scottishmoney

I think we need to have a hearty debate 'bout the definition of "evasion" Winner gets the pint.

I think they are worth more than most people would, unfortunately. I like the history behind such pieces, but I like the fringe of collecting sometimes, collecting contemporary counterfeits as part of the history of coinage and not scorning them. With some of my Scottish counterfeits of regal coinage I would actually pay more for the counterfeit than the real thing, especially with coppers, the penalty in Scotland and England as well then was death. It was more likely enforced early on in Scotland than in England. By the 18th century coinage had broken down so much in Britain that counterfeits were more or less tolerated to some extent.

I would tend to agree, but given that it is close to regal coinage I cannot concur with your opin. Maybe in theory whence it was produced that it could double as a commemorative medal, and it is more formal than even regal coinage in that notice GII title is noted as Georgius Secundus and not Georgius II as on the coinage. The purpose of evasion pieces was to steer around the law, not outwardly break it. At any rate, for whatever intent and purpose it was created, nothing detracts from the curiosity of said piece.

They are now referred to as "evasion pieces" given that they imitated regal coinage, but not close enough to be considered counterfeit. Most people would not have known the difference as they were illiterate, in the off chance they were literate they would not have cared as money was money. The 17th through early 19th centuries witnessed a dearth of coinage, all the while the economy grew at exponential pace, the coinage did not keep up. The result was evasion pieces, tokens, and even forged coins that were plated with silver etc. In many ways I think the alternative coinages from that time are more fascinating than the authentic regal issued coinage. Here in what is now the USA evasion pieces usually had George II on them, with ridiculous dates sometimes - like 1723 etc, to predate them from prior to George III's reign when most of them were in fact created and circulated.

Gram gave you something to treasure, if for no other reason than it came from Gram. Sometimes little gifts like that mean more than if they were gold. I still have a bag of pennies my Great Grandmother shined up for my 5th birthday and gave me.

It is a common medallion that was struck when Victoria ascended the throne in 1837. Under Salic law in Germany she could not ascend the Hannoverian throne, so her cousin Ernst assumed that throne. But there were many opins contemporarily that she should have been able to ascend such throne, and it would be fascinating to see what the difference in German history would have been should she have. For one, Hannover would not have been forcibly annexed into Prussia, and would have stood out in the German Unification in 1870-1871. The value is nominal, as noted above they are right common pieces.

My way of looking at it, my Irish and Scottish brethren got the short end of the stick as usual with the low denomination coins.

Well...

I doubt it, it is counterpunched with the leaf device, notice the indentations around the edge of the leaves, and the flattened detail on QV's portrait.

The leaf device on the reverse doesn't correspond with anything Lauer I have seen though. The obverse does though.

His own

I would guess that they are rather like domestic cats, with microscopic family jewels.

At least now he might get some...

Researchers have long debated whom was the first Scottish King to have actually instituted a native Scottish coinage. Whilst the Kingdom of Northumbria encompassed parts of Scotland up to the Forth River, it is believed that all of the Northumbrian coinage was minted in the south, ie York. Occasionally these coins are found in southern Scotland. Ca. 1980 there was a report in the press about a researcher determining that a coin was minted during the reign of Ecfrith of Deira and Northumbria (664-670 AD) in Scotland, but subsequent research has determined that this theory is not with due merit. Earlier volumes on Scottish Coinage, such as "The Coinage of Scotland" by J.D. Robertson have suggested that the first native Scottish coins were issued during the reign of Alexander I (1107-1124) however this is 19th century research, which has since been disproven. Without a doubt, David I issued coins in his name, and therefore is most likely the first Scottish monarch to have actually issued them as such. The first Scottish coins are believed to be those issued by King David I(1124-1153), previous to this time very few coins ever found their way into Scotland, though some Roman era and Northumbrian sceats are very occasionally found. The first issue of coins was ca. 1136, and was likely connected to the Scottish capture of Carlisle and it's mines. Even after the introduction of a native coinage, barter continued to the basis for the economy for many years. David I was the youngest son of Malcolm Canmore (1058-1093) and the third son to have acceded the throne after his father. His early years appear to have been spent in England, the birthplace of his mother, Margaret(whom was the sister of Edgar The Aetheling.) With his mother's sponsorship, and given his lower rank in the possibility of his inheriting the throne he spent much of his youth in the Church and was an accomplished student. In 1113 he was married to Matilda, whom was the daughter of the Earl of Northumberland. With this marriage he acquired lands south of the Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland, Huntington and Northampton. This acquisition would result in his being recognised as a Norman Baron. David's older brother, Alexander I, soon would recognise David as the sub-king of the Scottish lowlands as a result. In 1124 Alexander I died and the throne again was inherited by a son of Malcolm Canmore and David I would soon have the opportunity to forge Scotland into a united kingdom once more, as divisions existed from the earlier disputed monarchs of Scotland. Some of the legacies which were instituted during this reign included the creation of the counties of Scotland, which in effect lasted until 1975. Whilst there was a sound degree of harmony in Scotland, the opposite was true of her southern neighbour, England. The first English Civil War was in full swing, with Stephen (1135-1154) as King of England defending himself against Matilda, whom was the daughter of Henry with purportedly a better claim at the throne. Whilst the explanation of the English Civil War would take up volumes, it can be summarised in that David I of Scotland soon saw opportunity knocking and moved south in favour of his niece, Matilda in 1135. Despite having made this move, it is in retrospect, obvious that he was looking more for acquisition than assisting Matilda, as subsequently his support could be described as lukewarm at best. The move south resulted in the Scots acquiring Carlisle, with it's nearby mines, and importantly for coin collectors, it's mint. Coins had been struck in the name of Stephen since the previous year. The capture of the mint resulted in some coins in Stephen's name still being struck after the capture, but soon they began changing the dies and issued pennies in David's name. Many of the coins issued during this reign are quite similar to the English issues of Stephen, and this has led to some confusion given the fact that all of the coins from this era were quite crude by comparison with earlier issues. Workmanship on the coins had deteriorated, and legends on the coins were often blundered, the result of uneducated die cutters creating the coins. All of the coins of this era featured a portrait of the monarch, or more likely during this time a crude representation of him. The reverse was usually a short cross with pellets in the quarters of it. Later in the reign coins were minted in Berwick, Perth, Roxburgh and Edinburgh. This coin above was minted in Berwick, by the moneyer "Folpaut" and is S-5007 and SD11D-035.

I have mostly fakes of Scottish hammereds, for some reason they are not uncommon with AE coins during the 16th and 17th centuries, but only one fake Pound coin, curiously with the Scottish reverse, but the English legend, Decus et Tecumen.

We do have RHD vehicles here, usually the postal trucks. Rural postal carriers could benefit from RHD vehicles, they must have back problems. But alas I must hold out for the Triumph or Mini Cooper.

Too bad the car is right hand drive, and over there, at that price I would rather have that than my stupid little Pontiac.

Ag 97.95 Wt%, Cu 1.54 Wt%, Au 0.19 Wow, that is early in Henry's reign, obviously by the end of the reign Cu would have been much higher in percentage. I am not surprised that trace amounts of Au showed up, could have been a coin it rubbed against, but the silver percentage should not be that high, and I wonder how accurate the Medieval metallurgists were, ie the coin should be 92.5% Ag.

I have done that with hammered pennies, and remember having to use clean cotton towels and toothpicks to get them out.

It was common, this is a plated forgery, probably dating into the mid 18th century. Whomever made it, probably was not literate, ie the numerals, letters etc. meant nothing, or they did not know when Anne reigned, ie 1702-1714. These are actually more interesting for that reason than if say the date on the coin was 1713 or within her reign. Mistakes are not uncommon, but they give the forgeries more character later on. I myself collect all the forged pre-1707 Scottish coins I can get my paws on. The penalty for forging coins then was severe, quick trial and death were guaranteed. So people were desperate to engage in such activities, that considering the penalties, it is remarkable that these coins survive.

A fascinating momento from Scottish and British history, this AR medal by Nicholas Briot was struck in 1633 to commemorate Charles I's very belated Scottish coronation that year. His coronation should have been much earlier, he ascended the throne in 1625, but he carelessly delayed said coronation until finally giving into demands that it be done in 1633. His introduction of Anglican liturgy into the coronation ceremony did little to endear him to his Scottish subjects, and things went decidedly sour thereafter. On his return trip to London his baggage including many crown jewels were lost in the Firth of Forth, just off of Burntisland. Subsequently alleged witches were brought to trial in London, on charges of causing the shipwreck. Things went down for Charles I from there on, both in Scotland and in England. This lovely medal, with a lifelike portrait of the monarch, was commissioned to Nicholas Briot, a famous and skilled coiner. This medal was struck in a screw press, and is actually much better detailed as a result. One of these medals was struck piedfort in gold, which was presented to the King, he kept it as a pocket piece until his death in 1649. The silver examples like this one were throne to the crowds at the coronation ceremony.

Similarly there was a case in Nevada USA where a contractor was paying his employees in $50 AGE's(1oz gold) and only declaring the $50 as income. Of course the feds can create a coin and put a denomination on it, but they do not honour it as such. In fact the $50 denomination is determined to be only a means to make a bullion piece a coin, so it is thus included in anti-counterfeiting legislation. Similarly Maundy pieces were decimalised, but it was really more of a formality than anything else, because know one in their right mind is going to spend a penny coin as such, but rather most of the pieces swiftly make it into the collectable market, having been sold at a profit by their recipients.

I think you got taken by a "False Dmitry", there is a ruler in Russian history that is called the "False Dmitry" because he was a pretender, it applies to shady characters now.

Actually given how long it took for the BRM to ramp up to replacing so much new coinage, evidence is quite clear that they wanted as much predecimal coinage as possible to work in the new decimal system, therefore you have the shilling and the florin continuing to circulate until the 5 and 10p coins were downsized. The shilling and florin were very popularly used denominations and replacing their circulation equivalent would have been more than the BRM could have possibly handled with that time line. In reference to what Red Riley has said about the 10/- being the new unit, that was the original intent in the early 1960's, as actually it was easier to account for 1:10, and this was done in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand when those countries decimalised their currencies, but Britain elected to keep the £ sterling. Also Britain actually began the quest for decimalisation with the introduction of the florin in the 1840's, at that time the florin was denominated as "One Tenth of a Pound". Also the tanner was indeed on the chopping block, and yes a campaign was raised to save the coin, so it did remain in circulation until 1980 when it was demonetised, but by that time it largely disappeared as a curiousity, and probably shipped off to far lands like the USA where they were sold at $1 apiece as wedding momentos.

The only predecimal coins that continued to see circulation after D-Day were the sixpence circulating as a 2.5p coin until 1980, then the shilling as a 5p coin until the 1990's and the 2 shilling or florin coin circulating as a 10p until the 1990's when both the 5 and 10p were downsized. All other coins were demonetised in 1971. I believe coins like the Churchill crown circulated(if you can call it that) as 25p coins, but they were not often used in actual circulation. If you have quantities of predecimal coins you can still redeem them, though they might have more numismatic value now than face value. I currently have ca. £90 in predecimal coins still.