Does anybody have a Rose marked 1565 threepence?

[Rob 3,228]

As per the title.

I picked up this manky looking 1566 3d with mm. Lion a few years ago. The reverse mark is over portcullis, which was the previous mark, but the obverse mark has a decidedly round underlying feature which is incompatible with anything to do with a portcullis, but would be possible for a rose. At this time, there was a frequent change of mark according to BCW, with Rose running for 6 months ending 31st March 1566, Portcullis from 1st May 1566 to 31st Jan 1566/7 (not sure where April went) and Lion from 1st Feb 1566/7 to 30th June 1567. It is not inconceivable that a rose marked obverse die survived the duration of the portcullis period and that die was then used during lion. Clearly this coin was struck in the first two months of lion before the calendar year end being less than a full year since the closing of Rose, but potentially a couple months less than this. The amount of silver struck in rose for all denominations was running at less than £6000 per month, but this increased to about £8000 per month during the next two marks.

 So the question is, does anybody have a 1565 or 1566 threepence with a rose initial mark to compare the dies with this one? The rose in the field behind the head is BCW type 13 as per the book, but 2 of the three die arrangements with mm. Rose used a type 9 or 12 rose behind the head, both of which are smaller than 13 and so could possibly be obliterated by the larger rose type 13. The legend reading ANG FR HI was used on the die with rose type 9 and is also noted in BCW as being rose over pheon. The same legend arrangement was also used on the die with the larger rose 10 behind the head, but this reads ANG FRA HI. 

Anyone help? Stuart? We've been here before, but the question hasn't been resolved.

[Coinery 1,251]

We have, I thought I recognised the coin.

I have a day of leisure tomorrow, so will did out my images, engage my brain, and see what I can match up for discussion.

Ah, the life of a numismatist...son to collect at 20:30 from scouts, wife to feed when she gets in from a late shift around 21:00 (nursing, Peter), and then the fire to sort out after that! 

 

[davetmoneyer 99]

Hi I have images of 8 lion overstamped on a previous initial mark, all from the same die, the 'clearest image is of the Roger Shuttlewood coin which was described as Lion over portcullis and as such was described in my book on the threepence. Your example ( from the same dies ) does show a clearer mark which looks to be a rose rather than portcullis. For the reverse dies there are 4 dies with lion over portcullis and dated 1566 in these cases it is lion over portcullis. There is a unique reverse found in the National Museum of Liverpool which has a 1566/5 with rose initial mark but this has a normal 1565 rose initial mark obverse. Given the vast range of overstamping of dies during the 1560-1581 period it is not unlikely that a rose initial mark die of 1565 was overstamped with a lion.

1566 lion over portcullis( Rose) obv

British Museum (1),  C,.Coomber (1), DIG (3), W. Wilkinson (1), R Shuttlewood (1) and one specimen(which probably is the above ) ex M Rassmussen 2010[ Catalogue photo not very clear)

 

[Rob 3,228]

This is the Rasmussen con - I bought it from him at York a few months after the list came out. 

So the question is, Rose or Portcullis? I can't make a portcullis out of it, even when I've had one too many, which is why I was hoping to find a 1565 rose obverse to match. The surfaces on this coin don't help. I don't have an issue with the reverse die.

I suppose the real question is - Do any of the others show a clear portcullis? And if so, is there any trace of a rose as well? i.e Lion over Portcullis over Rose. Three marks in a congested time period certainly makes that a possibility.

I should have picked up on this when I read your manuscript, but it escaped me at the time.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Rob

[Coinery 1,251]

Did we look at this on another thread at some point?

[Rob 3,228]

1 minute ago, Coinery said:

Did we look at this on another thread at some point?

Yes, but Dave wasn't a part of the conversation at the time. I think we can resolve it this time.

[davetmoneyer 99]

This is the clearest example extant and I now think that 95% that it is a rose, Unfortunately rose is a rare IM and there are only some 24 specimens recorded of rose im none of which have a colon aftrer 'BETH, and 3 with portcullis over rose (and it definately is a portcullis over a circular IM which could only really be a rose) which do have the Colon after BETH ( As does the Lion /rose) so it would appear that the Colon marked dies were cut at the end of 1565 and were overstruck with the new initial marks ( Portcullis and Lion). I will be amending the text in the book to reflect this.

[Rob 3,228]

So this has to be Lion over Rose, but no Portcullis?

The one thing that muddies the water is the fact that all eight of those Lion over Portcullis listed earlier appear to be from the same die. Are you saying that the others have a clear underlying Portcullis, even if a Rose is uncertain? I suppose it's possible that the improbable could have happened in that we have two identical dies except for the initial mark, one with Lion over Portcullis and the other Lion over Rose, though you wouldn't bet any money on that.

A bit of lateral thinking here. Most changes are made for a reason, so I'm wondering if the colon after was used to identify the dies cut in the new year. Rose finished on 31st March which is only a week into the new year, but if no roses are known with colon after, then presumably all roses with the colon were cut at the very end of the mark, but not used within the period. 3 dies were used for Portcullis, leaving this one which stayed on the shelf until the end of portcullis to become a Lion over Rose. I don't have the book, so have no reference, but do all Portcullises, over Rose or not, have a colon after? If so, it could have significance in that it identifies those cut in 1566. And to take the argument further, is there a split in Lion between colon after and something else? Assuming a fixed striking rate, the ratio would be approx. 1:2 based on the number of Lion days in 1566 compared to 1567. Does that make sense?

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Rob

[davetmoneyer 99]

All the other examples are unclear as to the underlying mark but are from the same die as yours and were attributed on the Shuttlewood coin,  all the overmarked dies have 'BETH :

[Rob 3,228]

Ok, so a reattribution of all eight is required. That clears this point up. Thanks.

Any thoughts on the significance on the change in punctuation?

The other point nagging is the frequency with which the marks were changed. Coincident with a change of position holder, price of silver, or something else? 6 months for rose and 5 months for Lion is quite a short period. You also have the notably short period in 1613 for trefoil which is at odds with the other marks.

[Coinery 1,251]

So, did we find a pm rose obverse die to match yours? I lost the thread a bit.

[Paddy 1,874]

I know this is no great shakes as a coin, but I believe this is another in your vein - 1566 threepence with lion over rose mintmark.

 

[Rob 3,228]

It's the same obverse die but a different reverse to the other eight (?). Dave is going to be working overtime adding the new finds to his list

The reverse is a different die but looks to be over portcullis as well - presumably we have a few Lion over Portcullis reverse dies. I'm not sure if Dave meant 4 reverses paired with this obverse, or 4 dies otherwise paired.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Rob

[davetmoneyer 99]

Hi the reverse die is an overstruck rose die dated 1566, ( my reverse E the only other specimen is in the Liverpool museum and is a clear rose IM - prior to the addition of the Lion) this adds weight to the Lion over Rose IM obverse, could you send me details of the coin to dave@grunal.com (Hi rez photo, weight and any provenance please) and Rob the Lion/Portcullis reverses are paired with 1566 obverse dies 1(Lion/rose), 2i, (lion/port), and lion im obverses 3 and 4i

[Coinery 1,251]

On 10/11/2018 at 1:18 PM, davetmoneyer said:

Hi the reverse die is an overstruck rose die dated 1566, ( my reverse E the only other specimen is in the Liverpool museum and is a clear rose IM - prior to the addition of the Lion) this adds weight to the Lion over Rose IM obverse, could you send me details of the coin to dave@grunal.com (Hi rez photo, weight and any provenance please) and Rob the Lion/Portcullis reverses are paired with 1566 obverse dies 1(Lion/rose), 2i, (lion/port), and lion im obverses 3 and 4i

Do you have an image of that reverse handy, Dave, your reverse E (the die match without the lion)? What’s on the obverse of it?

Edited October 15, 2018 by Coinery

[davetmoneyer 99]

Quote

 

Hi the 1566 IM rose reverse is a different die to the Lion/rose reverse. now I have the lion/rose IM coin from paddy in my hand I was able to compare the two coins

[Coinery 1,251]

An example of your coin, @Rob, but sadly nothing to shed new light on it. I’m not convinced by the evidence of this thread, and will find an answer to it one day.

 

 

[Coinery 1,251]