Charles I Shilling variety?

[George Valby 0]

I have had this coin for about 20 years, but just noticed that the reverse is different from most other Charles I shillings I have seen images for. Any comments/help in further identification will be much appreciated. The reverse is more of an ovoid shield, with ornate border, than the "normal" shape shield. There is also approximately a 90 degree rotation, which I am not sure is normal or not for hammered coinage.

[Peckris 579]

I have had this coin for about 20 years, but just noticed that the reverse is different from most other Charles I shillings I have seen images for. Any comments/help in further identification will be much appreciated. The reverse is more of an ovoid shield, with ornate border, than the "normal" shape shield. There is also approximately a 90 degree rotation, which I am not sure is normal or not for hammered coinage.

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type).

For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am.

[George Valby 0]

I have had this coin for about 20 years, but just noticed that the reverse is different from most other Charles I shillings I have seen images for. Any comments/help in further identification will be much appreciated. The reverse is more of an ovoid shield, with ornate border, than the "normal" shape shield. There is also approximately a 90 degree rotation, which I am not sure is normal or not for hammered coinage.

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type).

For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am.

Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly.

[Peckris 579]

I have had this coin for about 20 years, but just noticed that the reverse is different from most other Charles I shillings I have seen images for. Any comments/help in further identification will be much appreciated. The reverse is more of an ovoid shield, with ornate border, than the "normal" shape shield. There is also approximately a 90 degree rotation, which I am not sure is normal or not for hammered coinage.

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type).

For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am.

Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly.

The problem there, is that the mintmark is the wrong one (it's most likely a harp not a tun), also the oval shield reverse actually starts with 2785 according to Spink. As for the obverse, yours has the inner circle which they don't from 2787 onwards. Unless I'm reading Spink wrong?

[George Valby 0]

I have had this coin for about 20 years, but just noticed that the reverse is different from most other Charles I shillings I have seen images for. Any comments/help in further identification will be much appreciated. The reverse is more of an ovoid shield, with ornate border, than the "normal" shape shield. There is also approximately a 90 degree rotation, which I am not sure is normal or not for hammered coinage.

It appears to be Tower Mint, reference S2785, mm harp. The shield should have CR to the side, but the wear makes that hard to tell - I think there could be a C to the left? The bust appears to have a lace collar (there are six bust varieties for this particular type).

For the rotation question you would need someone more expert in hammered than I am.

Thanks for the rapid reply. There may be a typo, however, as the reverse looks more like 2789 than 2785. The obverse has the tall bust, extending beyond the inner circle significantly.

The problem there, is that the mintmark is the wrong one (it's most likely a harp not a tun), also the oval shield reverse actually starts with 2785 according to Spink. As for the obverse, yours has the inner circle which they don't from 2787 onwards. Unless I'm reading Spink wrong?

I was looking at the Stacks October 2010 auction, lot 572, link below, which seems nearly the same as my coin. The description also notes that it has the harp mm, "which is not specified for this variety". http://legacy.stacks.com/Lot/ItemDetail/165771

[Rob 3,152]

Spink reference numbers for Charles I tower silver changed a few years ago, so you are probably both right but not singing from the same hymnsheet. I'm on holiday at the moment, so don't have the references to hand, but anyone with a curent Spink can answer the question as the former numbers are in brackets. The die axis can be anywhere from 0 to 359 degrees.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Rob

[Nick 329]

Spink reference numbers for Charles I tower silver changed a few years ago, so you are probably both right but not singing from the same hymnsheet. I'm on holiday at the moment, so don't have the references to hand, but anyone with a curent Spink can answer the question as the former numbers are in brackets. The die axis can be anywhere from 0 to 359 degrees.

The current S.2789 had the former number S.2785.

[George Valby 0]

Thanks very much for the clarification!

[TomGoodheart 403]

I've been away on holiday, but it looks like you have your answer. The Spink number change caused quite a bit of confusion although the newer listings do identify several varieties that the older editions didn't.

Your coin is also a Sharp D2/1 under the numbering system devised by Michael Sharp and which quite a few collectors of Charles I shillings now use. The harp mint mark is the usual one for the early coins of this series. I'm still looking for this coin with a portcullis mark which only appears on the later D series coins (with plain, unjewelled crowns)!

Oh, and welcome!

[George Valby 0]

I've been away on holiday, but it looks like you have your answer. The Spink number change caused quite a bit of confusion although the newer listings do identify several varieties that the older editions didn't.

Your coin is also a Sharp D2/1 under the numbering system devised by Michael Sharp and which quite a few collectors of Charles I shillings now use. The harp mint mark is the usual one for the early coins of this series. I'm still looking for this coin with a portcullis mark which only appears on the later D series coins (with plain, unjewelled crowns)!

Oh, and welcome!

Thanks for weighing in and clarifying! Now a related question: In the S2789 examples I see images for, there is a variation in the alignment of the letters around the periphery. In the attached jpg file, I show two examples plus my coin. In example 1, obv, the L is aligned with the top of the XII, whereas in example 2, it is the middle of the O that is aligned with the top of the XII. In my coin, it is close to example 1. For the rev, example 1 shows the P centered below the scroll, example 2 shows the edge of the S, and my coin shows the S centered below the scroll. The question is, is the alignment so variable for 2789, and why? Different dies, with very similar major features, but some differences like alignment? Or different varieties? Or ? Any comments will be appreciated! Thanks much!

[TomGoodheart 403]

Thanks for weighing in and clarifying! Now a related question: In the S2789 examples I see images for, there is a variation in the alignment of the letters around the periphery. In the attached jpg file, I show two examples plus my coin. In example 1, obv, the L is aligned with the top of the XII, whereas in example 2, it is the middle of the O that is aligned with the top of the XII. In my coin, it is close to example 1. For the rev, example 1 shows the P centered below the scroll, example 2 shows the edge of the S, and my coin shows the S centered below the scroll. The question is, is the alignment so variable for 2789, and why? Different dies, with very similar major features, but some differences like alignment? Or different varieties? Or ? Any comments will be appreciated! Thanks much!

Is the alignment so variable? Yes. The thing is we are talking about hammered coins. Now, nowadays coins are mass produced by machine using technology that means that dies can be reproduced almost identically. That simply wasn't the case with hammered coins. Each had to be produced by hand and the only way to make more was to have more dies. However die making was also very labour intensive. Consequently the tricky bits were done by master engravers while the legend lettering punched onto the master die by someone less experienced. Analysis of coins in a series show that not only was the King's bust engraved separately from the mark of value, privy mark (the so-called 'mint mark') and legend, but often that the hair (including crown), face and collar/shoulders were engraved on separate 'master puncheons' which would then be combined to strike the eventual die that would be used to create the coin!

In practice this led not only to different alignments between the legend and the bust, but also variations in the legend itself including missed letters or doubling of letters. Overmarks, where the updated mint mark is struck over the old one to avoid having to make new dies for the next year's issue are not uncommon.

In fact this method of production left scope for even greater variation or error. I have seen photos of a coin with the mark of value punched upside down and another with the Scottish lion inverted. There is at least one example of a coin with the C and R missing from the sides of the shield. Even one where the coiner accidentally used a half crown reverse die with a shilling obverse! In fact there are people who particularly collect such curiosities!

In fact, if you compare two hammered coins and find them to have the same features such as alignment and shape of letters, legend and alignmnet and in particular any flaws in lettering or design it is very likely that they came from the same dies. This exception to the normal variation in appearance has helped collectors to estimate how many dies existed (and thence to suggest how many coins may have survived and are likely to be found) in several instances!

As an example, here are four coins. All are examples of (current editions) S 2789 (prior to 2006, 2785), Sharp D4/1. You will see there is a fair bit of variation between them!

Edited August 13, 2011 by TomGoodheart

[George Valby 0]

Thanks for weighing in and clarifying! Now a related question: In the S2789 examples I see images for, there is a variation in the alignment of the letters around the periphery. In the attached jpg file, I show two examples plus my coin. In example 1, obv, the L is aligned with the top of the XII, whereas in example 2, it is the middle of the O that is aligned with the top of the XII. In my coin, it is close to example 1. For the rev, example 1 shows the P centered below the scroll, example 2 shows the edge of the S, and my coin shows the S centered below the scroll. The question is, is the alignment so variable for 2789, and why? Different dies, with very similar major features, but some differences like alignment? Or different varieties? Or ? Any comments will be appreciated! Thanks much!

Is the alignment so variable? Yes. The thing is we are talking about hammered coins. Now, nowadays coins are mass produced by machine using technology that means that dies can be reproduced almost identically. That simply wasn't the case with hammered coins. Each had to be produced by hand and the only way to make more was to have more dies. However die making was also very labour intensive. Consequently the tricky bits were done by master engravers while the legend lettering punched onto the master die by someone less experienced. Analysis of coins in a series show that not only was the King's bust engraved separately from the mark of value, privy mark (the so-called 'mint mark') and legend, but often that the hair (including crown), face and collar/shoulders were engraved on separate 'master puncheons' which would then be combined to strike the eventual die that would be used to create the coin!

In practice this led not only to different alignments between the legend and the bust, but also variations in the legend itself including missed letters or doubling of letters. Overmarks, where the updated mint mark is struck over the old one to avoid having to make new dies for the next year's issue are not uncommon.

In fact this method of production left scope for even greater variation or error. I have seen photos of a coin with the mark of value punched upside down and another with the Scottish lion inverted. There is at least one example of a coin with the C and R missing from the sides of the shield. Even one where the coiner accidentally used a half crown reverse die with a shilling obverse! In fact there are people who particularly collect such curiosities!

In fact, if you compare two hammered coins and find them to have the same features such as alignment and shape of letters, legend and alignmnet and in particular any flaws in lettering or design it is very likely that they came from the same dies. This exception to the normal variation in appearance has helped collectors to estimate how many dies existed (and thence to suggest how many coins may have survived and are likely to be found) in several instances!

As an example, here are four coins. All are examples of (current editions) S 2789 (prior to 2006, 2785), Sharp D4/1. You will see there is a fair bit of variation between them!

So what exactly differentiates S2789 from, the others? For instance, my coin has a tall bust, with the crown extending into the legend ring significantly, whereas the 4 coins you picture all have the crown within the inner ring. As you can tell, I am a novice in this area....

[TomGoodheart 403]

OK. Think back a couple of centuries or so. Coin collecting was a fairly specialised field. A gentleman's pursuit for the most part. Occasionally people would publish details of their collections and people would compare what they had with what others had collected. For convenience people grouped similar style coins together. Numerous people did this, the most famous being J J North who classified most of the English hammered series. He classed these coins as 2223 and that basically meant any coin with the oval garnished shield with the C and R at the sides. As a group, we call this a type. Within a type there may be several varieties.

Over time other people have called the same (or similar) groupings of coins by different names or numbers. Grant Francis called these type 3, because he felt they were the third really distinguishably different bust/reverse style. Spink group them all together as 2789 "Group D, fourth bust, type 3.1, with falling lace collar" etc... Michael Sharp however, who has a special interest in the shillings of Charles I, subdivided group D into six different varieties in his 1978 paper. Roy Osborne saw even more distinct styles.

People use different classifications depending on their interests. Here in the UK Spink numbers are common ways of identifying at least the type of a coin. In the US many people use Krause who publish a series of books about coins from all around the world. Shilling collectors like me tend to use Michael Sharp's numbering because it's more specific than Spink, but not so complex it becomes unwieldy!

Returning to your coin, S2789 only has one reverse throughout the series (though the style of things like mint mark or the shape of the harp varies). There are six obverses, three with jewelled crowns, three with plain:

All of these coins are Spink 2789! In Sharp's nomenclature however they are (left to right) D1/1 - D6/1 (D is the type, the first number the variety and the second number (the one after the / ) tells you which reverse style the coin has.

Yours is an example of the second; where the back arch of the crown starts to break the inner circle. As you can hopefully see, on the first bust, only the jewels of the front arch break the inner circle whereas in the third bust both arches of the crown extend well beyond the circle.

Hope that makes sense and sorry if that's TMI! Once you get enthusiasts talking it can be hard to shut us up!

Edited August 13, 2011 by TomGoodheart

[George Valby 0]

OK. Think back a couple of centuries or so. Coin collecting was a fairly specialised field. A gentleman's pursuit for the most part. Occasionally people would publish details of their collections and people would compare what they had with what others had collected. For convenience people grouped similar style coins together. Numerous people did this, the most famous being J J North who classified most of the English hammered series. He classed these coins as 2223 and that basically meant any coin with the oval garnished shield with the C and R at the sides. As a group, we call this a type. Within a type there may be several varieties.

Over time other people have called the same (or similar) groupings of coins by different names or numbers. Grant Francis called these type 3, because he felt they were the third really distinguishably different bust/reverse style. Spink group them all together as 2789 "Group D, fourth bust, type 3.1, with falling lace collar" etc... Michael Sharp however, who has a special interest in the shillings of Charles I, subdivided group D into six different varieties in his 1978 paper. Roy Osborne saw even more distinct styles.

People use different classifications depending on their interests. Here in the UK Spink numbers are common ways of identifying at least the type of a coin. In the US many people use Krause who publish a series of books about coins from all around the world. Shilling collectors like me tend to use Michael Sharp's numbering because it's more specific than Spink, but not so complex it becomes unwieldy!

Returning to your coin, S2789 only has one reverse throughout the series (though the style of things like mint mark or the shape of the harp varies). There are six obverses, three with jewelled crowns, three with plain:

All of these coins are Spink 2789! In Sharp's nomenclature however they are (left to right) D1/1 - D6/1 (D is the type, the first number the variety and the second number (the one after the / ) tells you which reverse style the coin has.

Yours is an example of the second; where the back arch of the crown starts to break the inner circle. As you can hopefully see, on the first bust, only the jewels of the front arch break the inner circle whereas in the third bust both arches of the crown extend well beyond the circle.

Hope that makes sense and sorry if that's TMI! Once you get enthusiasts talking it can be hard to shut us up!

Thanks very much for the explanations! When it's as interesting a puzzle as this, there is never TMI! And based on your suggestion to look closely at the C and R, on the left side I definitely see the C overstruck on an upside down R. On the right side of the shield, the wear is too much to see anything. Scan of the detail attached. Thanks again!

[TomGoodheart 403]

Thanks very much for the explanations! When it's as interesting a puzzle as this, there is never TMI! And based on your suggestion to look closely at the C and R, on the left side I definitely see the C overstruck on an upside down R. On the right side of the shield, the wear is too much to see anything. Scan of the detail attached. Thanks again!

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:)

Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too .

Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection?

Edited August 14, 2011 by TomGoodheart

[George Valby 0]

Thanks very much for the explanations! When it's as interesting a puzzle as this, there is never TMI! And based on your suggestion to look closely at the C and R, on the left side I definitely see the C overstruck on an upside down R. On the right side of the shield, the wear is too much to see anything. Scan of the detail attached. Thanks again!

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:)

Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too .

Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection?

Thanks very much for your explanations!

[Rob 3,152]

Thanks very much for the explanations! When it's as interesting a puzzle as this, there is never TMI! And based on your suggestion to look closely at the C and R, on the left side I definitely see the C overstruck on an upside down R. On the right side of the shield, the wear is too much to see anything. Scan of the detail attached. Thanks again!

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:)

Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too .

Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection?

Your coin has the C & R over an inverted C & R, so presumably the correction was made after the shield had been punched into the die, this being the simplest remedy.

Below is another of this type with the C punched over an inverted R, but no sign of the R being over an inverted C and as you can see from a different die to yours. For the record, the reverse only is also portcullis over harp, so this die may also appear on a harp shilling.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Rob