Henry VIII Posthumous halfpenny query

[Rob 3,185]

Has anyone got the latest Withers book for this? It wasn't listed in the softback books. LONDON with an inverted G for the D and what appears to be an inverted lombardic E for the N. Whatever, N is the one thing it isn't. Unfortunately, the first N isn't clear. The O is also distinctive with a flaw emanating from the circle on both letters at 5 o'clock. This was out of Hosker Haynes sale a few days ago, and although not a thing of great beauty, it was too interesting to ignore. 

[Coinery 1,222]

I’ve got a copy in transit, so can let you know later this week.

The inverted G is clear, unlike the N…is it not a clogged left leg and a broken right, with the fragment eastward either a scud, or maybe even the broken leg itself?

[Rob 3,185]

I can buy that. It would explain the apparent displacement of the N(E). It would also explain the very thin line heading down to O flaw. I had discounted the N because of the well formed curve which seemed too horizontal for an N, the right leg which is leaning too far to the right at the top relative to the left leg and a small spur at the start of the thin line, all of which would be commensurate with a Lombardic E. Assuming an N, the tops of the two legs are inclined at 30 degrees to one another, but I guess a broken punch could deform into any random shape. The lump on the right I had assumed was just more of the poor surface.

Thanks. Always good to have the perspective of multiple eyeballs.

[Coinery 1,222]

Just collected my book from the mother-in-laws…

So, assuming that’s a Roman H, we’re talking Type 2 (no IM) with only one documented ’standard’ reverse (rev a) with no errors mentioned. I did look through the earlier reverse dies of Henry’s reign, just in case it was an earlier die, but no mention of inverted G for D throughout his reign.

There are 11 obverses recorded for Type 2…easier to attach than quote (credit the Galata Guide to Small Change, P & B Withers 2023)

[Rob 3,185]

Thanks Stuart. So basically minimal additions. What does the red dot mean?

Interestingly, the first three listed were previously under his obverse 1 as 1a, 1b and unrecorded, but the first two in the earlier edition have the pellet in annulet on the centre of the reverse (S2385), unlike those paired with obverse 2 (S2426). In the case of 4-11, they are his 2a-h. I wonder why they have been grouped together?

Better send Paul an email.

[Coinery 1,222]

In bed, post nights…will come back at this tomorrow. Speak soon  

[Coinery 1,222]

So it looks like the only defining difference, according to Withers, between type 1 and 2 is the pellet in annulet at the centre of the reverse cross hence, I’m guessing, the migration of the lombardic H into type 2?

Obviously Lis pm is Type 1 only, but these can also be pm none. Type 2 is none.

They’ve grouped the third and the posthumous coins together, they say, because of a lack of clarity, with separations previously being uncertainly made by the Lombardic/Roman H. Whitton says punctuation with saltire/trefoil being third issue, and pellet/lozenge representing the posthumous issue. 
 

You’ll obviously know a lot of the above, it’s only added to the question for easy assimilation of the new details. All interesting stuff. 
 

Oh, and the red dots represent illustrated coins (not always matching ob/rev, though, so worth bearing that in mind).

Edit: this is of course for Tower coinage, I didn’t look at anything else. Interestingly, I was just looking at North and he separates the 3rd/posthumous tower coins by Roman/lombardic lettering, whereas the SCBC goes with the Withers’ distinction (or vice versa).

Edited September 29, 2024 by Coinery

[Coinery 1,222]

Credit as attached!