Immobilized coins are an interesting challenge for the numismatist. Often what is essentially the same design is used over a long period of time. For example, the deniers initially issued by Charles III at the start of the 10th century continued to be minted, in one form or another, over the next 200+ years years. A community would immobilize a coin for a number of reasons. It might be a known medium of exchange and widely accepted in a region. Therefore, keeping the same design contributed to exchange stability with a recognizable currency. Or the local authority might want to identify with an earlier type of coinage as a way of asserting its own legitimacy.

Georges Depeyrot (1998: 514B) studied 14 examples of the Lons-le-Saulnier coin that were contemporary with Charles III. He goes on to discuss the difficulty of attribution for the later immobilized coins that were minted over the 10th and 11th centuries. He suggests, if I'm reading this right, that there are two types, the first being heavier than the second. This is of modest help in attribution, since the contemporary coins of Charles III run the gamut in weight and overlap the two types of immobilized coins Depeyrot cites.

The coins represented here are arranged by my estimate of age. The criteria I'm using to make this chronology assertion is design complexity. My hypothesis is that design became simplified over time, so greater complexity indicates greater age. These coins represent two different versions of the immobilized Lons-le-Saulnier coins.

Denier: This first coin image is from Sue Hagadorn. There are several distinct differences between it and the next two coins, There are differences on both sides, but our discussion and comparison didn't shed light on whether this was contemporary with Charles III. This first coin is more complex in design - notice the tips of the cross and the clear besant structure of the inner circle. On the reverse the temple is more fully developed and the letter structure more sophisticated. It is this relative design complexity that leads me to believe it is the oldest one here, but how much older is unclear. This coin weighs between .95 and 1.05 grams, typical of mid to late 10th century coins, but also consistent with some Charles III contemporary coinage from Lons-le-Saulnier. Morrison (in MG) reports that 10 of 49 (20%) of CS's coins he surveyed weigh 1.26 grams or less. If this is Charles III, it is on the light end of his production. Hence the guess that it is an immobilized 10th century coin. If any visitor has insight into this, I appreciate hearing from you.

Denier: This image is courtesy of  Stephen Koundakjian. Similar legend. Weight: .83 grams. My sense is that this is an immobilized version, since the weight is very low for contemporary CS coins. I also think it is earlier than the next two coins, and probably a little later than the previous one. I think the cross design is transitional between the surrounding coins and the oval under the temple fuller than on the next coin. Over time I think then oval shrunk. Best guess - late 10th C, early 11th.

AR denier, 17mm., .97gr. Obv: +CARLVS REX, central cross. Rev: +BLE|ONIS (where | is an arrow pointing up), temple surmounted by cross, under temple H H/horizontal C (or open ellipse). This last coin is simpler in design complexity than the previous one. The circle around the cross on the obverse is solid, the letter is getting cruder and the size of the ellipse under the temple on the reverse is getting smaller. The temple is also getting cruder in design. The cross is held up by spaced H's rather than simple pillars. My guess is that this is the youngest of the three. R1726v cites it as immobilized until 1100. MG 1425 as an indeterminate mint (but subsequently accepted as Lons); Dep 18-E1, 514B (numbering from the second edition -14 examples); not in Bel.  Lons-le-Saulnier is in the Jura and had a succession of 'Henri' rulers after 1037. Henri le Noir ruled from 1037 - 56, Henry IV from 1056 - 1106 and Henry V from 1106 - 1125. This doesn't help much in pinning down a date, but this coin might date after 1036 and belong to either Henri III or IV.

AR denier, 18mm., 86gr. Obv: +CARLVS REX, central cross with four besants. Rev: +BLEOONIS, central temple over oval. Mint is Lons le Saulnier. 11th C. R1726; MG 1425v; Boud-; PdA-. My sense this is approximately contemporary with the previous coin.

Besides the interesting question of trying to place these in time, this coin has also been re-attributed in recent years. It was initially thought to be from Blainville sur Mer in Normandy and many older references ID it as such. More recently it is thought to be from Lons le Saulnier in the Jura. The Carolingian names for both places were very close. Georges Depeyrot indicates that the reason for this change in attribution is based on the hoard evidence. It has not shown up in any of the Norman hoards and does appear in more eastern hoards. He notes this is not definitive evidence, since it is a rarer coin, but enough that the conventional wisdom about the origin of the coin has shifted in recent years.

If you are aware of other examples, please let me know. The first coins represented here are done so with permission.