Rob

If you look at the images in Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the illustrations used for the early halfcrowns show similar shapes for obverse H and to a lesser extent E. J14s whicha re the commonest Exter halfcrown are often seen with a square flan. The half unites both have a series of straight edges as do the first shilling, threepence and penny. Clearly a sample size of one is inadequate to make a broad statement, but there are sufficient examples of polygonal flans for the idea to be worth pursuing.

This idea might have some merit, so I will have a look later on. We know that punches existed at York to cut out a circle as the coinage is usually found without any flats except where the sheet was incorrectly positioned and the dies passed over the edge. These coins are usually centred on one side only with the other being slightly off-centre as a result of the dies not being in perfect alignment. In the case of Truro and Exeter coinage, it would appear from the coins which are frequently double struck that traditional methods were employed, but the use of a rocker press is not excluded as there are coins with a characteristic bow. The list of equipment seized in June 1646 gives 6 pairs of shears for clipping, 4 large and 2 small, so we know that the flans were trimmed at some point using shears. There is also a pair of tongs and a hammer for rounding listed. There is also 'one iron plate for nayling' (annealing) which would make the shears easier to use. The later undated crowns (C3-C7a) appear to be mostly round with only the following square examples in my images - C3 (4, 1 clipped), C6 (1), C7 (4) and C7a (1). There are a couple of hexagonal pieces too. The C7s account for nearly half the images I have of this type, but square flans as a percentage of the total C3-C7a (approx. 70) is no more than 15%. The 1644 dated crowns (C8-15) only have one or two at most that are square for any given type which equates to less than 10% (sample size approx.100), the rest are nominally round, as are most of the 1645 pieces. This would date the angular pieces to earlier in the period, or in very busy periods. It is possible the nine items listed as iron rings could be cutters which would be used up to the end of operations. This could explain the improvement over time in shape. So many questions without answers.

I think that the above picture is a reasonably comprehensive selection of the available pieces for research. The only image missing from my list of coins is that of the BM which was accessed in 1915. That would suggest most flans were adjusted. There is no way the coins with 6 to 8 faces in the bottom half of the image have not been modified. The picture is less clear cut on the top half, but a couple of straight lines on each coin does imply some human interference. If they weren't clipped in any way, the alternative would be that the shape was formed when the flans were stacked, clamped and beaten. This would definitely date each general shape, as replication would be virtually impossible.

Repetitive tasks get hard wired into the brain, so you can almost do them in your sleep your handwriting will be different to mine, even though we are both using the same tools (pens) and producing the same object (words) from the same base resource (letters) IF you were the only man doing the repetitive task, even if he were, he could'nt replicate exactly 100 times what he did the 1st time, surely? I think there may have been more people trimming the flans than hammering the coins on the grounds it would take more than a couple seconds to trim a coin whereas a coin could be struck in minimal time if many blows were not required. However, if only a small percentage needed adjustment, then all bets would be off.

May have been just one man doing that job in each mint! Rob, do we have any records of the size of the workforce, the total number of blanks cut, and the time span of the mintages? Currently doing some research on the production of French Revolutionally bronze 1791-3 (taxing my O level French) entire yearly mintages appear to have taken only a week or so at each mint That is the significant question for all the provincial mints. The ONLY reason for their existence was for striking coin from collected plate in order to pay the Royalist troops. There is no evidence to suggest that there was ever a shortage of coin from the Tower mint for the day to day running of the country. Accordingly, we can assume that there was frenzied activity for very short periods of time. For example, I think that the W below horse Worcester(?) halfcrowns were mostly struck in a period of not much more than a week or two in June 1644 when Charles' army was at Worcester. The evidence suggests that virtually all the mint workforce transferred to Shrewsbury in the July as most military action involved the garrison of 2500-3000 men from the latter place. It appears there were 5 or possibly 6 engravers at W or SA in total in this period. At the same time, I am leaning towards the conclusion that Charles took the engraver who used the tower mark at Worcester with him to the West Country in July 1644, as the mark ceases to be used at either W or SA, yet we have the appearance of the mark on Exeter coins in 1645. If an army of 10000 men marches across the entire width or length of the country, their relocation requires the relocation of a person or persons capable of producing dies at very short notice, preferably accompanying the army to be on hand. The victory over Essex in August meant that the existing dies at Exeter would be sufficient to cater for coining needs and so the tower mark was not initially used as he didn't engrave any dies. Following the departure of Charles and Maurice, the only Parliamentary troops in the west were under siege at Plymouth and Taunton, and so easily contained by a relatively small number of Royalists. Emergency coinage would be produced under less than ideal conditions at a frenetic rate. This might explain the huge numbers of reverse dies relative to obverses at both Exter and Worcester. From the beginning of Vyvyan's commission in 1642 when coins were struck at Truro until the fall of Exeter in 1646, only 4 crown obverse dies were used against 31 reverses. Some dies lasted a long time, whilst it appears that others disintegrated almost immediately making you wonder whether they were properly conditioned and hardened before use.

Not so, a skilled worker would be able to get almost identical weights every time, and his work would be recognisable. Given Rob's comments re low circulation, I think he may be onto something useful Even so David, a skilled worker could not replicate anothers work exactly, like identical angles etc, much like an engraver could'nt replicate anothers work It isn't so much recreating the angles as replicating the style of trimming. Is it a quick snip, snip; or is it 6 to 8 snips made by moving gently around the edge to reduce the ensuing irregularity? That is two different styles.

What I'm saying is that with a distinct style of flan trimming, it may be possible to assign each group to an un-named individual. It should also be mentioned that if you look at Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the early halfcrowns, shillings and half unites could arguably be similarly categorised. Thinking out loud, it would suggest that the group with 2 main cuts was trimmed by holding the point opposite the angle and taking off a larger piece than on the multiply clipped coins where an attempt appears to have been made to retain most of the design. Two distinct groups of coins which I think corresponds to two individuals. This would suggest trimming at the mint given the consistency. Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid The crown is nominally 30g. This standard was generally maintained at the Tower mint, but the provincial mints are often a bit low in weight. The supply of plate was limited to that obtained in the levies, so a slightly underwight coin would make the silver go further. The assay standard was typically maintained throughout the war at the provincial mints. A coin was not strictly controlled by size but by weight, but as the sole purpose of the provincial mints was to strike coin from levied plate, there was not likely to be very strict monitoring of the final weight, with general size and appearance taking precedence. The Exeter mint was only operating during the period of Royalist control from September 1643 until its fall in April 1646, so the individual issues would only have covered a period of a few months. This can be further refined as the sole reason for the mint's existence was to provide coin for the troops. No troops, no need to coin. Hence we can reasonably assume that the mint virtually ceased production in the autumn of 1644 following the defeat of Essex at Lostwithiel in the August of that year. The virtual elimination of Parliamentary forces in the west country for nearly a year meant that Charles' and Maurice's troops could retire to Oxford. This probably explains the existence of the 1645/4 Ex marked reverse die which was obviously cut in 1644, but following the unanticipated success in the summer became redundant. Unfortunately the number of workers at Exeter is not known, but a reasonable number can be assumed with more than one person sharing a task as the mint would of necessity either be a hive of activity, or virtually hibernating.

Hammered coinage was demonetised fifty years later, so circulation wear doesn't come into it very much in my opinion. Many crowns from both provincial and Tower mints can be found in a decent grade implying they were more likely to be viewed as a store of wealth than change for the shops. A crown was two day's pay for a man and horse in the Civil War. The Royalists had proportionately greater numbers of cavalry relative to foot than the Parliamentarians. Cabinet wear is irrelevant to the argument as it would not amount to much more than a few tenths of a gram.

Yes coins were clipped post production, but crowns didn't circulate much amongst the lower classes. Clipping tends to be only seen on halfcrowns and smaller denominations. You rarely see the edge of the coin approaching the inner circle on a crown which was the minimum limit for a clipped coin. The weights of the Exeter crowns varies considerably, by more than 10%, but doesn't appear related to flan diameter. Given the emergency nature of the mint, the price paid by Vyvyan for the silver brought in (varied from 4/8d - 4/10d troy oz) and Vyvyan's right to recoup his costs without accounting for them may go some way to explaining why the coins were considerably underweight on occasions. Also significant may be the use of Spanish ryals which commanded the higher price, being 0.940 fine and so a reduced weight might have been intended to compensate for the higher fineness.

What I'm saying is that with a distinct style of flan trimming, it may be possible to assign each group to an un-named individual. It should also be mentioned that if you look at Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the early halfcrowns, shillings and half unites could arguably be similarly categorised. Thinking out loud, it would suggest that the group with 2 main cuts was trimmed by holding the point opposite the angle and taking off a larger piece than on the multiply clipped coins where an attempt appears to have been made to retain most of the design. Two distinct groups of coins which I think corresponds to two individuals. This would suggest trimming at the mint given the consistency.

Thoughts please on whether the shape of the flan is of any use in determining the chronology for a type, or within a type. Working on the principle that human beings are fairly predictable creatures with regular habits, I was struck by the consistency of flan shapes within this group of Exeter B2 crowns - which is nearly all the available pieces. The first three have just a couple of straight cuts, whilst most of the rest are distinctly polygonal having 6 or 7 straight edges. A couple are undecided, but first impressions are that these could possibly correspond to two or maybe three distinct production runs.

Yes

This is typically called spam. Normally you would link to it via Baldwin's website. here

I think it is just an optical illusion. The hair curl at the top of the forehead is just present in the angled photo. It is possible one of the dies was polished to remove rust as either could easily have been made in 1831, then stored in less than ideal conditions. Any resulting rust removal on the die would give a slightly modified portrait.

Depends on the years. Early G5 have well struck up noses in general, but during WW1 until the end of the first series you rarely find a well struck nose. The next series tend to be well struck again. I've always put it down to a combination of weaker strike to get more life out of the dies and possible blockage as a result of prolonged die use. The flat noses seen on otherwise minty looking coins produced during the war years can't be due to wear because all the other dates outside this period are frequently encountered with well struck noses despite often having much lower mintages.

If this reference to Spink in 1912 applies, he might have a point. But I bet you would beat him hands down with your knowledge of penny farthings.

This one's briliant. A VF G3 halfpenny described as aUNC for £165.99 all in. Described as dark copper (gilt?) 'Unfortunately with a slide die of the press new system', for which read hefty edge knock and buggered rims. I despair. Perhaps I should send him a few scans of a higher/lower grade gVF (depending on viewpoint) and explain the difference between visible laurel detail and flat surfaces. This guy is a complete tool, and consistently so. Maybe a picture of a gilt coin or two would put him right on both fronts. I'm also blind as I can't see SOHO on the trancation (sic)

Hi les occ, There are in fact 8 different varieties of 1900 penny, all based on the shape of the '9' in the date and the position of it's foot, coupled with the spacing/orientation of the '0's. There are also reports of two other types, one where the '9' is over a border tooth and the second where the designer's initials are missing from under the bust. Sorry to bring this post back, I find it important that other people contribute to the author’s finds. I did find 8 different date varieties of 1900 penny. The rarest in my sample was the date having 10 1/2 tooth spacing with an open and skinny 9. I was suprised to see this many variations since I did not find any date spacing differences for 1901 using a similar sample size! What happened? Hocking doesn't shed any light on this listing nothing for 1901 pennies. As a suggestion, it is possible that the entire master design was engraved including date prior to reduction. We know that some matrices in the RM are noted as being without date for the veiled head issue and so this would be rational for the dates where spacing varities occur. A consistent date spacing without varieties would suggest the date was not added as required. Just a thought.

That's the trouble with all these arty types - always reading something into an object that isn't. Looks like a winged willy to me. Just an observation.

Hi les occ, There are in fact 8 different varieties of 1900 penny, all based on the shape of the '9' in the date and the position of it's foot, coupled with the spacing/orientation of the '0's. There are also reports of two other types, one where the '9' is over a border tooth and the second where the designer's initials are missing from under the bust. Sorry to bring this post back, I find it important that other people contribute to the author’s finds. I did find 8 different date varieties of 1900 penny. The rarest in my sample was the date having 10 1/2 tooth spacing with an open and skinny 9. I was suprised to see this many variations since I did not find any date spacing differences for 1901 using a similar sample size! What happened? You Freeman and Gouby should be shot I don't need more varieties Imagine that, if all the Victoria pennies could be sub-divided again by 10? Time to remortgage, Peter! The exponential expansion in the number of varieties categorised only by minescule differences in tooth pointings etc was a primary factor in my decision to refocus. I'm sure most denomination collectors feel compelled to find as many varieties as have been categorised by all writers. If someone says the gap in the border teeth can be x or y microns wide and there is a definitive reference published, someone will collect both. But as always it is each to their own.

Queen Anne 1711 Sixpence Terrible grading Blimey, that's shocking. Just had a look at his feedback - look at the state of the obverse of the 1917 florin he claimed was FDC. The 1818 sixpence was worse. That made nearly £200 as opposed to just over £100 for the florin. I need to find these buyers and strategically place my bucket to catch all the money they are p***ing away.

The also buy for inclusion in their own sales. Some of the higher estimates will fall into that category.

Similar problem. 4 years only with even fewer varieties unless you expand the criteria to include patterns, in which case the numbers are nearly the same as the BoE tokens.

20-30% off book price is about right for a nice example. I sold a stunning 1814 1/6d for £180 a year or so ago, so UNC makes EF prices, and I've just sold a 3/- in a CGS 85 slab for just over £250. Part of the problem might be that Spink only list currency up to EF which is surprising for relatively modern milled whereas the proofs usually make book which is priced for FDC. The only currency to consistently sell for book is the 1816 3/- which is rare. Never seen a mint state one. The ex-Lingford coin which went through London Coins 2 or 3 years ago quite patently wasn't UNC, irrespective of the catalogue description.

i didnt know that............why so? They are unconventional denominations and the series is not extensive enough to make an interesting collection. You are restricted to two basic obverses and reverse types in three denominations including the 9d patterns, all within a 6 year period. You could expand it with the varieties of the number of acorns and leaf positions as listed by Davis, but even allowing for all the proofs in the different metals, you only have about 3 dozen coins. A shame really because some of them are quite rare.