Hollandse dubbele stuiver, 1761 1761

Editor: So, this is a "Hollandse dubbele stuiver" from 1761. It’s… well, it’s a coin, but displayed like a print. Given its age and obvious wear, I find it very evocative. It makes me wonder about the hands it passed through. As an iconographer, what stands out to you? Curator: Immediately, the heraldic lion within the shield grabs my attention. Think about what a lion symbolized in 1761—strength, courage, nobility. For the province of Holland, this wasn’t just a symbol; it was a claim. The act of minting a coin, embedding this symbol of authority, wasn’t merely economic; it was a profound statement of identity and power. How does that visual language affect your reading of this everyday object? Editor: It does shift it. Seeing it as a symbol deliberately circulated… it's almost like propaganda, not in a negative way, but as a constant reinforcement of identity. Curator: Precisely! And consider the other imagery—the crown atop the shield, the lettering surrounding the central image. What memories were these images trying to invoke or create? Were they speaking to the present or to a carefully constructed past? Think of coins as cultural echoes designed to shape not just economic transactions, but a shared understanding of who "we" are. Does the physical degradation, the coin’s worn state, amplify or diminish that symbolic impact, do you think? Editor: That’s a tricky question. It's definitely less pristine and less overtly powerful. But the fact that it survived – all that history etched into its surface makes it even more compelling, doesn't it? The cultural memory is almost *enhanced* by its wear and tear. Curator: Exactly. It's like the wrinkles on an old face, each one telling a story. This coin is a small but potent window into the world of symbols and how they shape our collective consciousness. Thank you, this was very insightful. Editor: Likewise! I'll never look at coins the same way again.