Florijn St Stéphane Metz

Deze munt mogen vinden echter ik kan niet bepalen welk jaar hij geslagen is ik denk 1552 tot 1553 wie kan me hiermee helpen en eventueel een waarde bepalen. Is deze munt niet veel voorkomend.

Alvast dank voor de hulp.

Grt Jack

http://www.monnaie-lorraine.com/pages/publications/les-types-de-florin-de-la-cite-de-metz.html

It is here:  N#303490.  So there is no need to modify the catalog.

If it were 1550s it would likely have an older (partially gothic) script, like the earlier ones in the catalog.  Probably later 16th to early 17th century.

Some recent sales results:  

https://www.numisbids.com/sale/7658/lot/539

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/veilinghuisderuiter/browse?a=3850&l=4491444

I dont agree because of this 

*Frappé à partir d'environ 1552 juqu'au plus tard le 4/10/1553 (Date de fermeture de la monnaie municipale de Metz)  

le florin au Saint Etienne debout dans une mandorle (TYPE 3/4)

Comme ce florin est en or pale tirant sur le rose, donc de faible teneur en or, il pourrait s'agir d'une pieces contemporaine.

Il convient de noter aussi le faible poids ainsi que les fautes d'orthographe dans la legende 

You are entitled to disagree, of course!.

Here are some additional opinions from the two auction houses which in my opinion are the best in attributing Lorraine coins, and who use the most authoritative reference catalogue for Lorraine (Flon):

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8824832

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7632754

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7346485

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5056083

The links you your posted  i agree bult my point is how you look at the discription  of the coin from the  link i sent to you about the publications of the types 

 de Florin de la city de Metz  included with pictures. Is this not correct than?
Grt Jack

It appears there are some small disagreements between the website and the attributions of the auction houses and/or the Flon catalog, all of whom seem to place this coin starting a bit later.  I can't say who is correct.  Maybe there is some new scholarship? 

It is difficult to see any significant difference between the photos on the website for type 3/ 4 and type 6, except in the size of the city coat of arms, which of course could be die variation.  The website says the way to disinguish type 3/ 4 is by its lower purity (but they do not say how much lower), and by the occurrence of spelling mistakes like OIVITIS, etc. which are not shown in their photo or on your coin.  

It would be easy to accomodate this in the existing Numista listing which already has the undated (type 7) and dated (type 8) varieties wth  the same design features. 

It is a difficult item with al lot of fog around it.