Coinery

So what possibility is there that the die-sinkers stayed in a fixed location, where it would be possible to cut dies without the inconvenience of constant marches (I feel I want to escape the idea it was all so chaotic, and look to other possibilities re major anomalies), where one would assume die making to be a bit of a challenge otherwise? Also smelting plate and turning it into flans on a regular basis would equally seem an impossible task for troops constantly on the march? Is there any value in the idea that dies, once completed, were transported to the source of the plate/flans/troops for use by coiners, or maybe even the plate was horsebacked to a fixed location/mint to be processed and returned to the front line? You’re probably right in what you’re saying, but war efforts can be incredibly organised, logistically speaking, and it would seem to make more sense to keep your die-sinkers and their tools in a safe location away from the perils and risks of frontline troops. Do we know of any die-sinkers being killed in battle? edit to add “once completed” in second paragraph

Interesting read, thanks for taking the time. Do we know whether those who strike coins are the same are those who sink dies? It would seem a waste of skilled workers (engravers) employing them to the menial task of hammering out coins.

The shilling is compelling evidence but I just can’t buy the idea they’d make the most basic of errors in failing to scribe out an accurate inner circle, given how much more complicated (and time consuming) it would be to lay out legends, etc. if they don’t get these most basic of markings on the stock first? One would presume them experienced enough to realise this? It would even cross my mind to get that bit right, regardless of the rush I was in. As well as cutting punches and repairing/making dies, I would naturally assume, if there was a large turnover, that stocks could be filed and marked out in advance, in preparation to be cut - that would streamline things, surely? Unless this is exactly what they did do, and then someone started cutting a halfcrown onto stock that was prepared/scribed-out for a crown? another thing that troubles me, is I can’t imagine it taking a huge amount of time to cut a die, once the punches are made and to hand, so why wouldn’t they just file and recut/scrap an error die? I know you say time was short, but is there any evidence to say that the die-sinkers couldn’t keep up with demand (die-making, not coins struck)? I have another question, why were stocks ground back and reused anyway? The metal they were made from was hardly an expense, relatively speaking. The time and cost involved to reverse the annealing, and then file off the old design, must surely outweigh the cost of new and ready to roll diestock - or at least make the use of new stocks a negligible expense? Actually I guess the above question is irrelevant in that menial labour could file and prepare new stocks. Though interestingly it should make abandoning an error die an easier process, if perhaps only a half-day or less is lost in the time it takes to cut a new die. I wonder whether hundreds of dies were filed off to start over this way to be honest? I just can’t buy the idea that rushing to make them is the cause for a mis-scribed circle. Or, if it was, they wouldn’t just scrap it when realising, presumably quite early on in the process of punching it all up? Just thinking out loud.

So, is your proposal that the reverse was intended for a larger denomination, say a crown, but was never used and, instead, was reclaimed for the halfcrown, OR that the die stock of a larger denomination was ground back and a half crown was cut into it? If the latter, I can’t fathom why they wouldn’t have marked out the beaded borders correctly before cutting the design?

You can easily see how the composite 4 came to be reversed, with the final bar being added to the wrong side of the ‘cross.’ The Es look composite on that coin too, as well as the 5. Lovely flans on both those coins.

In this example, with the legend, incurved letters, and bifoliate crown (that’s not one of the easily identifiable Ed II crowns), it’s a no-brainer for Class 10. With Class 10, for me at least, I need to then sit down with a bit of paper and wade my way through the resources to determine and feel happy with the sub-class...it’s a pig to get right otherwise, for me at least. The rest of the series is easy blinkin’ peasy! 😛

You’d be right nearly 50% of the time at least You should’ve stuck your neck out and had a go

Being as you’re about @davetmoneyer

That’s funny, for some strange reason I was expecting you to correct yourself and say it was inverted. I must be living on a different planet at the moment, that wasn’t even an option in my mind.

Well done, Sir! incidentally how do you reverse a 4?

Edward I class 10, Robert Take a browse around this site, it’s the best online resource there is. If books are your thing, the best of those are the Galata Guide to the Pennies of Edward I and II by Bente and Withers https://www.ukdfd.co.uk/pages/edwardian-Pennies/Edwardian Pennies P1.htm

I know this shouldn’t come as any surprise, but there are 317 Elizabeth I coins on eBay at the moment, and I wouldn’t care to own any of them.

Rob P - excerpt taken from ‘Henry VII Groat Without Mintmark’ thread “Guaranteed to be a lot of dies. Potter & Winstanley note 16 obverse dies for no mark, lis and Greyhound's Head, but give up when it comes to Cross Crosslet. For what it is worth, they list 7 dies each for no mark and Lis, plus another 2 for Greyhound's Head. Crosslet is much more common. As far as the reverses go, you can reasonably expect a minimum of twice the number of obverse dies. Greyhound's Head being the rarest and hence the simplest case, the sylloge has an example of dies 15/16 (nearly identical) plus 3 GH reverses from 2 dies including muled marks. Add to that my GH rev. (below) plus another not in the Ashmolean gives a total of 4 GH rev. dies I know for certain. You are unlikely to be looking at more than another one or two reverses, if they do indeed exist. A back of the fag packet calculation assuming 1:2 obv:rev gives a total of 50 or so rare mark dies for both sides, plus a guesstimate of say 100 crosslets would give a total of 150ish tentative dies for all marks. If someone wants to do the survey, then we can plumb in the numbers and obtain a more precise estimate of the number of dies.”

I suppose it was, really, the beginning of a new style; would explain the number of punches and die variations, definitely.

So, @Paddy are you going to buy it? What does your friend think it’s worth?

It appears that even the reverse legend orientations are dramatic, quite a series!

More midnight oil from you, Rob! Such a variety of busts, hair, and crowns too. Quite an incredible little run. Hope you don’t mind Rob, but I’m going to copy this into a new post, just to make it searchable in the future?

Ah, I see...it’s still a lot, though, it’s fair to say? Even a simple google image search throws up a pile of coins where the challenge would actually be in trying to find 2 dies the same.

Phenomenal! I can barely imagine these numbers existing for any other other denomination type.

What I was trying to say was the entire bust could sit higher up on the coin, rather than the crown dropping off the beading, which would make the coin look a little less unusual in appearance, if you know what I mean? I think it’s the unusual configuration that made me and others feel cautious but, as I said, the punches look good, and it would only be a repositioning of the devices that would make it look far more conventional anyway. Caveat emptor

Maybe? The picture I posted was to demonstrate the punches used, nothing more. There are a large number of dies and punches for these profile groats. I didn’t look in Spink or any book, I thought we were trying to establish whether it was legit or not, not classify it?

Weight is pretty well spot on. From the pictures I can’t put it down to be honest. I think the obverse looks a little odd, but I wonder whether that’s only the bust punches being a little bit positional. It could be nothing more ominous than the crown being high...it’s much lower on the head of the other coin posted, which would transform the entire aesthetic.

Is it genuinely unique? Are there mint documents to support that, or is it simply that it’s the only one found, or the first coin pressed?

Why isn’t it being snapped up by the elite, the royals, the Arabs, the museums? Surely it’s a must-have for one of those? Especially for a collection that will never sell, it will get its price again one day, if not before.

As a penny completist you’ve got to have it, haven’t you! For those deep-pocketed penny collectors who are running out of things to buy...I can see this going nuts. Is it truly unique? How is that?