unc

Just thought i'd put up images of this 12 shilling Scottish coin of Charles the 1st for discussion. i bought it as 'holed' which it most certainly is but, I think it might have been de-monetised because the hole is to the centre of the coin which isn't practical for a touchpiece. I liked the portrait at the time and think it is a well struck coin. I don't know how scarce it is or whether the hole detracts massively from it's value. It was also legal tender as a shilling in England. What do you think? Alex.

I have been really enjoying the forum as a newbie so I thought I'd post an image of a favourite coin in my collection of 'radio rental' George 3rd. It has plum toning to the reverse which doesn't quite come out in the scan but the mirror-like fields astound me. I know it's common but have you seen/got one better? What do you think? Maybe I should have posted it on another part of the forum but this part is easy to follow and the replies are great. Alex (unc)

We do know what happened because the dates for demonetising various denominations wwere set by decree, just as they are today. Consequently it became illegal to use clipped crowns for example after one date and half crowns on another. The hammered coinage could be used for payments to government officials and was collected for recycling in this way. A specific cut off date for use was set for each denomination and a finite period of time allowed for exchanging the old currency by weight. Ruding devotes half a dozen pages to the recoinage and it is difficult without copying the whole text verbatim to get all the info out. There is also a useful 6 page article in the BNJ, vol.3 (1906) by Philip Nelson, who listed figures for the recoinage in terms of the amount of silver coined which he found in a contemporary manuscript and combined them with data extracted about the recoinage from Ruding. There are slight discrepancies, but the data holds up fairly well in Ruding from that written in 1697. But the mechanics of how the coins were destrroyed remains a mystery? Wouldn't it be good to have some historical understanding? Yeah mate....

We do know what happened because the dates for demonetising various denominations wwere set by decree, just as they are today. Consequently it became illegal to use clipped crowns for example after one date and half crowns on another. The hammered coinage could be used for payments to government officials and was collected for recycling in this way. A specific cut off date for use was set for each denomination and a finite period of time allowed for exchanging the old currency by weight. Ruding devotes half a dozen pages to the recoinage and it is difficult without copying the whole text verbatim to get all the info out. There is also a useful 6 page article in the BNJ, vol.3 (1906) by Philip Nelson, who listed figures for the recoinage in terms of the amount of silver coined which he found in a contemporary manuscript and combined them with data extracted about the recoinage from Ruding. There are slight discrepancies, but the data holds up fairly well in Ruding from that written in 1697. But the mechanics of how the coins were destrroyed remains a mystery? Wouldn't it be good to have some historical understanding?

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage. I'm afraid you will have to stand corrected, sort of. The terms of the recoinage concerning pierced pieces reads as follows. Ruding R., Annals of the Coinage (1840), vol.2 p.44. "And in regard that such coins of the realm, formerly made with the hammer, and not by the mill and press, and which at that time remained whole and unclipped, would still be most liable and subject to the pernicious crime of clipping and rounding by wickedpersons, who regarded their own unjust lucre more than the preservation of their native country: for the better prevention thereof it was further enacted, thet every person having such unclipped hammered monies in his possession, should, before the 10th day of February 1695, or before he disposed of the same, cause them to be struck through, about the middle of every piece, with a solid punch that should make a hole without diminishing the silver; and that after the said 10th day of February no unclipped hammered monies, that is, as it is explained in the act, such pieces as had both rings or the greatest part of the letters appearing thereon, should be current, unless they were so struck through; and if any piece struck through should appear afterwards to be clipped, no person should tender or receive the same in payment, under the penalty of forfeiting as much of the clipped monies so punched through should amount to in tale, to be recovered to the use of the poor of the parish where such money should be so tendered or received. Hope this helps. Brilliant.

And the reverse. That's a sixpence right? (The shilling has the same design). That one is a real beaut, especially the obverse. Wonderful tone and fields. Yes, it's fairly common, but you don't often see them in that condition. (Not sure what you mean by 'Radio Rental' Geo III ? It pushes all the right buttons? It cost as much as a month's TV hire? It gets a great reception if held the right way? It came in an envelope marked BAIRD? You're paying by monthly instalments? Spill...) Very funny Mate. Good try. Mental! Remember the madness of King George? Political correctness and all that, People in my neck of the woods will often say 'he's gone radio'. Glad you like the coin but it's a shilling. I promise it is faultless even though I have maximised the mirror effect.Wanna see my 1816 sixpence? No bother. Green and purple toning. Beautiful. Cheers, Alex. (unc) Ah, the Cockinese tribe, yes? I would have spotted it was a shilling if I had actually bothered to read the sub-title of the thread. Both very nice coins though. Yeah i suppose so, cockernees. Nice coins though eh? All the best.!

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage. Well that's it exactly. Some dealers offer coins as being 'oficially de-monetised' because the coins offered are holed in the centre. Well how do they know that the provenance of their claim is correct? We don't know what they did to demonetised silver coins at that time in 1696. I will stand corrected if people enlighten me. This is of interest to numismatic enthusiasts as far as I know though. I can imagine (anecdotally of course) a group of contemporary tax officials punching and bending coin to make it unrecognisable and to prevent re-circulation. Then dumping it all into a big basket or something and then farming the lot out to the treasury etc... It was all done by weight and there must have been some primitive security associated with the process. If you look at the thing, it has been bent twice on two sides. The coin has been repaired by being bent back into shape. It has been crudely holed with a square piercing metal object which would have made it sharp at the point of contact. Would you have taken more effort if making a touchpiece etc? I stand firm on the issue that this is probably a survivor of the re-coinage of the 17th century. There must have been a few dodgy types who tried to feather their nests at that time. maybe that's how it got through. Cheers, Alex (unc)

I now only buy BU coins. I, too, have lost my obsession. I think it's worth it in the end, not from a greed point of view but from the point of view that your time and efforts might be worth having a really decent coin in the end. Alex.

Sorry about all the funny boxes. Trying to get used to the forum etc..

And the reverse. That's a sixpence right? (The shilling has the same design). That one is a real beaut, especially the obverse. Wonderful tone and fields. Yes, it's fairly common, but you don't often see them in that condition. (Not sure what you mean by 'Radio Rental' Geo III ? It pushes all the right buttons? It cost as much as a month's TV hire? It gets a great reception if held the right way? It came in an envelope marked BAIRD? You're paying by monthly instalments? Spill...) Very funny Mate. Good try. Mental! Remember the madness of King George? Political correctness and all that, People in my neck of the woods will often say 'he's gone radio'. Glad you like the coin but it's a shilling. I promise it is faultless even though I have maximised the mirror effect.Wanna see my 1816 sixpence? No bother. Green and purple toning. Beautiful. Cheers, Alex. (unc) And the obverse. Cheers.

And the reverse. That's a sixpence right? (The shilling has the same design). That one is a real beaut, especially the obverse. Wonderful tone and fields. Yes, it's fairly common, but you don't often see them in that condition. (Not sure what you mean by 'Radio Rental' Geo III ? It pushes all the right buttons? It cost as much as a month's TV hire? It gets a great reception if held the right way? It came in an envelope marked BAIRD? You're paying by monthly instalments? Spill...) Very funny Mate. Good try. Mental! Remember the madness of King George? Political correctness and all that, People in my neck of the woods will often say 'he's gone radio'. Glad you like the coin but it's a shilling. I promise it is faultless even though I have maximised the mirror effect.Wanna see my 1816 sixpence? No bother. Green and purple toning. Beautiful. Cheers, Alex. (unc)

And the reverse.

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but... 'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued, requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.' The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers.. Alex. (unc)

Hi Dave, That sounds quite feasible but the 12/- value would have worried me at the time. Wouldn't want the cash-strapped locals to nick it. lol. Probably worth a fair bit of livestock. Alex.

Hi Colin, I am hanging on to the notion that this is demonetised officially because the hole is crudely made. I also think that the coin was folded over in two places at the time it was holed. I could be wrong. At least holing the coin made it more affordable to people like me though. I still get to enjoy aspects of it. cheers. Yeah, it's bad enough as it is. Everything is tooled or polished. Ever get anything nice on e-bay? I agree it gives the coin added history and does appear to be a crude hole rather than something which was done with any level of care, but inevitably it detracts from the value. Mind you if it did add to the value imagine how many people on ebay would be knocking holes through their coins

Wow, that is a cracker. I bought this 12/- because as you say, it's unusual to see cancelled, high denomination coins and there's a relatively full flan on it still. I did think it was hammered though and am interested to hear you say it is milled. I feel better to hear you say that it is 'officially' pierced. It's more like a coin now and less like an amulet. I still love the portrait. There must have been some serious inflation in Scotland if 12/- was equivalent to 12 English d back then eh? Cheers, Alex (unc)

Interesting post about 1839 farthings. This one has a nice example of a die flaw to the reverse. Nice powdery surfaces otherwise (ignoring the ek). Alex. And the reverse. Shame about the edge knock, otherwise it does have great eye appeal. The die crack through BRITANNIAR is quite a long one!! Yes that flaw is massive. One of my favourite coins that, despite the ek. Cheers.

Hi Colin, I am hanging on to the notion that this is demonetised officially because the hole is crudely made. I also think that the coin was folded over in two places at the time it was holed. I could be wrong. At least holing the coin made it more affordable to people like me though. I still get to enjoy aspects of it. cheers.

Interesting post about 1839 farthings. This one has a nice example of a die flaw to the reverse. Nice powdery surfaces otherwise (ignoring the ek). Alex. And the reverse.

Interesting post about 1839 farthings. This one has a nice example of a die flaw to the reverse. Nice powdery surfaces otherwise (ignoring the ek). Alex.

Thanks Rob. Always wanted a good portrait of Charles 1st though. If it doesn't have to be Sottish, you would be better off with a type G Briot bust with the t-in-c mark or similar. They are much more common, and if you found a really good one it would be a lot cheaper than a Scottish to buy. You should be able to get a really good one for £250-350. Or if you don't want a hammered coin, then an English Briot's Milled would come in under £1K for an EF or thereabouts shilling. Much better value for money. Well, That's great thanks. I don't particularly collect Scottish or hammered but have an interest in anything of the civil war period especially the King. I will start doing the overtime and try to get myself one of those puppies. Funnily enough, it cost me £60-.

Thanks Rob. Always wanted a good portrait of Charles 1st though.

And the reverse....

Thanks for the input all. Alex.