George Valby

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:) Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too . Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection? Thanks very much for your explanations!

Thanks very much for the explanations! When it's as interesting a puzzle as this, there is never TMI! And based on your suggestion to look closely at the C and R, on the left side I definitely see the C overstruck on an upside down R. On the right side of the shield, the wear is too much to see anything. Scan of the detail attached. Thanks again!

Is the alignment so variable? Yes. The thing is we are talking about hammered coins. Now, nowadays coins are mass produced by machine using technology that means that dies can be reproduced almost identically. That simply wasn't the case with hammered coins. Each had to be produced by hand and the only way to make more was to have more dies. However die making was also very labour intensive. Consequently the tricky bits were done by master engravers while the legend lettering punched onto the master die by someone less experienced. Analysis of coins in a series show that not only was the King's bust engraved separately from the mark of value, privy mark (the so-called 'mint mark') and legend, but often that the hair (including crown), face and collar/shoulders were engraved on separate 'master puncheons' which would then be combined to strike the eventual die that would be used to create the coin! In practice this led not only to different alignments between the legend and the bust, but also variations in the legend itself including missed letters or doubling of letters. Overmarks, where the updated mint mark is struck over the old one to avoid having to make new dies for the next year's issue are not uncommon. In fact this method of production left scope for even greater variation or error. I have seen photos of a coin with the mark of value punched upside down and another with the Scottish lion inverted. There is at least one example of a coin with the C and R missing from the sides of the shield. Even one where the coiner accidentally used a half crown reverse die with a shilling obverse! In fact there are people who particularly collect such curiosities! In fact, if you compare two hammered coins and find them to have the same features such as alignment and shape of letters, legend and alignmnet and in particular any flaws in lettering or design it is very likely that they came from the same dies. This exception to the normal variation in appearance has helped collectors to estimate how many dies existed (and thence to suggest how many coins may have survived and are likely to be found) in several instances! As an example, here are four coins. All are examples of (current editions) S 2789 (prior to 2006, 2785), Sharp D4/1. You will see there is a fair bit of variation between them! So what exactly differentiates S2789 from, the others? For instance, my coin has a tall bust, with the crown extending into the legend ring significantly, whereas the 4 coins you picture all have the crown within the inner ring. As you can tell, I am a novice in this area....

Thanks for weighing in and clarifying! Now a related question: In the S2789 examples I see images for, there is a variation in the alignment of the letters around the periphery. In the attached jpg file, I show two examples plus my coin. In example 1, obv, the L is aligned with the top of the XII, whereas in example 2, it is the middle of the O that is aligned with the top of the XII. In my coin, it is close to example 1. For the rev, example 1 shows the P centered below the scroll, example 2 shows the edge of the S, and my coin shows the S centered below the scroll. The question is, is the alignment so variable for 2789, and why? Different dies, with very similar major features, but some differences like alignment? Or different varieties? Or ? Any comments will be appreciated! Thanks much!

Thanks very much for the clarification!

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type). For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am. Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly. The problem there, is that the mintmark is the wrong one (it's most likely a harp not a tun), also the oval shield reverse actually starts with 2785 according to Spink. As for the obverse, yours has the inner circle which they don't from 2787 onwards. Unless I'm reading Spink wrong? I was looking at the Stacks October 2010 auction, lot 572, link below, which seems nearly the same as my coin. The description also notes that it has the harp mm, "which is not specified for this variety". http://legacy.stacks.com/Lot/ItemDetail/165771

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type). For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am. Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly.

I have had this coin for about 20 years, but just noticed that the reverse is different from most other Charles I shillings I have seen images for. Any comments/help in further identification will be much appreciated. The reverse is more of an ovoid shield, with ornate border, than the "normal" shape shield. There is also approximately a 90 degree rotation, which I am not sure is normal or not for hammered coinage.