Leaderboard

Everything should be visible again now! Thank you for all your kind comments.

No worries perhaps I zoomed in too far, the lions legs look funny as do a couple of other areas. Don't mean to offend, I maybe should have made a better post in the first place before I rushed out the door. Good luck with your studies !

No worries I am a rookie too. I just zoomed in for a close look, then did a side-by-side between the coin and the genuine one. If the thread starter has any serious concerns perhaps he could get CGS to have a look. cheers Garrett.

Here are some pics of a known real Gothic Crown

So fakes are bothering even the Chinese now. Can you weigh the coin? First guess, I'd say it looks clean.

One with lustre, don't see many of these around.

I agree regarding the lack of scientific application. Personally, I feel the 1645s are likely to be over-represented due to the almost automatic illustration of any flat crown 1645 despite there only being a couple dozen or so. I did start to make a list of identifiable Newark siege pieces, but lost the will to live a few years ago. Whatever the distribution, there is no excessively large skew suggesting that coining took place continuously for months prior to the New Year, nor that coining only took place in (literally) a few days leading up to New Year. The actual periods when coins could have been struck are flexible to a point, as money of necessity only it would be made as a last resort after any available coin had been used. I think we can be confident that dated coins were struck in the appropriate year. If there had to be a case made for an issue considerably earlier, that would have to be the flat crown pieces, but their relative rarity suggests a very short striking period. The two spellings of NEWARK(E) on the regular shillings might be indicative that shillings and ninepences with the terminal E were concurrent with the flat crown shillings. If so, one might be inclined to consider these were struck at a completely different time to those without the E. That would favour an early striking such as the arrival of Charles with a significant number of troops, thus requiring plate due to the immediate supplies of coin being insufficient. But the quid pro quo for any early output is a reduction in the length of time for late strikings, i.e.that would negate any lengthy striking period in Feb/March 1645 because I think we can reasonably assume similar survival rates for both 1645 and 1646, plus the spelling varieties. The absence of many halfcrowns dated 1645 poses a bit of a conundrum. As the basic pay for a cavalryman, you would have expected a fairly even distribution across the dates. Was there a large supply of halfcrowns, yet no shillings? What also seems unlikely is that there would be a large output of shillings and ninepences relative to halfcrowns when the majority of Royalist troops by this time were mounted cavalry. Charles' infantry was decimated at Naseby, so you would have expected the halfcrown/shilling ratio to increasingly favour the former, if it did in fact change. If the spelling of Newark has any bearing, then it might be that coins without the E represent the striking period leading up to the surrender, in which case, the ratio of 1645 to 1646 Newark coins as a whole gives us the approximate split for the period leading up to and after the New Year. The levies would have fallen on the inhabitants once the town was under siege with any Royalists taking refuge likely to be assessed in name only unless they were fortuitously ably to carry their wealth with them. I don't know if records exist for Newark covering the siege period, but those surviving at Chester record fortnightly assessments of £200 during the autumn months. However, there is no confirmation that these sums were actually collected in full. There is a record of a shortfall on one occasion. Again, at York, Slingsby records that there was no money or plate surviving towards the end. So much we don't know that I wish we did.

both those types can be found readily. if you look: top one top of 9 above 8 tail of 9 just below bottom of 8 second one top of 9 level with top of 8 tail below you can tell these widths by the general placement of the 9's compared to the 8 next to it. this is a rarer one better ones i own

Many thanks for your posting and pictures Terry. I have just examined 3 narrow date specimens which I have previously owned and now sold, and discovered that 2 of these have the same date width as the previous picture I posted of Gouby B. One of these 3 coins is, however, slightly wider and appears to be the same as you have shown in your bottom date picture i.e. somewhere in between the Gouby B and Gouby Aa date widths. This new narrow date is something I have previously missed so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have used my old ‘pre-sale’ picture and now show the date on this last coin (described as Bx) alongside the more common narrow date B which I posted earlier……again with vertical lines inserted from top of 9 and centre robe to make comparison easier.

As I understand it (from Bill Pugsley), it is not an error. But it is a mistake in my view, there seems to have been an increase in coins submitted to CGS over the last 2 years or so, and an increase in demand for using their site to verify coins and as a resource for benchmarks, I use it myself nearly every day. The fee is for new 'members' only at the moment, and is under review. At a time when they are still trying to gain traction and credibility in the TPG arena, this is a high risk strategy which could set them back a good way imo. Bill has a Facebook Group 'Coin Grading Services (CGS) Collectors' for the latest.

Not really my area but the size comparison picture gives the impression of a casting ridge running along the edge? Perhaps it's just the angle but if it does have a ridge then it's a copy.

Hi Garrett, I agree silver is silver, but I believe siege coins/money of necessity issued under the authority of local governors were not intended to circulate outside the confines of the strongholds or the town under siege. Both Carlisle and Pontefract issues were intentionally produced underweight in order to stretch out a limited supply of plate. Only in Newark was the weight consistently maintained. The Irish Ormond issue was an exception. King Charles I directed Ormond to negotiate a truce with the Confederate Catholic Assembly in order to free up troops that then could be deployed in England and North Wales. To facilitate this, he, by Royal Proclamation directed in May 1642 that the' loyal subjects' in Dublin bring in their plate to be coined to the same standards of weight and purity "as are moneys now current in England". The King also directed that the Royal Cypher C.R. beneath the crown be displayed the observe and the nominal value on the reverse.