Help with Edward the Confessor Silver Penny, EOFERPIC

[markfrumento 0]

I have an Edward the Confessor pointed helmet type penny purchased about 5 or 6 years ago. I never really wondered if it is real or not but my concern after researching a bit online is that I can't find another exactly like it. The concerning part is this...

The legend is "STIRCOLONEOFERPIC+"

So that is Stircol of York which is normal for this issue but nowhere online do I find a coin with "EOFERPIC" completely spelled out - its usually EOFER or EOFERP etc. None of the online references show that combination. In fact one book says that most York coins do not have EOFEPIC it spelled out because the moneyer name is usually too long.

My thinking is that either the coin is so common that EOFERPIC is not referenced anywhere, its uncommon/rare or its been faked. None of the older reference books that are available online reference the full combination of names. It's a nice full flan, which is what made me purchase it - this allows the full legend. My hope is that it's not a fake

Any suggestions? Since the coin is so nice I was wondering if it could be from a horde but again, I can't find another like it online.

[Rob 3,335]

The full mint reading shouldn't put you off. The shorter the name the more likely it is that the mint signature will be longer, but the whole is dependent on the spacing used by the engraver. IOLA, DORR and SCVLA are often encountered with full readings, but so are longer names such as STIRCOL and ARNCETEL. Examples are also known where the mint reads EOFERPICC, the last letter repeated to ensure there was no vacant space.

I don't have any images of a STIRCOL ON EOFERPIC, so can't say if it agrees with an existing die pair, but unless there is something obviously wrong such as weight or thickness, I would think it was ok. Obviously any copy would likely be an exact replica of what is probably a unique die.

[Paulus 2,004]

8 hours ago, markfrumento said:

I have an Edward the Confessor pointed helmet type penny purchased about 5 or 6 years ago. I never really wondered if it is real or not but my concern after researching a bit online is that I can't find another exactly like it. The concerning part is this...

The legend is "STIRCOLONEOFERPIC+"

So that is Stircol of York which is normal for this issue but nowhere online do I find a coin with "EOFERPIC" completely spelled out - its usually EOFER or EOFERP etc. None of the online references show that combination. In fact one book says that most York coins do not have EOFEPIC it spelled out because the moneyer name is usually too long.

My thinking is that either the coin is so common that EOFERPIC is not referenced anywhere, its uncommon/rare or its been faked. None of the older reference books that are available online reference the full combination of names. It's a nice full flan, which is what made me purchase it - this allows the full legend. My hope is that it's not a fake

Any suggestions? Since the coin is so nice I was wondering if it could be from a horde but again, I can't find another like it online.

Fabulous looking coin Mark, I don't collect these myself but you should regard Rob's comments as very encouraging indeed

[markfrumento 0]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

The full mint reading shouldn't put you off. The shorter the name the more likely it is that the mint signature will be longer, but the whole is dependent on the spacing used by the engraver. IOLA, DORR and SCVLA are often encountered with full readings, but so are longer names such as STIRCOL and ARNCETEL. Examples are also known where the mint reads EOFERPICC, the last letter repeated to ensure there was no vacant space.

I don't have any images of a STIRCOL ON EOFERPIC, so can't say if it agrees with an existing die pair, but unless there is something obviously wrong such as weight or thickness, I would think it was ok. Obviously any copy would likely be an exact replica of what is probably a unique die.

Thanks for the reply Rob (and Paulus). It's been interesting researching the coin. I don't have many examples to compare - though I would love to buy more. My others are not nearly this nice and when I bought it I purposely wanted the best one I could afford. It still astounds me that a coin this old can look like it was struck yesterday. So having not thought twice about its authenticity when I purchased it I got a bit nervous after spending a little time with it.

In hand it's brighter, more silvery and the toning is very even. Although I know that there are some very good looking fakes on the market, after consideration the toning and patina seem right. Being in the US I don't see enough of these coins to have a good frame of reference. In some respects that's why I don't buy more (that and the expense).

Again, thanks so much.

[Rob 3,335]

Grueber & Keary, English Coins in the British Museum, Anglo-Saxon 2 published in 1887 (reprinted 1970) lists a coin with identical readings. That is why I said an image of another example would be useful as they made copies of things in the BM around the turn of the 20th century. The Ready electrotypes of milled coins weighed the same as the original, being identified by an R on the edge - something that is not possible with a flan as thin as a hammered penny. Modern copies of hammered coins tend to be noticeably thicker than the original however.

I couldn't find anything doing a past auction search, but that is not altogether surprising given the number of rare to unique examples of a specific die pair.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rob