 68. In conclusion, the reference to p. 235 is an error made by Sturdza, an error that spread in Romanian numismatics for more than a century and was taken up by all authors who treated the subject.

It should be noted that Sturdza indicated the bibliographical references in an abbreviated form, probably in accordance with the customs of the 1870s. Sometimes it is difficult to tell which work was referred.

The next reference in time is to the year 1761, to the second volume of Joachim's work [10]. A surprise here too. The piece with Michael the Brave is found in the second volume, which appeared in 1764 (it is true that the year does not appear clearly on the cover, but it is attested by the "Munich DigitiZation Center" (MDZ), which scans old books from the Bavarian State Library). The year 1761 is the year of the appearance of the first volume [11]. The author, Johann Friedrich Joachim (1713-1767), was a German jurist, historian and numismatist, professor at the Martin Luther University in Halle-Wittenberg.

Consequently, the year of the first publication of this piece is 1764, this first publication having been made by Joachim (and not by Duval in 1759, as it appears in many Romanian articles referring to Michael the Brave's piece). All considerations based on the years 1759 and 1761 found in the literature are therefore erroneous.

Fig. 1. The first published drawing of the 10 ducats 1600 piece of Michael the Brave, that appeared in Joachim I. F., Das neueröfneten Münzcabinets: zweyter Theil, Nürnberg, no year on the cover (1764) [10]

image source: Joachim I. F., Das neueröfneten Münzcabinets - digital book, accessible at Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum (MDZ) (who digitizes documents from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - BSB - in Munich, Germany);
MDZ's digitized version of the book was made available to the public without copyright and for non-commercial use only: No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only

Where did I. F. Joachim get the image of the piece?

Having established that Joachim published the first description and the first image of the piece with Michael the Brave in 1764, the statement found in Iliescu [3] that in his book Joachim "categorically states" that the studied piece "was published by Mr. Duval" cannot be true.

The exact German text from Joachim's book is "Dieses schöne und gar seltene Stuck, welches in dem Munzcabinet Ihro Kaiserlichen Majestät aufbehalten wird, und von dem Herrn Du Val zu dieser Arbeit gutigst mitgetheilet worden, ist in Gold gepråget und wiegt zehn Ducaten”, translated as "This beautiful and very rare piece, which is kept in the Numismatic Cabinet of His Imperial Majesty and was kindly shared by Mr. Du Val for this work, is struck in gold and weighs ten ducats". As can be seen, there is no mention of any previous publication by Duval, who only made the drawing of the piece available to Joachim or perhaps even the piece for study. We note that the translation in [3] is wrong, despite the fact that a copy of Joachim's work exists at the Library of the Romanian Academy and was consulted by Iliescu (as mentioned in the article).

How does the Vienna piece look like?

Up until recently, the literature presented only a few drawings of the Vienna piece (Joachim 1764, Duval 1769, Érdy / Weszerle 1862, Sturdza 1872, etc.) and one poor quality photograph. There were also (poor) photographs of the 10 ducat piece from Budapest, a piece generally considered to be a fake (despite a very good resemblance to the drawings of the Vienna piece).

The images of the piece with Michael the Brave from Vienna, added on November 28, 2025 to the online catalog of the Coin Cabinet of the Museum of Art History in Vienna (Münzkabinett Online Catalogue), solved the issue of how the piece looks, definitively.

Description of the piece with Michael the Brave, as represented in Joachim 1764 and Duval 1769

Obverse - image of Michael the Brave

bust of Michael the Brave, inside two inner circles, one linear and one pearl; the ruler wears a fur hat decorated with a panache with 10 feathers, fixed to the hat by a clasp with an oval-shaped precious stone in the middle; the plume interrupts the inner circles, reaching the outer pearl circle; the voivode wears an ornamented brocade cloak, with a wide fur collar; he has rich beard and mustache; the left ear, on which the brim of the hat rests, is represented in a very unnatural way

Obverse - circular inscription

inside the pearl circle on the edge is placed the inscription:

MICHA EL : VAL : TRANS : VAIW : S : G : RÆ : M : CONS : PER :

Reverse - circular inscription

inside the pearl circle on the edge is placed the inscription:

TRANSYL : LOCUMT : CIS : TRAN : PAR : EI SUP : EXER GE : CAP

Reverse - central inscription, written on 8 lines

inside the inner circles is placed the inscription:

: A : D : / VIGILAN / TIA : VIRTU / TE : ET ARMI / S : VICTORI / AM : NACT / VS /   1600 :

Before TRANSYL in the circular inscription there is a vegetal ornament; two more vegetal ornaments are located to the left and right of the letters VS in the central inscription; two other ornaments, in the form of a volute, are placed below the year 1600.

Completion of the abbreviations and translation of the legends

The inscription on the coin, starting on the obverse with the name of the voivode, continues on the reverse with the circular part along the rim, then with the central rectilinear part. There are several interpretations of the legend, but the differences between them are not major.

Here is the interpretation given by Moisil [1], followed by its translation:

MICHAEL : VAL[ACHIAE] : TRANS[ALPINAE] : VAIW[ODA] : S[ACRAE] : C[AESAREAE] : R[EGI]Æ[QUE] : M[AIESTATIS] : CONS[ILIARIUS] : PER : TRANSYL[VANIAM] : LOCUMT[ENENS] : CIS : TRAN[SYLVANIAM] : PAR[TIUMQUE] : EI SUP[IECTARUM] : EXER[CITUS] GE[NERALIS] : CAP[ITANEUS] A[NNO] : D[OMINI] : / VIGILAN / TIA : VIRTU / TE : ET ARMI / S : VICTORI / AM : NACT / VS /   1600 :

Michael, the voivode of Transalpine Wallachia, counselor of his sacred imperial and royal majesty, deputy in Transylvania, commander-in-chief of the army from this side of Transylvania and from the parts subject to it in the year of our lord 1600 won the victory through foresight, courage and weapons.

Fig. 2. the second published drawing of the 10 ducats 1600 piece of Michael the Brave - in volume Jamerey-Duval V. (but no author on the cover), Supplément au catalogue des monnoies en or, Vienna, 1769 [7]

image source: Jamerey-Duval V., Supplément au catalogue des monnoies en or - digital book, accessible at Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum (MDZ) (who digitizes documents from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - BSB - in Munich, Germany)
MDZ's digitized version of the book was made available to the public without copyright and for non-commercial use only: No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only

Valentin Jamerey-Duval (also written Valentin Jamerai-Duval, 1695–1775) was a French numismatist who became director of the Library and of the Imperial Medal Cabinet in Vienna. Although he was a commoner, his name was sometimes written as Du Val, suggesting that people believed he descended from a noble family. The emperor of the Holy Roman Empire at the time was Francis I (1708–1765, in office from 1745), the husband of Maria Theresa (1717–1780). After Francis I, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was his son, Joseph II (1741–1790, in office from 1765). Francis I and Joseph II are the emperors (not named on the cover) to whom the titles of the works cited refer, [6] and [7].

What is the diameter of the 10 ducat coin with Michael the Brave from Vienna? What is its weight?

The diameter of the coin is not explicitly given by Duval [7], but the size of the design suggests a large diameter coin. The same situation is at Sturdza [9], [12], where the design is about the size of a Moldavian thaler of Heraclides Despot (Despot Vodă). Resch [13] gives a diameter of 39 mm, but this is the diameter of the Budapest coin, not of the Vienna coin. Iliescu [3], citing a paper by Hungarian numismatist Huszár Lajos, gives a diameter of 40 mm - but this must also be of the Budapest coin.

A value for the mass of the coin is given from the beginning by Joachim [10], who specifies that the coin is a piece of 10 ducats. As a ducat is approximately 3.5 grams, the Michael the Brave piece must have weighed about 35 g. Other authors have also taken up the information, describing the mass of the coin as 10 ducats - for example Resch [13].

The same mass of 10 ducats is also given by Köleseri in 1780 [14], but in Latin form, "aureus decuplus" (the book is written in Latin).

A more precise value appears in Sturdza [9]: 35.235 g, but there is no mention of where did the information come from.

The recent online publication (November 28, 2025) of the piece with Michael the Brave from Vienna with its respective description allows for the definitive solving of this problem. The Vienna piece is 42 millimeters in diameter and 35.25 grams.

What descriptions of 10 ducat coins with Michael the Brave appear in the literature?

In 1879 D.A. Sturdza published the work "Bibliografia'a numismaticei romane" [8], in which he presented almost all the books and articles in which Romanian coins were mentioned. Tănăsescu in 1975 [2] and Iliescu in 1996 [3] mentioned, in addition to the main titles from Sturdza's time, also new works that dealt with the piece with Michael the Brave. For the last few years, a number of scientific articles published in various journals are accessible on the Internet, usually made available to all readers by the authors themselves. These are the sources that were available for identifying the images of the 10 ducat pieces with Michael the Brave.

1 - 1764, 2 - 1769. The first two images of the Vienna 10 ducat piece with Michael the Brave are found in the volumes of Joachim [10] and Duval [7] respectively, being reproduced in fig. 1 and fig. 2. Already knowing that Joachim obtained the image from Duval, we expected the images in the two books to be identical. Although, obviously, they reproduce the same coin, it is clear that the images are different in some elements of the designs. The most obvious differences are the following:

- at Michael's mustache - in Joachim's drawing it is longer, the tip of the mustache, on the left side of the coin, slightly penetrating the field and passing over the edge of the fur collar; in Duval's drawing the mustache does not extend beyond the contour of the collar;

- at the two inner circles (one linear and one with pearls) on the reverse: in the Joachim drawing the linear circle is placed inward, and in the Duval drawing - outward;

- at the number of oblong pearls on the edge: there are 29 on the obverse and 31 on the reverse in the Joachim design, and 30 and 33 in the Duval design.

The legends are identical, with all the dividing marks in the same positions. The ornaments on Michael's mantle are identical, as are the buttons or cords that served to close the mantle.

If we compare the Joachim 1764 and Duval 1769 drawings with the actual images of the coin, published in 2025, it is immediately evident that the artists who prepared the drawings and engraved the copper plates for the images in the books (probably the prints were made with engraved copper plates) took the liberty of embellishing the image of Michael the Brave, adding details that made the images more expressive. The ornaments on the voivode's cloak are also simplified and possibly supplemented in areas where details are missing. Furthermore, the number of pearls on the edge was not respected (and implicitly the pearls are not found in the same position as on the coin).

The biggest surprise was the way the year was written. On the two drawings in fig. 1 and fig. 2 we have 1600 :, on the Vienna piece we have : 1600 :. It is true, on the 2025 photograph of the piece the two dots after the year are barely visible and at a quick glance could have been ignored. However, it is difficult to explain the absence of the two dots before the year in the case of the drawings. We can assume an error made on the image production chain in the Joachim 1764 drawing. But how come they are simultaneously missing in the Duval 1769 drawing as well? The relative position of the linear and pearl inner circles is inverted in Joachim and was corrected in Duval, which would suggest that for the Duval drawing the piece itself was analyzed also. In any case, establishing how the error occurred and the connection between the Duval 1769 image and Joachim 1764 has no considerable importance.

Another surprise is at the legend on the obverse. In the photographs of the Vienna piece it is readily noticeable that the fragment S : G : RÆ on the obverse of both designs is actually S : C : RÆ, as all those who have interpreted the legend have assumed.

3 - 1862. In 1862 János Érdy (1796–1871) published some of the plates prepared by professor József Weszerle (1781–1838) under the title "Erdeĺy érmei. Képatlaszszal / Képatlasz" (a title roughly translated as "Transylvanian Coins. Illustrated Atlas") [15]. In preparation for a book on Hungarian coins, Weszerle had collected the available information and had prepared a large number of copper plates (for printing on paper) engraved with coin designs.

On plate IV, position 12, a gold piece with Michael the Brave is represented. The design closely resembles the Duval 1769 design, except for the form the year is written, namely : 1600 : (fig. 3). Érdy notes next to the description of the coin, after the plate number, Duval p. 68 (i.e. work [7]), which can be interpreted as him considering that the design comes from there, or perhaps just that this coin was mentioned there before.

Fig. 3. Third published drawing of the 10 ducats 1600 piece of Michael the Brave - in Érdy J., Erdeĺy érmei. Képatlaszszal [Transylvanian coins. Illustrated atlas]. 2 volumes, A. M. Tudom. Akademia, Pest, M. D. CCC. LXII. (1862), [15]

image source: Érdy J., Erdeĺy érmei. Képatlaszszal - digital book, accessible at Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum (MDZ) (who digitizes documents from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - BSB - in Munich, Germany);
MDZ's digitized version of the book was made available to the public without copyright and for non-commercial use only: No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only

The position of the inner circles on the reverse, with the pearl circle towards the center, shows that Weszerle's design indeed comes from Duval's design. There are also a few differences: the fragment S : G : RÆ on the obverse has become S : C : RÆ, the year 1600 : has become : 1600 :, that is, exactly as on the Vienna piece. The ornaments on the mantle seem to be completed in the style of Duval 1769, and the system of fastening the mantle follows much better the representation on the Vienna piece. The number of oblong pearls on the edge is 30 on the obverse and 34 on the reverse - in the Duval design there are 30 and 33 respectively.

Considering that the Weszerle drawing corrects both the error in the legend (G instead of C) and the one in the writing of the year (the absence of the sign : before the year), we are forced to assume that the Hungarian numismatist had access to the coin itself, not just to the Joachim 1764 and Duval 1769 drawings (whose influence is noticeable, e.g., in the shape of the letters of the inscription).

4 - 1872. Another image of the 10-ducat Michael the Brave piece from the collection from the imperial cabinet in Vienna is due to D.A. Sturdza [9] - fig. 4.

In [8] Sturdza stated, in the Latinized orthography of the time, that the figures in his article from 1872 were executed in Paris: "Descrierea moneteloru si medallieloru fiindu insocita cu stampe essecutate cu cea mai scrupulósa essactitate in Paris, s'au reprodussu ací alaturi acelle stampe, care potu dá ua idea destulu de desvoltata despre numismatic'a româna, pêne ce vomu aflá inlesnire a publicá ua si mai completa descriere si reproducere a intregului materialu numismaticu nationale... " [The description of the coins and medals being accompanied by prints executed with the most scrupulous accuracy in Paris, these prints were reproduced here, which can give a sufficiently developed idea of the Romanian numismatics, until we find the opportunity to publish a more complete description and reproduction of the entire national numismatic material...].

Although according to Sturdza's statement the images were "essecutate cu cea mai scrupulósa essactitate in Paris" [executed with the most scrupulous accuracy in Paris], there are important differences from the earlier drawings by Joachim, Duval and Érdy / Weszerle, as well as from the actual photographs of the piece in Vienna.

The position of the inner circles on the reverse, with the pearl circle towards the center, suggests that Sturdza's drawing could reproduce either Duval's drawing from 1769, or the Érdy / Weszerle drawing printed in 1862. The fragment S : C : RÆ on the obverse and the three-button fastening system of the cloak placed between two vertical lines are a strong indication that Sturdza could have used the Érdy / Weszerle 1862 drawing as a model, which he did reproduce with a few errors.

Comparing the Sturdza 1872 drawings with the photographs of the coin, we find that in the inscription on the obverse the drawing does not reproduce several separator colons (i.e. :), namely the one after VAL and those after S and C. In the circular inscription on the reverse, the : sign after LOCUMT is missing, and in the central inscription, the top point of the : sign before A, the : sign after VIGILAN TIA, as well as the one after 1600 are missing. In total, six and a half separators are missing from the Sturdza 1872 drawing. However, the letters are all present and, moreover, they are placed exactly in the positions that could be seen on the real coin.

In fact, if we look closely at the omitted signs in Sturdza's drawing, we can see that they are all poorly visible on the coin, or placed very closely to the letters in the inscription. This leads to the suspicion that Sturdza did not see the coin itself, but rather had a copy obtained by placing a piece of paper over the piece and then rubbing it alternately with a graphite stick or with a pencil (a technique also called frottage). This could explain why only the faintly struck elements are missing from the drawing! Anyone who made drawings of coins in this way as a child knows that the elements that are faintly embossed or located in areas protected by high-relief elements are likely not to appear on the paper. This hypothesis has the merit of explaining why Sturdza lacks so many separating signs. (Frottage is a term that designates an artistic technique by which, by placing a sheet of paper over a hard object with elements in relief and rubbing it with a pencil, an image of the object is obtained. According to dictionaries, it is a technique used in surrealist painting. Children draw coins in this way. In English, the process is called coin rubbing or coin tracing.)

Fig. 4. The fourth published drawing of the 10 ducats 1600 piece with Michael the Brave - in Sturdza D. A., Uebersicht der Münzen und Medaillen des Fürstenthums Romanien (Moldau und Walachai) [Overview of coins and medals from the Principality of Romania (Moldavia and Wallachia)], Numismatische Zeitschrift, 4, Jahrgang 1872, Wien, 1875. [9]

image source: Numismatische Zeitschrift. 4. 1872 (1875) - digital book, accessible at Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum (MDZ) (who digitizes documents from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - BSB - in Munich, Germany);
MDZ's digitized version of the book was made available to the public without copyright and for non-commercial use only: No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only

Sturdza did not say where were the images of the piece obtained from, however in [2] Tănăsescu is convinced that the image was "copied by Dimitrie Sturdza after the old print from Du Val". In other words, Sturdza would not have seen the piece personally and therefore no original drawings could have been made after the piece. If this is indeed the case, then all the changes in Sturdza’s drawing are just errors of the Parisian illustrator who made the so called copy.

The main "innovations" introduced by Sturdza compared to the three previous drawings are listed below, as they have some importance for the analysis of the subject. There are differences in the image of Michael the Brave and in the inscription of the legends. Extraordinarily evident are the differences introduced by Sturdza in the image of the brocade cloak with fur collar [1] that Michael wears. (Brocade is a good quality silk cloth, ornamented with gold or silver threads.) In the case of the cloak represented on the piece in question, the ornaments are in the shape of two letters C adjoined, with strongly arched ends. The letters are placed back to back [3], touching in the middle. On the right side of the piece (on the left side of the chest) there are three such ornaments and on the left side of the piece (right side of the chest) there are only two ornaments. The five such ornaments are partially covered by the fur collar or by the beard of the voivode. The cloak is closed in the middle with buttons, next to which there appear to be some cords. Three such fastening elements appear on the coin. Here are the main differences that are more easily identifiable:

- the cloak fastening system is simplified, with only three buttons and two lateral lines, parallel to the button line (the line on the right being newly added - it does not exist in Duval); the braids have disappeared;

- of the ornament with two letters C placed back to back on the left side of the piece and placed closest to the buttons, only the inverted C remained; the place occupied by the other C on Duval is now left vacant.

These elements, which first appear in Sturdza's 1872 drawing, reproduce more faithfully the elements of the Vienna piece.

Another problem introduced by Sturdza is related to the legends. The : (colon) is used as a separator between words. However, there are differences between the separators present in the description of the piece in the text of the article and those in the image of the piece. Some separators present in the text are missing from the drawing, while other separators are additionally present on the drawing. These inconsistencies should give food for thought and cast a shadow on the attention with which Sturdza treated the subject.

Moreover, the inscriptions in the description of the piece with Michael the Brave from Vienna differ from those on Duval's images from 1764/69.

There are several obvious differences, but the most significant is in the fragment S : C : RÆ on the obverse, which appears without the separators, having the form S   C   RÆ. In Sturdza 1872 [9] the two dots after S and C have disappeared, but between the letters there remain free spaces, originally (in Duval) occupied by separators. The presence of these spaces between the letters clearly indicates that we are facing an error in reproducing the legend in Sturdza's drawing.

It is also noted that in the fragment S : C : RÆ on the obverse, one letter differs in Sturdza, the G in Joachim and Duval being correctly interpreted as a C, as can be seen in the photographs of the Vienna piece. The transition from G to C was made by all the authors who gave the inscription, probably out of the need to interpret the letter. Even Joachim completes S : G : RÆ as Sacrae Caesareae, therefore with C and not with G.

As for the number of oblong pearls on the edge, there are 27 on the obverse, exactly as Tănăsescu [2] counted, so he must have analyzed the Sturdza drawings. The two inner circles on the reverse, one linear and the other one made out of pearls, are placed correctly, as in Duval's drawing and as on the pictures of the piece from Vienna (pictures published in 2025) - with the linear circle facing outwards. Compared to the three previous drawings - Joachim 1764, Duval 1769 and Érdy 1862 / Weszerle (1838 or older) - the Sturdza drawing reproduces exactly the position of all 27 oblong pearls on the obverse of the real coin.

It should be noted that Sturdza knew only 6 Michael the Brave pieces, which he described in the 1872 article, namely the 10-ducat piece from Vienna, the 10-ducat klippe piece from London, two large silver pieces and two small silver pieces. Sturdza did not know of any 5-ducat gold piece, because he did not describe any. Since the design of the Vienna piece (in the Sturdza variant) closely resembles that of the 5-ducat pieces extant presently in Bucharest, this implies that the 5-ducat pieces did not exist yet in 1872, or rather that they were made after 1872 and that actually occurred based on Sturdza's designs.

Note that Sturdza did not know about the existence of the 10-ducat piece in Budapest. It was part of the collection of Ignác Dobóczky (1813-1892). We infer that Dobóczky had not yet come into possession of the piece in 1872, because in [9] his name was already mentioned in the list of those who helped Sturdza with the documentation for the article.

Dimitrie A. Sturdza (1833-1914) was a man of culture and a liberal politician. He led four governments as prime minister. He was member of the Romanian Academy, becoming as well president of this institution. As passionate about numismatics, he gathered a large collection of Romanian coins. He was the first Romanian to publish a scientific article on numismatics in a highly prestigious journal (in 1872 [9]). Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu called him "my dear friend D. A. Sturdza, the father of Romanian numismatics" [12]. In 1903, upon the founding of the Romanian Numismatic Society, Sturdza was elected its honorary president.

5 - 1873. In 1873, the plates prepared by professor Weszerle were published, containing over 2000 coins, mainly Hungarian and Transylvanian, under the title "Weszerle József hátrahagyott érmészeti táblai. Kiadja a M. Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiség-ostálya. Tabulae Nummorum Hungaricorum" (title roughly translated as "The coin plates left behind by József Weszerle. Published by the Department of Medals and Antiquities of the Hungarian National Museum"). Apud Iliescu [3], here appeared the image of another 10 ducat coin, which comes from the collection of Ignác Dobóczky (1813-1892) and which arrived by donation to the Hungarian National Museum (Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum) in 1882 [3]. Iliescu described the image as being placed on plate IV, position 12. It is clearly the same copper plate already published by Érdy in 1862 [15]. The design of this coin is very similar to that in the Joachim 1764 and Duval 1769 designs, but the year is written in the form : 1600 :. This is the design of the Vienna coin. It could also be another 10 ducat coin with Michael the Brave, namely the one from Budapest. But in this case, its presence on Weszerle's copper plates, which were executed no later than 1838, is not explained, because the Budapest piece only appeared in literature after 1872.

On a numismatic discussions forum (currently the website "Numismatic Forum [® Asociația PRONUMISMATICA]") there is (in November 2025) a topic posted in 2005, with the title “Weszerle J . - Tabula Nummorum Hungaricorum -cu Transilvania” [16]. It was about an announcement of the sale of a reprint of the 1911 edition of Weszerle's plates. There are also images of three of the plates, in which two variants of the 10-ducat coin appear - the Vienna coin or perhaps the Budapest coin (plate IV, position 12, exactly in the position declared by Iliescu) and the Vienna coin in the style of Duval's drawing (the one with two dots after 1600 and with G instead of C).

6 - 1887. The next published drawing dates from 1887. The Hungarian numismatist László Réthy published the article "A Dobóczky-féle oláh éremgyüjtemény" (The Dobóczky Collection of Wallachian Coins) in a journal named Archaeologiai Értesítő (Archaeological Bulletin) [17].

Réthy shows that the Dobóczky collection includes thaler and half thaler-size pieces struck in gold. There are also silver pieces, thalers and half-thalers. Iliescu [3] notes that, in order to illustrate the coins of Michael the Brave, Réthy used the exact drawing from Sturdza's article from 1872, with all its errors.

7 - 1893. Another image of the 10-ducat piece with Michael the Brave from the imperial cabinet in Vienna is due to Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu - fig. 5. A drawing of the piece appears in Etymologicum magnum Romaniae, volume III B-Bărbat, published in 1893. It is for sure a redrawing of the image from Sturdza 1872, because it presents all its characteristic micro-signs (three buttons on the cloak, the half-ornament on the cloak's breast, the inscription with S   C   RÆ without the separating elements after S and C). In fact, Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu stated that all the material relating to Romanian numismatics and published in the article "ban" [ban means coin in Romanian] was made available to him by D.A. Sturdza.

An irrefutable proof that new images were made in 1893 is the fact that the coin plates have the manufacturer inscribed in the lower right: "Lith. G. Voneberg Bucuresci" - meaning they were made by lithography. We would have expected that the Hasdeu from 1893 images to be practically identical to the Sturdza 1872 images. But, surprise: on Hasdeu the year is no longer written : 1600, but in a new form, : 1600 :, with two dots on both the left and right. The year is written exactly the same (: 1600 :) in the description of the coin in the text. The coin is declared to be part of the "Imperial Collection in Vienna". It is noticeable that, in comparison to the 1872 version, the inscription on the reverse corrected the legend in three places. Now it appears :A:D: (and not .A:D:), LOCUMT: (and not LOCUMT) and :1600: (and not :1600). Also, the letters of the inscription are much more similar to those of the original piece than in the 1872 version. In the case of the outer pearl circle, however, it is noted that it has 29 elongated pearls instead of 27 (as many as were on the 1872 drawing and as many as are on the photos of the Vienna piece). Overall, the 1893 drawing reproduces the piece better than the 1872 one.

Fig. 5. Another design variant for the 10 ducats 1600 piece with Michael the Brave, published by Hasdeu / Sturdza in the volume Petriceicu-Hasdeu B., Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Dicționarul limbei istorice si poporane a românilor. Tomul III B-Bărbat, 1893 [Dictionary of the historical and vernacular language of the Romanians].

image source: Petriceicu-Hasdeu B., Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Tomul III - digital book, accessible at Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum (MDZ) (who digitizes documents from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - BSB - in Munich, Germany);
MDZ's digitized version of the book was made available to the public without copyright and for non-commercial use only: No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only

8 - 1901. In 1901, new drawings appeared, that were clearly identified as being of the Budapest gold coin [13], described as a medal. Adolf Resch (1854-1926), the author of the Transylvanian coin catalogue [13], in which several gold and silver coins with Michael the Brave appear, was a jeweller and numismatist from Brașov [18]. Resch "made numerous copies and imitations (galvanoplasties), some of which are remarkable for their execution technique and fidelity of reproduction". The cited article states that he created a complete collection of "galvanoplasties of Transylvanian monetary and medal issues from the 16th to 19th centuries" [18]. It would be interesting to know whether Resch also copied the 10-ducat piece with Michael the Brave and, if so, what the copies look like.

In chapter C - Medals - Resch describes at no. 24 the London klippe piece and at no. 25 the Budapest piece, because he specifies that the latter is found at the "Nat. Mus.", i.e. at the "Ungarisches Nationalmuseum, Budapest". Strangely, Resch writes that piece no. 25 (the one from Budapest) is struck with the dies of piece no. 24 ("Von der Stempeln Nr. 24"). This is strange and indicates that Resch did not analyze the images of the London piece, which he did not include in the plates of the book. To be noted, the piece from the British Museum - presented with a description and illustration in Sturdza's article from 1872 - looks identical to the large silver piece declared by Resch as a fake (presented in plate 85).

In Chapter D - Forgeries, a large silver coin - thaler - is presented, which is said to be at the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest and to have been struck with Becker's dies. (The coins with Michael the Brave struck by the famous forger Becker in the 19th century will be discussed further down in the text.)

Again, Resch surprisingly did not include the Vienna piece in his catalog, which should have been known to him, especially since it was already described in many sources.

9 - 1911. In 1911, "Revista pentru istorie, archeologie și filologie" [Journal for History, Archaeology and Philology] from Bucharest published an article by Stoica Nicolaescu [19] in which there is a photograph of a piece described as the "gold medal of Mihai Vodă Viteazul".

The quality of the image is very poor, but it can be seen that it is another variant, with the year written in the form : 1600, just like in the Sturdza 1872 drawing. The letters on the reverse are a little better visible. They give the impression that they are very uneven, of slightly different sizes. Based on these photos the piece does not appear very convincing, and the material does not appear to be gold.

In his 1996 paper, Iliescu considers that Nicolaescu's image represents the Vienna piece, but without providing any argument in this regard. Nicolaescu's article says nothing about the origin of the images. Iliescu only had access to the republishing of Nicolaescu's article in a separate booklet in 1916, which he quotes, but the image is obviously the same.

10 - 1940. In 1940, Alexander de Farkas published in Aiud [a small city in Transylvania] a brochure entitled "Medaliile lui Mihai Viteazul" [The Medals of Michael the Brave]. Although the document is not available on the Internet, Iliescu [3] reproduces two images published in 1940. Regarding one of the images, Iliescu stated it stands for the Vienna piece, reproduced from a photographic cliché. Unfortunately, the images are extremely poor and nothing useful can be understood from them.

11 - 1955. In 1955 the Hungarian numismatist Huszár Lajos (1906-1987) published in the scientific journal Folia archaeologica an article in which a photograph of a piece with Michael the Brave appears - fig. 6, on which the year is written in the form : 1600 :. This is the coin from Budapest, which is described everywhere as having the year written in this form.

Fig. 6. Photo of the 10 ducat 1600 piece of Michael the Brave - the piece from Budapesta, published by Huszár L. in 1955 in article [20] in Folia archaeologica 7, Budapest, p. 183-191, plates: XLIX, L.

image source: Folia archaeologica 7 - digital volume, journal accessible at HUNGARICANA - Cultural Heritage Portal;
"Digital content published via Hungaricana can be used freely for educational and scientific purposes, provided the authors’/collection owners’ data are clearly indicated."

In [3] Iliescu states, relying on the authority of Tănăsescu [2] whom he quotes, that the Budapest copy is a forgery executed by Becker. Indeed, Tănăsescu declares this piece to be a forgery - but without providing any argument in this regard. It cannot be a Becker copy anyway. The Hungarian numismatist Huszár [20] is of the opinion that the piece appears to be original, since it is identical in details to the Vienna piece. This statement is, according to the images, only "almost" true. The Budapest piece seems to have an additional globule in the middle of the letter O in VICTORI in the inscription on the reverse. The Vienna piece seems to have, in addition to the Budapest piece, a globule inside the letter C in MICHA on the obverse. Otherwise, the two pieces have the same appearance.

12 - 1984. In 1984, the Hungarian numismatist Huszár Lajos published in the journal Numizmatikai Közlöny, 1983-1984 (82-83), in the article "Három szebeni veretű aranyérem" (title translated by Google as "Three gold medals struck in Sibiu"), a photograph of a piece with Michael the Brave, on which the year is written in the form : 1600 :.

This is, apud Iliescu [3], the Vienna piece. We did not have direct access to Huszár's 1984 article, but Iliescu reproduces the image in [3]. The reproduction quality is unfortunately very poor. In the photograph in the 1984 article, the piece shows a globule inside the letter C of MICHA on the obverse, so it is undoubtedly the Vienna piece!

13 - 2025. On November 28, 2025, the piece with Michael the Brave from Vienna was added to the online catalog of the Coin Cabinet of the Museum of Art History in Vienna (Münzkabinett Online Catalogue) - fig. 7. Now all errors in the drawings made after the coin (or after drawings of the coin) over time can be identified without fail - albeit belatedly.

Fig. 7. Photo of the 10 ducat 1600 Michael the Brave, Vienna piece.
image source: coin page at the Art History Museum Vienna, Coin Cabinet: Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien, Münzkabinett, MK 8853bα;
(Image files are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Austria License. Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum, ID168336. Photographs by Photoatelier, KHM.)

Identifying the source of the 10 ducats design on the 10 lei 2018 coin

Once the designs of the 10-ducat coin with Michael the Brave have been studied and the legends identified, it is possible to find out what was the source of inspiration for the design represented on the 10 lei 2018 gold coin.

On the reverse of the 10 lei 2018 coin there is a representation of the obverse of the Sturdza design, the characteristic legend fragment S   C   RÆ, from which C   RÆ can be seen, with a break between C and RÆ, being easy to identify. As well as the half-ornament on the breastplate of the mantle. Furthermore, the dividing sign is missing between VAL and TRANS.

Fig. 8. Identifying the source of the 10 ducats design on the 10 lei 2018 coin.

Also on the reverse of the 10 lei 2018 coin there is the representation of the reverse of the Sturdza drawing - fig. 8. Although the drawing is greatly reduced, from the adjacent detail it can be seen that the year is written in the form : 1600 :.

As a result, for the representation of the piece with Michael the Brave on the 10 lei 2018 coin, the lithographic drawing from Hasdeu / Sturdza 1893 was used as a model - for the obverse and also for the reverse.

Is the Vienna piece, generally considered authentic, actually authentic?

The question arises whether the Vienna piece, the oldest attested so far, is "authentic". In order to be able to set out in search of an answer, it is necessary to give a definition to the word "authentic". An authentic piece is to be considered one minted at the behest of the voivode, hence placing the minting during his lifetime or possibly shortly after his sudden death. On the contrary, inauthenticity implies that the piece was minted longer after the voivode's death or if nevertheless minted during his lifetime, the initiative belonged to some private individual.

The historical (and "national") importance of the coin would therefore be maximum if it was made at the initiative of Michael the Brave. On the contrary, if Michael the Brave had no connection with the minting of the piece, it would be of lesser importance when was it produced - one year, ten or 150 years after the voivode's death - standing for a mere homage (a very old one) paid to the author of the first Union of the three Romanian Principalities.

Arguments for authenticity

The main argument for the authenticity of the Vienna piece is its very existence. In 1764, a first drawing of the piece was made public by I. F. Joachim [10].

In 1955 the Hungarian numismatist Huszár Lajos (1906-1987) stated in [20] that the Vienna piece could have been received by Emperor Rudolf from Michael the Brave himself and that it is certainly original. As for the 10-ducat Budapest piece, Huszár wrote that it appeared to be original, being identical to the Vienna piece in every detail. In the cited article, Huszár also provided a photograph, which is of the Budapest coin. Although the photograph closely resembles the Joachim 1764 and Duval 1769 designs, there are also some notable differences, for example the year is in the form : 1600 :. It is worth noting that the piece from Budapest - unknown in 1872 by Sturdza - comes from the collection of Ignác Dobóczky (1813-1892), donated to the Hungarian National Museum (Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum) in 1882.

In 1985 Tănăsescu [2], assuming that Duval had published the 10-ducat piece with Mihai Viteazul in 1759, wrote: "we could affirm a priori that Du Val published, in that year, an original and not a copy or a forgery". As can be seen, the authenticity of the Vienna coin was established only on the basis of an assertion and in the absence of any proof. The "supreme argument" is also brought into discussion, namely the way the edge was ornamented, in the same manner used on the edge of the thalers minted around 1600 in Baia Mare for emperor Rudolf.

In Pippidi's 1987 book [21] he considers the medal to be authentic and disputes Moisil's arguments [1] regarding the minting of the piece after the death of the voivode. Thus, we read about the medal with Michael the Brave that "Due to the circumstances, it remained a numismatic rarity, the Vienna copy being immediately taken to court as corpus delicti, while most of the other pieces currently in existence seem to be recent imitations". Again, unfortunately, the strong argument - the one with the corpus delicti - is not supported by any document, either contemporary or more recent.

The well-known Romanian numismatist Octavian Iliescu (1919-2009) wrote in 1993 (1996): "the gold piece with the effigy of Michael the Brave was minted on the initiative and by order of the Romanian voivode in the first three months of 1600, to serve to pay the salaries of the professional mercenaries who were to wage the campaign in Moldavia and then continue the great anti-Ottoman war that began in November 1594. [...] I specified that these gold coins were minted in Sibiu, as previously proposed... ". The arguments are said to be presented in a study called "The Gold Coin of Michael the Brave", which is stated to be "in preparation" (in 1993). Unfortunately, we could not find any mention of the publication of this study anywhere.

Arguments against authenticity

The main argument against authenticity is the late documentation of the piece's existence, long after the implicitly assumed year of issue, 1600.

Unfortunately, in the catalogue of gold coins from the imperial collection published in 1759 [6] the 10-ducat piece with Michael the Brave is not mentioned. The coin appears only in the supplement to the catalogue, published in 1769 [7], after having been first published in 1764 in Joachim's book [10], courtesy of Duval. A legitimate question arises, namely, why a large, beautiful, very rare and unknown from literature piece, found in the emperor's collection in 1759, would not appear in the catalogue describing the gold coins from the collection? An obvious answer would be that in 1759 the piece that interests us was not yet in the imperial collection. A certain date is 1764, when Duval gave Joachim images of the piece for use in his book. It would be plausible that the piece entered the emperor's collection sometime between 1759 and 1764. The Supplement shows only one coin issued for Transylvania, while the original catalog lists no less than 76 pieces; was the purpose of the supplement to perhaps present acquisitions made after the printing of the 1759 catalog?

Another argument against authenticity is the appearance of a second copy of the 10 ducat piece in an auction catalogue from 1784 [22] (only 20 years after the publication of the first copy). This simple fact might still make us wonder. It presents itself as similar to the method used for dispersing counterfeits in the 1830s, namely to release only a few copies on the market and that with longer pauses in between. The well-known Romanian numismatist Constantin Moisil (1876-1958) describes this method of placing counterfeits in his article on the Michael the Brave piece [1]: "a few gold (and silver?) pieces were struck, which were scattered around the country at certain intervals, so as not to arouse suspicions".

It should also be noted that in the description of the 1784 copy the year is written as : 1600, exactly as in the Sturdza 1872 drawing. The difference in writing compared to the Joachim 1764 / Duval 1769 variant implies either different dies, or a drawing or writing error.

Constantin Moisil mentioned that the piece of Michael the Brave is considered "the oldest monument of our medal history [exonumia?]" [1]. This statement by Moisil is valid regardless of whether the piece was minted during Michael the Brave’s lifetime or after his death. Moisil noted that there was no known contemporary account mentioning the medal/coin with Michael the Brave. This statement, correct in 1920, stands true as well today (2025), and as well that the first mention of the existence of this piece dates back from the mid-18th century. More than 150 years had passed since the date 1600, inscribed on the reverse. From this, Moisil deduced that the medal was minted sometime after 1600.

Moisil also shows that the image of the voivode on the 10 ducat piece "does not resemble at all" the portrait of Michael made by Aegidius Sadeler (the best known portrait and the only one for which Michael posed for an artist).

From the existence of numerous types of pieces - gold and silver, large and small, thicker or thinner - Moisil deduces the existence of a first specimen, which was imitated by the others. From the gradual appearance of the pieces, the great Romanian numismatist assumed that each model was manufactured shortly before being published or put on sale.

Moisil's work ends with a sad conclusion, which leaves a bitter taste: "we cannot consider the medal of Mihai the Brave as a historical monument, nor can we recognize the symbolic character that has been attributed to it until now".

10 ducat coin or gold medal with the weight of a 10 ducat coin?

Serious arguments were formulated for each of the options on this question.

For example, in his 1970 book [23] Octavian Iliescu wrote about this piece: "... no coins were issued during this short reign of Michael the Brave, not even in Transylvania. The medals bearing his effigy were occasionally minted in 1600 and had no circulation value". After two decades Iliescu changed his opinion [3]: "... we are dealing with a genuine monetary issue, with a precise economic destination, but presenting on the reverse a commemorative legend that could have determined more recent researchers to attribute the quality of a medal to it".

Otherwise, opinions are divided. The oldest authors considered it a 10 ducat coin. Around the middle of the 19th century, the opinion emerged - based mainly on the inscription in the field of the reverse - that the piece is a medal in the classical sense of the term.

Where could the 10 ducat coin (or the gold medal having the mass of a 10 ducat coin) have been minted?

We can assume that Michael the Brave minted his coins at a mint under his control. Around 1600 there was no active mint in Wallachia. But in Transylvania, around 1600, there were several mints that minted coins. In [24], the mints in Cluj, Baia Mare, Sibiu and Brașov are mentioned.

According to Călian [4], the Hungarian numismatist Huszár Lajos, in the article "Három szebeni veretű aranyérem" (title translated by Google as "Three gold medals struck in Sibiu") published in the magazine Numizmatikai Közlöny, 1983-1984 (82-83), stated that the piece was struck in Sibiu or in the voivode’s camp at Șelimbăr, immediately after the victory.

In his article published in 1975, Tănăsescu [2] brought arguments for the piece having been minted at the Baia Mare mint. However, Michael the Brave's rule did not extend to the city of Baia Mare, which was under rule of emperor Rudolf II and minted coins for him. The most serious argument lies in the way the outer pearl circle of the medal is decorated, with a succession of three round pearls followed by an elongated one. The same ornamentation is found on the edge of several thalers minted for Rudolf II at Baia Mare in 1600 and 1601 [2].

Tănăsescu's hypothesis deserves further exploration. The online catalog of the Coin Cabinet of the Art History Museum in Vienna (Münzkabinett Online Catalogue, [25]) currently (year 2025) lists over 36,000 out of the more than 600,000 objects in the collection.

Searching inside the online catalog for coins minted at Baia Mare for emperor Rudolf II, images for 51 pieces in very good quality can be found. Out of these 51, only 10 are of interest for the present discussion. Out of the 9 thalers minted in 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604, those from 1600 (with two pieces), 1601 and 1602 have the edge circle formed by series of three round pearls followed by one elongated one. The other 5 thalers have series of two round pearls followed by one elongated one. We also find in the catalog a 5-gulden piece from 1601, weighing 17.3 g, 41 mm in diameter, with an ornament in the shape of a series of three round pearls followed by one elongated one - fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Photo of the 5 guilder 1601 coin minted in Baia Mare for emperor Rudolf II.
image source: coin page at the Art History Museum Vienna, Coin Cabinet: Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien, Münzkabinett, MK 329bα;
(Image files are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Austria License. Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum, ID159822. Photographs by Margit Redl, KHM.)

Looking at the large coins in the catalogue, it is easy to see that the letters used to write the legends resemble extraordinarily well those found in the Joachim 1764 and Duval 1769 drawings, with those in the photograph of the Budapest piece and with those in the images of the Vienna piece. We can note the similar graphic elements of the letters, the proportions between the letter elements, the inclination or straightness of some parts of the letters. Considering the large images, the study of the letters of the coins minted in Baia Mare in the years 1600-1604 is perfectly possible. Unfortunately, this would only solve part of the problem; the letters still need to be compared with those on the recent photographs of the Vienna coin. The photograph of the Budapest coin given by Huszár [20] is much too poor; good photographs of it would also be necessary.

For example, the letter R has a specific shape, the right foot being much elongated. However, looking at the Rudolf II thalers displayed on the Münzkabinett Online Catalogue [25] - almost 500 pieces - we notice that the letters look more or less the same regardless of the mint where the pieces were struck. But only at Baia Mare was this kind of edge ornamentation used.

Of course, the mere similarity of the letters is not a definitive proof, but only one argument among others. A possible forger from the 18th century (or from any other century) who would have wanted to "invent" a medal with Michael the Brave featuring the year 1600 able to pass as an original could very well have looked for a piece bearing exactly that year and imitate its style and particular elements (for example, the edge ornamentation, the set of characters, the size of the letters included). An imperial piece minted in Baia Mare would have been a good piece as a model, because the mint here was the closest mint to the Transylvanian Principality of the time (the place of the events and of the main action of Michael the Brave) which minted coins in the year 1600.

The close similarity of the letters of the inscription on the 10 ducat Michael the Brave piece with those on the coins minted in Baia Mare in 1600-1601 would also suggest that its dies were engraved at the Baia Mare mint or at least were made by the engraver of this mint. At least apparently, the inscriptions on the Michael the Brave coin could have been made with punches from those used for the thalers minted for Rudolf II!

It may also be mentioned that in Huszár's 1979 Hungarian coin catalogue [26], in addition to the 5-gulden coin and the thalers mentioned above for the Baia Mare mint, a 10-gulden coin from 1601 is also mentioned, which bears the same ornamentation near the edge. (We were unable to find other coins with this type of ornamentation.)

Forgeries of the 10 ducat piece with Michael the Brave. Appel's forgery

A silver piece was presented by the Austrian numismatist Joseph Appel (1767-1834) in one of his books [27]. It is the first known mention of a silver Michael the Brave piece with the year 1600. Appel described the piece as a silver impression of the Vienna gold piece (i.e. a silver essay struck with the original dies) and referred to Joachim's book of 1764 [10] for the image. In the description of the reverse legend the year appeared in the form • 1600 • (a form characteristic of the smaller diameter forgery of Becker [28], see also Table 1). It is likely that Appel could not have known the diameter of the Vienna coin from Joachim's book - which he cited, because Joachim [10] only gave a plate on which the image is probably enlarged (while in Duval [7] the various coins presented have different diameters and we can assume that the drawings were made on a 1:1 scale). Given the very long time interval between the alleged year of the piece's issuance and the year of its first report - over 200 years - Appel's silver piece was suspected of being fake.

Appel's forgery is mentioned in almost all Romanian specialized works.

In Sturdza's Bibliography [8] it is stated that Appel describes "medalli'a de argintu a lui Michaiu Vitézulu cea mare, care se considera ca fórte rara si ca imitatiune (Abstoss) de pe cea de auru. Greutatea ei este de 5/8 Lot. 8 gran" ["the large silver medal of Michael the Brave, which is considered very rare and an imitation (Abstoss) of the gold one. Its weight is 5/8 Lot. 8 gran"]. Then Sturdza hypothesizes that Appel's piece was engraved by Becker: "Déco medalli'a de argintu cea mare a lui Michaiu Vitézulu este ua imitatiune, atunci aceasta provine d'in aceiasi sorginte spurie (atribuita lui Bekker) ca si medalli'a in patru coltiuri (Klippe) d'in Londra, necunnoscuta lui Appel" ["Since the large silver medal of Michael the Brave is an imitation, then it comes from the same spurious source (attributed to Bekker) as the four-cornered medal (Klippe) from London, unknown to Appel"].

Moisil [1] also mentioned the silver piece described by Appel: "As for the silver specimens, the first one is mentioned in 1824 in Appel's work on Medieval and Modern Numismatics. This specimen was of large format (40 mm.) and was considered even then as an imitation of the gold specimen from Vienna(?), without specifying whether it is a contemporary or later imitation".

Tănăsescu [2] mentions that Appel described "a large silver medal Mihai Viteazul", and even presents a picture of this piece.

In the brochure [29] accompanying the 10 lei gold 2018 coin - the 10 ducats coin 1600 of Michael the Brave, from the History of Gold series, there are two references to the piece in Appel's catalog: "such pieces, the size of the thalers (c. 40 mm), have also been reported in other important collections" and "the thaler published in 1824".

According to these authors, it seems established that Appel presented a thaler-sized piece, struck with the same dies as the Vienna piece. Although without any practical utility, just for the pleasure of investigation, let us further verify whether this statement is true or not.

Some metrological considerations for Austria in the 1830s

Let us see exactly what Appel writes in his work from 1824 [27] when describing the piece, with the abbreviations specific to the time:

"Ioach.Mzk.IITh. Tab.III.p.11."

"Abstoss in Silber C. 23 w. 5/8 Lt. 8 Gr.".

The first fragment is easy to interpret. It is a quote at Joachim's book [10] and the place in the book where the piece was described: Joachim, Münzcabinet, volume II, Plate III on page 11.

The second fragment is much more difficult to translate. "Abstoss in Silber" should probably be interpreted as "struck in silver" or "impression in silver".

The abbreviations C, Lt. and Gr. are explained in the first volume of the series, published by Appel in 1820, under the title Explanation of Symbols. C is actually G (right here there is a typo in the book) and stands for Grösse, meaning size. Lt. is the abbreviation for lot and Gr. is the abbreviation for gran, grain. Lot and grain are old units of mass.

So far so good, except that before the introduction of the metric system, there were a bunch of different systems of units for mass and length. The same unit of measure - for example, a lot - had different values depending on the region.

Fortunately, Appel specified in the text what kind of units of measurement he used. Thus, the lot was the Viennese one, and 16 lots made a mark. The Viennese mark was 560 grams, and the lot 17.5 g. To define the grain, Appel uses the mass of the gold ducat, which contained 60 grains. Since a ducat is approximately 3.5 g, the grain is 0.0583 g. Consequently, the mass of the Michael the Brave piece, calculated in grams, is (5 / 8) * 17.5 + 8 * 0.0583 = 11.4 g. As can be seen, the mass does not seem to be that of a one-thaler coin (the Austrian imperial thalers from 1600 were approximately 28-29 grams). Rather, the mass is closer to the mass of half a thaler!

As for the size of G. 23, it is clear that, since the year is 1824, it cannot be millimeters. At that time in Austria, small lengths were measured in inches (der Zoll in singular, die Zölle in plural), one inch being 26.34 mm. One inch was equal to 12 lines and one line was 2.195 mm, being subdivided in turn into 12 points. If Appel's indication is in lines, it comes out too much, if in points - much too little.

The "secret" of the G. 23 diameter lies in the fact that Appel created his own scale of dimensions! In the first volume it is stated that the dimensions were measured according to the printed template (Münzen Messer) [30]. Indeed, at the end of the volumes, among the plates, Appel reproduces his own template. It is a series of circles of different diameters, all tangent to each other at the lowest point (at 6 o’clock on the dial of a classic analog clock with fingers). The scale next to the template is graduated in Viennese inches (Zölle). Appel’s scale is an arbitrary one, not being linked to a specific unit of measurement (or, at least, we did not find any connection). The use of a scale allowed overcoming the barriers imposed by the different units of measurement from one region to another. Another scale used in the 19th century was the Mionnet scale, however others were used as well. One point on Appel’s scale is equal to approximately 1.5 mm, and as a result G. 23 means 23 * 1.5 = 34.5 mm.

After this argumentation, the conclusion is that Appel described a small piece in his book and not a large piece (of about 40 mm). Not only the diameter, but also the mass brings the piece closer to half a thaler and in no case to one thaler. It seems strange that no one noticed that the declared mass of 5/8 lots is much lighter than the mass of a thaler. In conclusion, all the mentioned authors were wrong, starting with Sturdza, and Appel published a piece of small diameter.

Appel also showed that using the dies of pieces normally struck in gold to strike pieces in silver was relatively common at the time and gave several examples. Once the diameter of Appel's piece is understood, it becomes clear that his claim of having a silver impression of the original dies of the Vienna piece cannot be true. In fact, Appel had no way of knowing the diameter of the Vienna piece.

Forgeries of the 10 ducat coin. Becker's forgeries [31], [28]

An author of forgeries and reproductions of coins and medals who is definitely known to have forged Michael the Brave pieces is Carl Wilhelm Becker (1772-1830). Becker engraved his dies by hand, on pieces of steel fixed in soft iron supports. He did not use any kind of mechanical means of copying [31]. His forgeries, at least those of ancient coins, were struck as in antiquity, by a blow with the sledgehammer.

Becker left a diary in which he noted a lot of interesting details. Thus, we learn that "Gabriel von Fejervary" (Gábor Fejérváry, 1780-1851, Hungarian archaeologist and collector) ordered dies for a large medal of Michael Voivod, for the sum of 20 ducats, on October 19, 1825. The drawing of the obverse was made on December 5, 1825, the die being worked between 6 and 14 Dec. The reverse design was done on December 15 and 16, with the die complete on December 19.

Other dies for a similar piece, also with Michael the Brave but of smaller diameter, plus another die, cost 60 florins. The obverse was ready on November 27, and the reverse on December 1, 1825.

On December 30, 1825, Becker sent to Fejervary the ordered dies. He also sent some pieces he had struck. With the large die he struck a 10 ducat klippe piece in gold, a "normal" (round) 10 ducat piece and a 5 ducat piece (same diameter but thinner). From silver he struck two thaler pieces ("guldenthaler"). With the small die he produced a 2 ½ ducat gold piece. On January 5, 1827 he sold to the same Fejérváry the small dies with Michael the Brave. On February 16, 1828, Becker sent Fejérváry another 13 pieces with Michael the Brave [31].

The term "klippe" refers to a coin (or medal) struck on a square piece of metal (blank). Rectangular pieces, more or less square in shape, were struck on "cut" pieces of metal, especially in troubled times, for example during a siege. However, there are also square presentation pieces and also regular issues. The klippe piece struck by Becker is most likely the so-called "London" piece from the British Museum.

Hill's citations from Becker's diary show that the dies for both the large and small pieces were engraved in 1825. This means that the Appel piece, reported in 1824, must have been struck with different dies. There is no information about who made the Appel piece, but it should be noted that several elements characteristic of the inscription in [27] also appear in the inscription of the small Becker forgery. The two inscriptions are presented for comparison above, in Table 1. Both have on the obverse the fragment SCRÆ (in Joachim and Duval, written in the form S : G : RÆ), and the year has a dot before and after, in the form · 1600 ·, which shows that there is a definite connection between the pieces. It would also not be impossible for Appel to have published the small silver piece before physically having it and ordering it to Becker.

Fig. 10. Becker copy of the piece with Michael the Brave from the collection of the National Museum of Transylvania History in Cluj-Napoca.
image source: National Heritage Institute website. Digital Heritage Directorate. Movable cultural goods classified in the National Cultural Heritage: Medal dedicated to Michael the Brave;
(The file was published under the license CC BY-SA 4.0; Change: the image of the reverse was originally placed below that of the obverse; it was moved to the right of the obverse, for reasons of better space utilization on the page

From [28, p. 27] it follows that the dies used to strike the klippe piece found at the British Museum were donated ("presented") to the great British museum in 1904 by a gentleman named Thomas Bliss, with the indication that the pieces came from the former Pulski collection. Otherwise, the klippe piece had reached the British Museum following the purchase of the Pulszki collection by the museum [32]. It must be the collection of Ferencz Aurel Pulszky (1814-1897), a Hungarian politician who was also director of the National Museum in Budapest. Gábor Fejérváry, who ordered the dies from Becker, was Pulszky’s maternal uncle!

In the part describing the works of the Numismatic Society of volume [33], there is information that at the meeting of 19 October 1876, Mr. G.H. Vise, having seen the article about the klippe piece of Michael the Brave in the previous issue of "The Numismatic Chronicle" [32], showed to the participants to the meeting the dies used to strike the small silver piece illustrated in Sturdza’s article published in the magazine Numismatische Zeitschrift, 4, 1872. It is mentioned that only two small silver medals are known (it was 1876), one in the museum in Vienna, and another in the collection of Mr. Demetrius Sturdza in Bucharest. These dies were purchased by the British Museum at an auction in 1925 [28].

In conclusion, the dies made by Becker for the small piece and for the large piece with Michael the Brave are at the British Museum [28]. The four pieces of the two pairs of dies can be found on the museum's website using the search function for the words "Michael Vaivode" (October 2025). Unfortunately, no images are available, only the masses and geometric dimensions of the pieces.

As an observation, Tănăsescu wrote in [2] that in 1967 the Numismatic Cabinet of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania bought the "5-ducat piece die made by Becker in 1825", with which "the three 5-ducat pieces from the collection of the same cabinet are minted". The 5-ducat pieces are of the larger diameter, and the Becker large Michael dies are found at the British Museum! The design of the Romanian pieces is different from that of the fake Becker from the British Museum. So we are left to wonder if Becker manufactured more pairs of dies than Hill mentioned in his book. Or, another variant, what kind of dies does the Numismatic Cabinet of the Romanian Academy have? The only available images of the "Romanian" dies are found at Tănăsescu [2], but all the images in this article are of a quality that makes them practically useless.

Also from Hill [31] we learn that Becker also made various dies for Appel - the numismatist who published the first silver piece with Michael the Brave in 1824. As Hill showed that Becker made the dies in December 1825, the question arises as to who produced the coin described in 1824 by Appel.

A drawing that seems to reproduce the drawing of Becker's small piece is used by Pippidi to illustrate the volume [21] published in 1987 in Cluj-Napoca.

A piece described as a "Becker copy", made of 986‰ gold, 17.3 g in mass and 39.6 mm in diameter and coming from the Esterhazy collection (donated to the museum in 1842) is kept at the National Museum of Transylvania History in Cluj-Napoca. The piece, reproduced in fig. 10, is classified in the legal category "Treasure" of the movable national cultural heritage, where the year 1825 is listed under the heading "Dating" [34] (this is the exact year in which, in December, Becker created the dies for striking this forgery [28], so this dating cannot be correct). The piece is declared to have been produced by casting (and indeed from images - not very good - it seems to have characteristic signs of casting), which means that it is a copy made after a large diameter forgery produced by Becker. Moreover, the design of the piece corresponds almost perfectly to the design of the fake piece, which is found in [28]. Also from the Esterhazy collection, a silver piece of smaller diameter (32.4 mm) came [35].

About the three pieces of the 5 ducat with Michael the Brave located in Bucharest and about the dies with which they were struck

A first specimen of large diameter but thinner, corresponding to the mass of a 5 ducat piece, was found in the Numismatic Cabinet of the Romanian Academy in 1920. It had been purchased from a merchant in Iași by the numismatist D.A. Sturdza and then donated to the Academy [1].

Also from Moisil's work we learn that the antiquarian Elias Șaraga (1859 - 1939) from Iași had a die of the piece with Michael the Brave, which he said was made by a silversmith from Iași, named Ropală (who had already died in 1920). Moisil was of the opinion that the 5 ducat piece mentioned above was struck with these dies: "With this die, several gold (and silver?) pieces were struck, which were scattered around the country at certain intervals, so as not to arouse suspicion. It is likely that the large gold specimen, located in the Numismatic Cabinet of the Romanian Academy and purchased from a merchant in Iași, was struck by this forger".

The silversmith Ropală mentioned by Moisil must be the jeweler Gheorghe Ropală, about whom we learn that he crafted in 1891 the silver reliquary in which the relics of Saint Paraschiva (or Parascheva, Paraskeva) were placed at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Iași.

In 1936 Orest Tafrali, an university professor from Iași, reported in a note in the journal "Arta și arheologia" [Art and Archaeology] about the existence of a very rare gold medal with Michael the Brave. The piece was in the possession of Mrs. Ropală, the widow of the "regretted teacher from the high school in Vaslui". Although the Museum of Antiquities had not been able to buy it "due to lack of funds", Tafrali expressed his opinion that "this medal deserves to be purchased by a museum and remain in the country".

From an autograph note by Constantin Moisil mentioned by Tănăsescu [2] we learn that Mrs. Ropală offered the medal to the Numismatic Cabinet for purchase in June 1936. Moisil also noted the story according to which the piece "has existed for about 400 years in the Ropală family". The detail is somewhat amusing, because it was only 1936 at the time!

The fate of Mrs. Ropală's piece is revealed by Tănăsescu [2]: it was purchased by the National Bank of Romania in 1947, being the third piece from Bucharest. The second piece had also been donated by D.A. Sturdza.

In [2] Tănăsescu provided additional details regarding the Ropală / Șaraga dies: they were purchased by the History Museum of Bucharest, sometime during the communist period. The author also provided images of the dies, but they are printed in execrable quality.

Tănăsescu also described a pair of dies for the Michael the Brave piece. The two pieces were purchased by the Numismatic Cabinet of the Academy. The quoted author states unequivocally that these were the dies with which "the three pieces of 5 ducats are minted" from the Numismatic Cabinet of the Academy and that they were the very dies executed by the forger Becker in 1825. There are images of the dies in [2], but they are horrible. However, one can still see that the design differs from the design of the London klippe coin, which is attributed to Becker. Another significant detail is also mentioned: these dies came as well from someone in the Ropală family...

Considering all the evidence in the literature, namely 1) a 5-ducat piece purchased by D.A. Sturdza from an antique dealer in Iași; 2) the dies purchased by the antique dealer Elias Șaraga from the silversmith Ropală from Iași; 3) a 5-ducat piece put up for sale in 1936 by a Mrs. Ropală and 4) the dies purchased in 1967 from someone in the Ropală family, dies with which all three 5-ducat pieces from Bucharest were struck, we believe that only one conclusion is logical. The jeweler Gheorghe Ropală is the author of the dies with which the large-diameter gold pieces from Bucharest were struck.

Whether Ropală worked on behalf of the antique dealer Elias Șaraga (after the Becker / Appel / Fejérváry "model"; in fact, Șaraga bought dies from Ropală and tried to resell them), or whether he made the dies on his own initiative, we will probably never know. What is certain is that Gheorghe Ropală left to the family at least one gold piece and the dies with which it had been struck.

The inspiration source for the design of the 5 ducat pieces with Michael the Brave from Bucharest

Unexpectedly, there are very few images of the 5 ducat pieces from Bucharest. The oldest image we have found is the one published by professor Orest Tafrali in 1936 [36]. A good quality photograph, of the obverse only, black and white, illustrates the second volume of Istoria românilor [History of the Romanians] by Giurescu C. and Giurescu D. [37]. A similar image, also of the obverse only, illustrates the work [39]. Color images of the piece appear on the website Monedele Moldovei și Valahiei [39] [Coins of Moldavia and Walachia] (as well as on another website that took the image).

Two of the three pieces are currently on display at the National Museum of Romanian History in Bucharest. A photograph of them, from an angle, was "hidden" in October 2025 somewhere on the Wikimedia Commons website; it was accessible by searching on the website "National Museum of Romanian History 6 gold coins" - fig. 11.

A copy, probably made by electroplating, is on display at the National Military Museum. The copy appears in a presentation video. And that is all about it.

Fig. 11. Fragment of a photo with two gold pieces with Michael the Brave and other gold coins from the National Museum of History of Romania, photo located on the Wikimedia Commons website - author Joe Mabel.
imaginie source: Wikimedia Commons website: File:National_Museum_of_Romanian_History_-_6_gold_coins.jpg;
(This file is licensed under: Joe Mabel, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons / Cropped from original)

From the three series of photographs (three obverse and two reverse photos) it is quite easy to see that the pieces present the main characteristic signs of the design published by D.A. Sturdza in 1872: three buttons on the mantle, the half-ornament on the mantle breastplate and the inscription with S C RÆ without the separating elements after S and C. However, there is also an obvious difference: the year is neither written in the form : 1600, as in Sturdza 1872, nor in the form : 1600 :, as in Hasdeu (Sturdza) 1893 and the pieces from Vienna and Budapest, but rather in the form 1600 :, as in Joachim and Duval.

It can also be seen that the letters of the inscription were individually engraved on the die. The same letter is slightly different from one occurrence to another. On a medieval piece it would have been normal, especially for such a long inscription, for the engraver to use punches to strike the letters on the die. If punches had been used then the same letter would of course have had the same appearance on each occurrence.

It should be noted here that on the drawings of Joachim 1764, Duval 1769 and Érdy / Weszerle 1862 the letters retain their particularities on each appearance in each drawing. This is easily observed for the letters A, E, L, M, S, T, V. For example, in the letter V the right branch is clearly thinner in all the drawings. This observation leads us to the idea that the drawings were made after an actual coin and that on the real coin the letters necessary for the inscriptions had been formed with the help of punch tools, according to the medieval technique. The example with the letter V, however, raises some questions regarding the way in which coin designs were made in the past, because on the photo of the Vienna coin it is noticeable that the branches of the V have rather equal thicknesses to each other!

However, if we analyze the Sturdza 1872 and Hasdeu (Sturdza) 1893 drawings from the same point of view, we find that the artists did not copy the models correctly, drawing the letters differently almost on each occurrence, both on the same drawing and on the other! For example, the V in VS in the central inscription on the reverse has a thinner branch on the left in Sturdza 1872 and contrarily on the right in Hasdeu (Sturdza) 1893. This observation leads us to the idea that Sturdza's drawings were executed more carelessly and that they did not faithfully reproduce the Vienna piece, and not even the drawings of Joachim or Duval. If it were not obvious that the Sturdza drawings do not faithfully represent the model, we would be entitled to consider that they represent a piece on which each letter was engraved individually by hand!

The dies created by Becker have the inscriptions struck with punches, so the letters are almost identical in each occurrence. Hill [31] clearly states that, for the inscriptions of the forgeries of medieval coins, the forger bought punches with the letters of the alphabet ready-made, as sets. The name of a punch maker, a certain Zeichner, of Vienna, is also given ("a maker such as Zeichner of Vienna" in the original - this could be a misinterpretation of Becker's manuscript, since in German Zeichner means draftsman, designer or graphic artist, and common nouns in German are capitalized like proper nouns).

From the above, it can be concluded that jeweler Gheorghe Ropală from Iași found inspiration in Sturdza's designs for creating the dies with which the pieces from Bucharest were struck.

About the fate of Sturdza's drawings

The "Sturdza" drawings (1872) and "Hasdeu-Sturdza" drawings (1893) were used in all Romanian scientific articles that dealt with the subject, as well as in history books, be they generalistic or limited to Michael the Brave. Some of these books are worth mentioning here.

Romanian historian Constantin C. Giurescu used the drawing with : 1600 : in [40] - the image is therefore taken from Hasdeu (Sturdza) 1893. In [41] Nicolae Iorga used the drawing from Sturdza 1872 to illustrate the "medal - coin".

In 1938 Sacerdoțeanu and Vîrtosu [42] reproduced several drawings after Sturdza [9] and after Moisil [1], which they described as "gold medals with the image of Michael the Brave, minted after the death of the voivode".

The drawing with : 1600 published by Sturdza in 1872 is used to illustrate the Vienna piece - for example by Moisil [1] and by Smaranda [5].

Discussions

We can easily see that the piece with Michael the Brave truly fascinated Romanian numismatists, starting from D.A. Sturdza and D.I. Ghica (the first Romanians to publish - and not just anywhere, but rather in highly prestigious international journals - information about the Wallachian voivod's pieces) and up to the present day. Since then and until today, the subject has been periodically revisited, many other articles have been written and published, with new details always being observed and new hypotheses being formulated.

Some authors have denied the similarity between the image of Michael the Brave on the piece and the actual portrait of the voivode, made by Aegidius Sadeler in 1601, in Prague. Others noted a striking similarity... even more, somewhere on the Internet someone had recognized in the features on the coin the distinctive features of the skull of Michael the Brave! As Einstein put it "Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt" ["Imagination is more important than knowledge, because knowledge is limited"]. Some authors have denied the similarity between the image of Michael the Brave on the piece and the authentic portrait of the voivode, made by Aegidius Sadeler in 1601, in Prague. Others noted a striking similarity... even more, somewhere on the Internet someone had recognized in the features on the coin the distinctive features of the skull of Michael the Brave!

Some authors considered that it is a medal, estimating the mintage to 2 or 3 copies. Iliescu considered that it was a coin that had to be minted to pay the mercenaries in the army with which Michael the Brave conquered Moldavia.

Some believed that the piece was struck during the life of the voivode, at his behest, others - that the piece was struck after Michael the Brave's death, by an admirer... and therefore it is not authentic.

Many times drawings were analyzed in detail, sometimes at second or even third hand, copied and recopied with the introduction of new errors at each redrawing. This cannot be considered a reasonable method.

The few existing photographic images available over to 2025 are rather inconclusive. For this reason, on the 10 lei 2018 coin from the History of Gold series, the 10 ducat piece was reproduced after the drawing published in 1893 by Hasdeu (and also provided by D.A. Sturdza). In the year 2025, very good quality, authentic images of the Vienna piece became available. We hope that in the future scholars will be able to personally examine within the Museum of Art History in Vienna, at the Coin Cabinet (Münzkabinett), the piece first described in 1764 by Joachim; after all, Vienna is not that far from Romania.

We noticed that various opinions have been expressed, sometimes clashing with or contradicting each other, to some extent at least. More or less verifiable arguments have been invoked. It would appear as sometimes the desire to prove a certain theory blinded the authors to some extent. Everyone can assess this assertion, after weighing all the arguments presented.

The extraordinary diversity of opinions confirms what has already been noticed by many, namely that the piece with Michael the Brave is a fascinating research topic. The piece has definitively entered the history, despite of and even thanks to all the forgeries and reproductions that emerged over time, regardless of whether the "original" was struck at the behest of Michael the Brave, during his lifetime or after the voivode's death, at the request of an admirer, or perhaps long after the voivode's death, by a forger.

Conclusions

The subject of the piece of 10 ducats with Michael the Brave is not exhausted, nor can it be considered already closed. Even after the release of the photos of the Vienna piece in November 2025, there are still many topics whose resolution may change much of what we today consider true, least plausible or likely.

The main outputs of this study are listed below. The main conclusions obtained from this study regarding the published information about the piece with Michael the Brave are listed below.

1. It has been shown that the exact year of the first mention of the Michael the Brave coin/medal is 1764 and not 1759. This first publication was made by Joachim and not Duval.

2. The main differences between the drawings of the piece by Joachim and Duval and the drawings executed for Dimitrie Sturdza's 1872 article have been pointed out. These differences are caused by errors committed when redrawing the piece. The main "characteristic marks" of the Sturdza 1872 drawing have been identified: three buttons on the cloak, the half ornament on the breastplate of the cloak and the inscription S C RÆ without the separators after the S and C.

3. All the images of the 10 ducat piece published so far have been reviewed and critically analyzed. It has been shown that the great variability of the elements in the drawings of the piece - (made as a rule through copper engraving or lithography) is due to the errors of the designers, who usually used as models previously made and published drawings.

4. Several descriptions of the legend of the piece, from various scientific works, were analyzed, showing that errors occurred during the transcription. The existence of some differences between the description of the legends in the text of Sturdza's work from 1872 and the description that would be obtained by reading the text directly from the drawing of the piece in the article was pointed out. This inconsistency was apparently not noticed by the author.

5. Following the analysis of the images of the 10 ducat piece described in the literature, the source of inspiration used for the representations of the piece on the 10 lei 2018 gold commemorative coin issued by the National Bank of Romania was identified. This coin is part of the "History of gold" series and was named by the NBR "10 ducat Michael the Brave gold coin". It was proven that the model used to represent the piece with Michael the Brave on the 10 lei 2018 coin was the lithographic drawing from Hasdeu / Sturdza 1893.

6. The translation and deciphering of the abbreviations in the text published in 1824 by the Austrian numismatist Joseph Appel were reviewed, text which presented the first silver forgery of the piece with Michael the Brave. This fake has always been considered by Romanian numismatists to be the size of a silver thaler, i.e. about 40 mm. It has been determined that in Appel's text a piece the size of half a thaler, that is 34.5 mm, was actually described.

7. It has been shown that the 5 ducat pieces existing in Bucharest imitate Sturdza's drawing from 1872, with all its particular elements, and therefore constitute modern creations. Thus, the conclusion of the numismatist Constantin Moisil, who in 1920 wrote that probably the 5 ducat pieces with Michael the Brave from Bucharest were minted by the jeweler Ropală from Iași, was strengthened.

From the vantage point granted by this study, several possible directions for further research were identified - the obtaining and analysis of good pictures of the other gold and silver specimens mentioned in the literature (fakes), the analysis of the piece from Budapest with assessment of its authenticity likelihood and as well a deeper analysis of the Vienna piece.

References

1. Moisil C., Medalia lui Mihai Viteazul. [The medal of Michael the Brave.] Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române, an XV, nr. 33-34, 1920, p. 1-20.

2. Tănăsescu Șt., Despre medalia lui Mihai Viteazul. [About the medal of Michael the Brave.] Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române, an LXVII-LXIX (1973-1975), nr. 121-123, 1975, p. 235-252.

3. Iliescu O., Moneda-medalie emisă de Mihai Viteazul (1600). Identificarea exemplarelor originale. [The Coin-Medal issued by Michael the Brave. Identification of the Original Copies.] Studii și cercetări de numismatică, X, 1996, p. 143-154.

4. Călian Livia Maria, Again about Michael the Brave's Gold Medal. Acta Musei Napocensis: ActaMN, 35-36-II, 1999, accessed September 2025.

5. Smaranda A., Mihai Viteazul în medalistica românească. [Michael the Brave in the Romanian Medal Science.] Valachica - Studii și cercetări de istorie și istoria culturii, 17, 2001, Lucrările Sesiunii de Comunicări Științifice "Mihai Viteazul – domn creștin, strateg militar și întregitor de neam", Târgoviște, 7-8 septembrie 2001, accessed September 2025.

6. no author on cover (Jamerey-Duval V.), Monnoies en or, qui composent une des differentes parties du cabinet de S. M. l'Empereur, depuis les plus grandes pieces, jusqu'aux plus petites. Vienne, chez Jean Thomas Trattner, Imprimeur et Libraire de la Cour. MDCCLIX. (Viena, 1759), accessed September 2025.

7. no author on cover (Jamerey-Duval V.) Supplément au catalogue des monnoies en or, qui composent une des differentes parties du cabinet imperial depuis les plus grandes pieces jusqu'aux plus petites. Vienne, chez Jean Thomas de Trattnern, Imprimeur et Libraire de la Cour. MDCCLXIX. (Viena, 1769), accessed September 2025.

8. Sturdza D.A., Bibliografi'a numismaticei romane. În Annalile Societatii Academice Romane. Tomulu XI. Sessiunea annului 1878. sectiunea II Memorii si notitie. p. 105-164, Typographi'a Societatii Academice (laboratorii români), Bucuresci, 1879.

9. Sturdza D. A., Uebersicht der Münzen und Medaillen des Fürstenthums Romanien (Moldau und Walachai) [Overview of the Coins and Medals of the Principality of Romania (Moldavia and Walachia)]. Numismatische Zeitschrift, 4, Jahrgang 1872, Wien, 1875.

10. Joachim I. F., Das neueröfneten Münzcabinets: zweyter Theil, darinnen merkwürdige und viele bishero noch nirgends mitgetheilte Gold- und Silbermünzen zu finden, die richtig in Kupfer abgebildet, beschrieben und erläutert werden [The newly opened coin cabinet: second part, containing strange and many gold and silver coins that have never been reported before, which are correctly depicted in copper engravings, described and explained]. 2, Nürnberg, auf Kosten George Bauers [at the expense of George Bauers], no year on cover (1764).

11. Joachim I. F., Das neu eröfnete Münzcabinet: darinnen merkwürdige und viele bishero noch nirgends mitgetheilte Gold- und Silbermünzen zu finden, die richtig in Kupfer abgebildet, beschrieben und erläutert werden [The newly opened coin cabinet: inside you can find strange and many gold and silver coins that have never been reported before, which are correctly depicted in copper engravings, described and explained]. 1, Nürnberg, auf Kosten George Bauers [at the expense of George Bauers], 1761.

12. Petriceicu-Hasdeu B., Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Dicționarul limbei istorice si poporane a românilor. [The Dictionary of the Historical and Popular Language of the Romanians] Tomul III B-Bărbat, Stabilimentul Grafic I. V. Socecǔ, Bucuresci, 1893.

13. Resch A., Siebenbürgische Münzen und Medaillen von 1538 bis zur Gegenwart. [Transylvanian Coins and Medals from 1538 to the Present.] In Kommission bei Franz Michaelis, Hermannstadt, 1901.

14. Köleseri de Keres-Eer, S., Avraria Romano-Dacica. Posonii, & Cassoviae [Bratislava or Pozsony, respectively Košice or Kaschau, both today in Slovakia], Ioan Michaelis Landerer, 1780.

15. Érdy J., Erdeĺy érmei. Képatlaszszal / Képatlasz [Transylvanian Coins. Illustrated Atlas]. 2 volumes, A. M. Tudom. Akademia, Pesta, M. D. CCC. LXII. (1862).

16. utilizatorul PRONUMISMATICA, Weszerle J . - Tabula Nummorum Hungaricorum -cu Transilvania, 6 septembrie 2005. Forum numismatic [® Asociația PRONUMISMATICA] monede antice, medievale, moderne, bancnote, ordine, medalii, accessed November 2025.

17. Réthy L., A Dobóczky-féle oláh éremgyüjtemény [Dobóczky Walachian Coin Collection]. Archaeologiai Értesítő [Archaeological Bulletin], 7, 1887.

18. Popa Luana, Colecționari numismați brașoveni. Adolf Resch (1854-1926) și Dumitru Z. Furnică (1860-1943). [Coin Collectors from Brașov. Adolf Resch (1854-1926) and Dumitru Z. Furnică (1860-1943).] Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române, Anii LXXVII-LXXIX (1983-1985), nr. 131-133, Editura Sport-Turism, București, 1987 (year 1986 on the inside cover).

19. Nicolaescu St., Documente dela Mihai Voda Viteazul ca domn al Țerii Românești, al Ardealului și al Moldovei - 1600. [Documents of Michael Voivod the Brave as ruler of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia - 1600.] Revista pentru istorie, archeologie și filologie (RIAF), vol. XII, partea I-a, București, 1911, p. 217.

20. Huszár L., Nyáry Pál emlékérme. [Nyáry Pál commemorative coin.] Folia archaeologica 7, Budapest, 1955, p. 183-191, XLIX, L.

21. Pippidi A., Mihai Viteazul în arta epocii sale / Michael der Tapfere in der Kunst seiner Zeit [Michael the Brave in the art of his era]. Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 1987.

22. no author on the cover (von Soothe, J.C.), Auserlesenes und höchstansehnliches Ducatenkabinett, welches wegen vieler darin vorkommenden und noch nicht beschriebenen Stücke als ein Beytrag zum Köhlerischen Ducatenkabinett angesehen und genutzet werden kann. [An exquisite and highly prestigious ducat cabinet, which, due to the many pieces it contains that have not yet been described, can be considered and used as a contribution to the Köhler ducat cabinet]. Hamburg, 1784.

23. Iliescu O., Moneda în România 491-1864. [Currency in Romania 491-1864.] Studii și cercetări de numismatică, Editura Meridiane, București, 1970.

24. Buzdugan G., Luchian O., Oprescu C., Monede și bancnote românești. [Romanian coins and banknotes.] Editura Sport-Turism, București, 1977.

25. * * *, Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna, Münzkabinett Online Catalogue, accessed November 2025.

26. Huszár L., Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis Heute. [Coin catalogue of Hungary from 1000 to the present day.] Battenberg, Munchen, 1979.

27. Appel J., Appel's Repertorium zur Münzkunde des Mittelalters und der neuern Zeit. Münzen und Medaillen der weltlichen Fürsten und Herren aus dem Mittelalter und der neuern Zeit [Appel's Repertory of Numismatics of the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Coins and Medals of Secular Princes and Lords from the Middle Ages and Modern Times.] Dritten bandes. Zweite Abtheilung. [Third volume. Second section]. Wien, auf Kosten des Verfassers [at the author's expense], 1824.

28. Hill G., Becker the Counterfeiter. Part II. SPINK AND SON, LD., London, 1925.

29. Dima M., Istoria aurului. Moneda de 10 ducați Mihai Viteazul. [History of Gold. 10 Ducat Coin Michael the Brave.] Direcţia Emisiune, Tezaur şi Casierie, București, 2018.

30. Appel J., Appel's Repertorium zur Münzkunde des Mittelalters und der neuern Zeit. Münzen und Medaillen der Päbste, geistlichen Fürsten und Herren, nebst ander zur Kirchengeschichte gehörigen Stücken aus dem Mittelalter und der neuern Zeit [Appel's Repertory of Numismatics of the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Coins and Medals of the Popes, Ecclesiastical Princes and Lords, together with other Items belonging to Church History from the Middle Ages and Modern Times.] Erster Band. [Volume One]. Pesth, Hartlebens Verlag, 1820.

31. Hill G., Becker the Counterfeiter. Part I. SPINK AND SON, LD., London, 1924.

32. Ghica D.I., Michel V., surnamed "the Brave" prince of Wallachia. 1593-1601. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Numismatic Society. New Series - vol. XVI, London: John Russell Smith, 1876, p. 161-176.

33. * * *, Session 1876-77. October 19, 1876. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Numismatic Society. New Series - vol. XVII, London: John Russell Smith, 1877, p. 3.

34. Călian Livia Maria, Medalie dedicată lui Mihai Viteazul [Medal dedicated to Michael the Brave]. Institutul Național al Patrimoniului. Direcția Patrimoniului Digital. Bunuri culturale mobile clasate în Patrimoniul Cultural Național, accessed September 2025.

35. Călian Livia Maria, Medalii românești din colecția numismatică a Muzeului Național de Istorie a Transilvaniei (I) 1600-1947 [Romanian Medals from the Numismatic Collection of the National Museum of History of Transylvania (I) 1600-1947]. Acta Musei Napocensis: ActaMN, 39-40-II, seria istorie-2002-2003, accessed September 2025.

36. Tafrali O., Note arheologice și artistice. VI. O medalie a lui Mihaiu-Viteazul [Archaeological and artistic notes. VI. A medal of Michael the Brave]. Arta și arheologia, fasc. 11-12, 1935-36, p. 57.

37. Giurescu C., Giurescu D., Istoria românilor. 2. De la mijlocul secolului al XIV-lea pînă la începutul secolului al XVI-lea [History of the Romanians. 2. From the middle of the 14th century to the beginning of the 16th century]. Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, București, 1976.

38. Ștefănescu Ș., Țara Românescă de la Basarab I „Întemeietorul” pînă la Mihai Viteazul [Wallachia from Basarab I "The Founder" to Michael the Brave]. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, București, 1970.

39. Costin B., Pînzar A., Monedele Moldovei și Valahiei [Coins of Moldavia and Wallachia]. Mihai Viteazul (1593 - 1601), accessed September 2025.

40. Giurescu C., Istoria românilor. II. Partea întîi, partea a doua. De la Mircea cel Bătrân și Alexandru cel Bun pînă la Mihai Viteazul [History of the Romanians. II. Part One, Part Two. From Mircea the Old and Alexander the Good to Michael the Brave]. (reproduce ediția a patra din anul 1942, prima ediție fiind apărută în anul 1937), Editura BIC ALL, București, 2007.

41. Iorga N., Istoria românilor. volumul V. Vitejii [History of the Romanians. Volume V. The Braves]. (reproduce vol. V din ediția princeps, apărută în perioada 1936 - 1939), Editura Enciclopedică, București, 1998.

42. Sacerdoțeanu A, Vîrtosu E., Unirea românilor 1599 - 1859 - 1918 [The Unification of the Romanians 1599 - 1859 - 1918]. Arhivele Bucureștilor nr. IV, București, 1938.

For citing this article (examples):

- in a text:

Homutescu V.M, Homutescu A., About the Gold Coin or Medal Having the Mass of 10 Ducats and Bearing the Image of Michael the Brave. An Analysis of the Existing Bibliography. Romanian Coins / Monede românești, https://www.romaniancoins.org/10lei2018_moneda_10_ducati_mihai_viteazul.html, published on 15.12.2025.

- on a web page:

Homutescu V.M, Homutescu A., <a href="https://www.romaniancoins.org/10lei2018_moneda_10_ducati_mihai_viteazul.html">About the Gold Coin or Medal Having the Mass of 10 Ducats and Bearing the Image of Michael the Brave. An Analysis of the Existing Bibliography.</a> Romanian Coins / Monede românești, article published on 15.12.2025.

The History of gold series comprises:
- a set of four pieces of 500 old lei featuring the golden cache of Pietroasa (2001),
- the following 100 old lei coins with

- the Dacian helmet of Poiana-Coţofeneşti (1999, 2002 and 2003),

- the eagle from Apahida (2003),

- a Cantacuzinian engolpion (2004),
- the following 10 new lei with

- the Perşinari Hoard (2005),

- the Cucuteni-Băiceni hoard (2006),

- the rhyton of Poroina (2007),

- the Hinova hoard (2008),

- the Someşeni hoard (2010),

- the buckle of Curtea de Argeş (2011),

- the cross from Dinogetia (2011),

- the patera from Pietroasa Hoard (2012),

- the Four Gospels of Hurezi Monastery (2013),

- two ancient gold coins struck at Histria (2014),

- the crown of queen Marie (2015),

- the mace of king Ferdinand (2016),

- the crown of queen Elisabeth (2017),

- the 10 ducats 1600 coin with Michael the Brave (2018),

- the 50 lei with year 1922 coin (2019),

- some late Roman gold artifacts discovered at Carsium (2020),

- the polygonal vessels from the Pietroasa hoard (2022),

- the princely diadem of Buneşti-Avereşti (2023),

- the Apahida hoard (2024).