Henry VIII third coinage groats

[pokal02 44]

It seems quite difficult to match the Laker busts to the 'bust 1-6' classification used by Spink & Stewartby.  I can see that A=1, E=3 but can't work out where bust 2 starts.  

Laker says that the provincial mints started at bust B which I took to mean B,C and D = bust 2. (as Canterbury/York didn't issue any bust 1's).  The  Shuttleworth auction catalogue describes at least one specimen as bust 1, Laker B.  Stewartby further confuses me by putting the dividing line between 1 & 2 as the change in stops from quatrefoils to trefoils.  Is there a generally accepted answer - given the state of most specimens it's not always easy to distinguish busts A1, B & C or the exact kind of stops?   . 

[Rob 3,152]

Taking the Shuttlewood coin described as bust 1 variety and Laker B, the bust on this coin is Laker B looking at the shape of the moustache and the shape of the tuft to the right of the crown facing, but the cloak and tie is more reminiscent of Laker A1. If these were two separate punches, it would suggest another intermediate type. Laker states that 6 busts are insufficient, but it is possible that his 9 are still not enough.

I notice that Spink list both Canterbury and York with bust 1 (or var), though there was nothing in Brady, nor Buck. This appears to have been in the listing since at least 1966 which is the earliest SCBC I have. There it refers to North as the main reference for hammered coins and does indeed reflect his breakdown for this issue.

I think the safest way is to use the reference that most resembles the coin in hand. Given the varying number of types listed in the different reference tomes and how the variations on that type are described, it must inevitably lead to some conflicts. e.g. Laker B, B1 & B2 are allegedly all variations on a theme, but B1 is a much narrower face than the other two. Using the cloak, A1, B1 and B2 are different to B.

If I had to decide on a way of splitting them up, the easiest is probably using the stops, i.e. saltire, broken saltire and trefoils. The numerous portraits lend themselves to individual classification, though cloak or tunic type offers scope for grouping. Bust 3 is the only unambiguous type!

[Paulus 1,975]

If you don't produce some kind of reference material of your own at some point Rob, well, then, ummm, you should have done!  

[Rob 3,152]

If I produce yet another reference it simply muddies the water further. Very often less is more. I don't object to producing references for which there is nothing existing, but it is better in my opinion to accept one reference as the definitive classification with everything added as a sub-set, unless the bust is so obvously unrelated that it can clearly stand on its own. Ego is a factor here, as many writers want to be remembered for posterity having managed to extract a few more varieties that are only listed in their book. It only serves to confuse, as the OP pointed out.

Most series have a couple of competing references. They don't need half a dozen ways of saying the same thing.

[Paulus 1,975]

That is very true Rob. But you have a way of bringing together a lot of the combined existing knowledge into an easy to understand consolidated form which highlights what is accepted and what is still unknown/debated, together with very valuable commentary based on your years of experience. It does not have to be a new 'vanity' book publication under the name of Rob Pearce,.. Perhaps, as Coinery / Stuart has already suggested, it could be a more structured and publicly available series of articles on your much improved web site!

In the absence of which, many of us I am sure have, and will continue to be, copy/pasting your insights on here into our own reference files

    

Edited December 28, 2015 by Paulus

[Rob 3,152]

What I am saying is not rocket science. 10 minutes spent perusing Shuttlewood, Laker, Spink etc would satisfy any reader that the above few paragraphs was stating the bl****ng obvious!! Of far more use would be for people to acquire more books and do their own reading. Then they can come up with things that others have missed. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge, nor indeed should anyone be overly reliant on one or two sources. We all have a bit of grey matter between the ears we could use to good effect should we so wish.

[Coinery 1,154]

I disagree! People migrate to the most uptodate record or study, if it's worthy and, of course, supercedes the previous works!

No-one would ever attemp a piece of numismatic literature ever again, based on your (Rob's) premise! Surely a collection of significant conflicting works are not to be left unresolved forever for fear that any attempt to resolve them might add to the confusion? This is what the next great piece of numismatic literature is all about, shedding light on a previously incomplete or misunderstood area? Surely?

[Paulus 1,975]

46 minutes ago, Rob said:

What I am saying is not rocket science. 10 minutes spent perusing Shuttlewood, Laker, Spink etc would satisfy any reader that the above few paragraphs was stating the bl****ng obvious!! Of far more use would be for people to acquire more books and do their own reading. Then they can come up with things that others have missed. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge, nor indeed should anyone be overly reliant on one or two sources. We all have a bit of grey matter between the ears we could use to good effect should we so wish.

 

46 minutes ago, Rob said:

What I am saying is not rocket science. 10 minutes spent perusing Shuttlewood, Laker, Spink etc would satisfy any reader that the above few paragraphs was stating the bl****ng obvious!! Of far more use would be for people to acquire more books and do their own reading. Then they can come up with things that others have missed. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge, nor indeed should anyone be overly reliant on one or two sources. We all have a bit of grey matter between the ears we could use to good effect should we so wish.

 I will not be alone in thinking you add value to what is out there, so thanks Rob

The quoting function is behaving weirdly for me, hence the double "quote"

Have to agree with Stu, and I think you are very well placed to 'take things forward' in your many areas of expertise

It's "supersede" by the way Stu  (which surprises many)

I am always adding to my book library, but there are always gaps as well! I haven't yet acquired all the reference material I will need for Tudor hammered, or other areas I am delving into in more detail, such as Charles I, but getting there

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Paulus

[Rob 3,152]

There will be scope for producing new references as some areas are very poorly served. A comprehensive book for gold pre-1816 is definitely needed and as far as I know is in the making - hopefully doing a better job than the revised ESC.

The second half of the Norman period will inevitably need updating as this 50 year period is the least well documented due to the paucity of evidence. Half the coins of the period are mostly illegible, so new types for mint and new moneyers do and will appear on a regular basis. This will be further expanded by the baronial issues with new ones appearing every year or two. This is probably the only area where the knowledge base is lacking to a significant degree, with most missing only the occasional unrecorded type.

I'm not opposed to new works, but given the advanced state of the best reference for a given issue, anything short of a comprehensive die study is quite difficult to justify. At this level, adding a new variety is understandable, but is best incorporated into an existing structure rather than someone writing a new reference with its inevitable new numbering.

[pokal02 44]

Thanks all.  My specimen I was unsure about seems to have broken saltires and was sold as A1 although I think it's closer to B.  I'm going to put it down as a late bust 1 for now. Dividing by stops is slightly easier than busts, although the transition from saltire to a broken saltire must still have been an ongoing process. 

[Coinery 1,154]

10 minutes ago, Rob said:

 

...anything short of a comprehensive die study is quite difficult to justify. At this level, adding a new variety is understandable, but is best incorporated into an existing structure rather than someone writing a new reference with its inevitable new numbering.

A fair comment!

[Rob 3,152]

The cloak design certainly changes from the early to later busts. I haven't looked at them enough to say whether the punches are composite or single, but if the former then there must inevitably be some crossover as they progress chronologically. I agree that the saltire/broken saltire must be a progression. Breaking them down by the amount the bust is turned to the right as was initially done is also problematic and must depend on the ability of the engraver to reproduce the angle.

[pokal02 44]

....and a further trawl through the catalogues suggests my piece is almost identical to the third 'bust 1' in the Brady auction, i.e. the later cloak & broken saltires & slightly droopy moustache. .

 It seems that the Stewartby book is bringing forward the start of bust 2, both by saying that broken saltires are bust 2 and by stating that Canterbury/York started at this bust while Spink/North start them @ bust 1 'variety'.  Whether this is the result of further research or just an opinion I'm not sure.    

[Rob 3,152]

The original bust assignation was by Evans, then refined by Brooke and further discussed by Whitton in the BNJ vol.26, part.3 of which contains the notes pertaining to the groats. These articles are the sources and show the development of the original bust numbering. Basically it just shows that opinions have changed down the years as to the order in which they were used, so nothing new here. All this of course implies that the mint intended to have a numbered series of busts, which I very much doubt. There will inevitably be some crossover with a couple of bust punches in use at any one time, and so the sequencing is best done showing the degradation of letter and stop punches.

If you wanted to do something useful, a die link matrix would help. Given the number of attempts to set the record straight, the order in which they were used is going to be more or less right, but by revisiting the order in which the dies were used, someone might see an obvious divide between styles/stops/lettering. Busts 1 and 2 and their varieties are so similar, that arguably all could be considered discrete varieties. The tunic depicted on bust 3 is distinctly different to the others, but that might just reflect a different engraver's style. We have to bear in mind that there was no reducing equipment used in conjunction with a master, so all the punches were the result of the individual engravers' attempts to replicate a style. That to me is trying to read too much into the slight variations. However, if it was possible to assign dies to a marked change in mint procedures or say silver fineness, then there would be a valid reason to group busts accordingly, but only as part of the bigger picture for the reasons given above.

I don't think people pay enough attention to the idiosyncracies of the individual. At any one time there may be a number of engravers working on the same coinage, but who will have their own individual markers or visual perspective of an object. This could easily throw a detective off the scent of they were intent on assigning portrait appearance to a specific time and group.