tudor coins.liz 1 sixpence.

[petendade 0]

as a new collector and member of this forum

i am keen to learn how to tell if a coin is genuine or a not.

could this coin be a counterfeit.

liz 1 sixpence.dated 1565,mint mark arrow.

[TomGoodheart 403]

You would need to post a picture at least for an opinion. Counterfeit Elizabeth sixpences are not common but do exist. In my experience counterfeits are often rather worn - possibly made like that to avoid detection.

There are of course quite a few reproduction coins on the market, which are a different matter.

Pics should be as clear as pos (of course) or decent scans at around 300-400 dpi

[Chris Perkins 228]

Please keep the topic in this area.

I removed the other post because the picture didn't work.

The image needs to be a few hundred kb at the most and preferably jpg format.

You need to add it with the 'File Attachments' area, below the text of when you make a new post.

[petendade 0]

sorry ihave tried but to no avail.

i have resampled my files and they are jpg

and reduced but your attchmnt link will not accept them.

iwill leave it for now and try else where,thanks for your time.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Email the picture to me and I'll post it: cp@predecimal.com

[TomGoodheart 403]

I had problems uploading photos when I first joined too. I posted them onto Photobucket Image Hosting and could link from there. There are probably other photo hosting sites on the web you could try.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Here's the image emailed to me after I resized them and played around a bit:

[TomGoodheart 403]

Looks OK to me. Contemporary counterfeits normally give themselves away by mistakes somewhere on the coin. Sometimes it's the formation of the lettering - letters either don't 'look' right, are reversed, or mucked up in some other way. Things like shield edges and beading (the bit that makes up the circle between the legand and design) are generally uneven. For some reason counterfeiters almost never own a pair of compasses to draw an even circle.... Details like the royal arms appear to have presented particular problems for several counterfeiters....

For example, this Charles I shilling appears to have a monkey or a fox where the Scottish lion should be!

Was there a particular reason you thought your sixpence might be a counterfeit petendade?

[Sylvester 15]

That's a squirrel.

[petendade 0]

from my limited research on the web i was under the impression

the the "arrow" mint mark if that mark is an arrow,was not in use at the of the date on the coin

[TomGoodheart 403]

Sylvester Posted on Feb 24 2006, 08:48 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a squirrel. 

I think you're right - and are those two legged rhinos instead of leopards?

[petendade 0]

you two are more interested in wildlife than my arrow,

im trying to learn here.

[TomGoodheart 403]

My copy of Spink says the pheon (arrowhead) mark was in use between 1561 and 1565 which agrees with the date on the coin.

It is however worth remembering that the mint, or more correctly 'privy' mark was primarily a means of identifying a run of coins for the purposes of quality control through something called the 'trials of the pyx' rather than a means of dating.

If the Pyx was delayed for any reason there was therefore the potential for the date of the coin to be out of synch with the given mark. Since I am not an Elizabethan sixpence/threepence/threehalfpence/threefarthing (ie those denominations with dates on them) enthusiast I can't tell you if this actually happened.

Sylvester - do you have any information about this?

[petendade 0]

thanks tom,i didnt know a "pheon" was a arrow head.

now i do. by the way i am treating myselfe to copy of the 41st ed.of spink

i ordered it an hour ago.everybody refers to it.

[TomGoodheart 403]

petendade Posted on Feb 24 2006, 10:33 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you two are more interested in wildlife than my arrow,

im trying to learn here.    . 

Sorry petendale Just be happy your coin isn't from 1560 or we'd be arguing whether a martlet is a duck or a raven!

OK - you want learning - here's a bit more...

The Trials of the Pyx were a way of safeguarding the quality of the nation's coinage. The Master of the Mint was given strict weights and alloy limits for the coinage in a contract from the Crown.

Out of every 'journey' (30lb) of coins, samples were removed at random and sealed in a box for regular, roughly annual, 'trials' by a jury drawn from the Goldsmith's Company. The coins were identified by privy mark so that the Master responsible for their production could be identified in case of irregularity.

It is also worth remembering that while the rest of Europe adopted Pope Gregory XIII's reformed calender of 1582 and its year beginning on 1 January, this was not the case in England until 1752! So while the New Year was celebrated on 1 January, the State dated it's official year from March 25. This means that the dates between 1 January and 25 March in fact belong to the last quarter of any year!! ie coins produced in February of what we now call 1554 would have been dated 1553!

Perhaps that's why the use of dates went out of fashion early on in the reign of Charles I and didn't return until the introduction of milled coinage.

[TomGoodheart 403]

petendade Posted: Feb 24 2006, 11:07 PM 

  thanks tom,i didnt know a "pheon" was a arrow head.

now i do. by the way i am treating myselfe to copy of the 41st ed.of spink

i ordered it an hour ago.everybody refers to it. 

Spink is fine but you'll probably want to get more specialised books as your collection develops petendade. Especially if you're getting into hammered. And don't forget Chris' very reasonably priced series!

Edited February 24, 2006 by TomGoodheart

[petendade 0]

im going now.my brain hurts.

thanks everybody for your help.

but iwill be back..

[Sylvester 15]

My copy of Spink says the pheon (arrowhead) mark was in use between 1561 and 1565 which agrees with the date on the coin.

It is however worth remembering that the mint, or more correctly 'privy' mark was primarily a means of identifying a run of coins for the purposes of quality control through something called the 'trials of the pyx' rather than a means of dating.

If the Pyx was delayed for any reason there was therefore the potential for the date of the coin to be out of synch with the given mark. Since I am not an Elizabethan sixpence/threepence/threehalfpence/threefarthing (ie those denominations with dates on them) enthusiast I can't tell you if this actually happened.

Sylvester - do you have any information about this?

It's not my area either so i can't add upon what you've already said. If it had been a few centuries earlier then i could have been of assistance.

The likely reason for the date being out of synch with the mintmark is either the use of the Julian calendar (as you have pointed out), or a new variety.