Coinery

They only did these in Gold/Silver and Bronze. 200 Gold, 1500 Silver and 2000 Bronze, then the dies were apparently destroyed under supervision according to the little booklet that came with it Proof, if ever it were needed, that there is a God! Incidently, how did you manage to acquire the status 'not a God, just a man'? Are you in?

I'm still excited about the day that I can begin to actively seek out those magical and 'perfect' pieces, and start work on a collection. Finances have never, and still don't, permit me to tie-up thousands in a collection (not yet, at least, though I am beginning to see daylight). I am never sure where my loyalties lie in coins, but I do have a weakness for Elizabeth I (all metals), copper [any], and William III. Also, more recently I've taken an interest in Edward VII, Edward I and, shockingly for me, George V. So I guess I will evntually (when our narrowboat is finally organised) be flitting back and forth between the early hammered of Edward (the sheer variety intrigues me), the early-milled copper of Charles II, Elizabeth anything (gold, once I've satisfied myself I know enough about it), silver and copper of William III, some Edward VII and, when I'm skint [considering the above list, this will be always] but feeling itchy, there'll always be dear old G5! THAT'S THE PLAN! Though I will likely (very likely) drop off one or two areas that I'm struggling in (probably William would be the first to go) and focus on the others! My speculated collection will have my fingers stretched across a lot of numismatic pies, so I'll probably knacker myself up and get nowhere! Oh, and for some reason, I have a couple of one-off desires in EF...a Mary Groat (just bought the cracked one from Castlecoins [rockinghorsepoo], purely for the bust), and a Charles I siege piece please! THAT'S ALL!

I think definitely C or E, something with a curving left edge, at least! Let us know Debbie when an expert in calligraphy nails it for you!

Isn't it E R?

And the crosses on these two images (currently for sale on ebay, so some free advertising...my justification), which Debbie brought to our attention a while back, are very different again, namely, punched rather than the usual scratches. Interestingly, this coin is marked on the reverse too, I don't recall seeing that before? I also think Seuk's pictures would add weight to the proposal that the crosses are not connected with testing for authenticity. Any connection with the plague?

170865769243 Nice beautiful script!

When I first asked this question, I thought there would be a single, well-documented, and conclusive answer to this phenomenon! Apparently not, making me desire the historical rationale even more so! It's got to have been recorded in some old tome somewhere!

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together! I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period. Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification. Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation. If the marks were recoinage-related, wouldn't we have clear evidence in historical documents, particularly as one would presume the marked coins continued to circulate, if only for a short period? It would have to have been broadly publicised (declaration?) to the general public, who would be using the coins, wouldn't it?

It is Hus and his fat thumbs Single Malt and working in the small hours, that's my guess!

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory. My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I only meant to take a quick peak, I ended up reading the whole lot!

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post? Quite right! I meant to say I checked my sixpence. Ahh, right, yes! It seems to be a very common practice, and nobody seems to know why? I wonder if it's ever cropped up in ancient text? I'm sure the facts are out there somewhere!

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post?

The problem is that it has not formally been done yet!! There have been catalogues that have detailed known varieties, but to my knowledge no detailed study of the series has been undertaken other than the information released by Colin Cooke in his farthing lists. As a result the best chance we had of a detailed study was the work being undertaken by Colin Cooke, but whether it will now ever become a publication is not known. Gosh, what a shame and a waste it would be if his efforts didn't fruit in the way he likely intended!

That net is getting bigger and bigger, Dave!

Your not asking for much The best information for CH 11 would be Colin Cooke catalogues and web site where you can see two major collections. Pecks book will also assist. Thanks, Peter!

Anyone have links to any published information on the C2 copper farthings, the mints, the coins, the milling, etc. (BNJ?). Also, just as a starting point, can anyone stab a guess at how many obverse and reverse dies there may have been for each year (including minor legend varieties)? What would be the BCW equivalent for a C2 copper coin?

Now all the comments, and indeed my own opinion, seem happy to run with the suggestion that this is a 5/3, can I ask how would I next go about getting it validated for inclusion into the Charles II farthing series as a variety? Who would be the leading incontestable expert in this field, would I be looking at the late Mr Cooke's remaining players?

That look legit to me, the top half of the lamination is missing. What you see has been struck through the missing bit. My thoughts too, Gary!

"Sign 'ere!" Class!

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all. I'm of course no great master in numismatics, but I have noticed with Elizabeth (the REALLY old one), for example, that there were no special efforts taken to disguise the underlying numeral, they just seemed to bang in the next standard number punch, as used on the other dies for the year, and seemed happy with it! I've seen an 8/7 looking more like a dollar sign than a numeral. I wonder if they became more exacting as die preparation and milling got better? Not that I'm claiming this is a 5/3, of course!

I managed to get a look on a grown-up computer today, rather than an 'iphone' (thanks Peck ), and this particular 5/3 looks different again to both coins on Colin's site, guess that's at least 3 reverse dies then? Getting to be more and more common all the time!

Keep it coming, Pies, you'll come upon it before me at this rate! Adjustment marks were made on the planchets/flans before hammering/milling, so were typically/mostly squeezed out by the manufacturing process (except where you see adjustment marks, of course)! The marks we regularly see on these coins are post production, so get your thinking cap on!