Does anyone know anything about Briots coinage?

[unc 0]

Just thought i'd put up images of this 12 shilling Scottish coin of Charles the 1st for discussion. i bought it as 'holed' which it most certainly is but, I think it might have been de-monetised because the hole is to the centre of the coin which isn't practical for a touchpiece. I liked the portrait at the time and think it is a well struck coin. I don't know how scarce it is or whether the hole detracts massively from it's value. It was also legal tender as a shilling in England. What do you think?

Alex.

[unc 0]

And the reverse....

[Rob 3,152]

I'd go along with it being a recoinage piercing. As to value, Coin Market Values gives it as £110 fine and £300 VF. That's only fine or good fine and it has a large hole in the middle which detracts. I'd hazard a guess and say £40-50, but it all depends on supply and crucially the demand for defective material. Scottish is less widely collected, but rarer than English or British. There won't be many who could live with a holed coin, so unless ridiculously rare, probably best avoided. Maybe Scottishmoney can make a contribution here.

[unc 0]

I'd go along with it being a recoinage piercing. As to value, Coin Market Values gives it as £110 fine and £300 VF. That's only fine or good fine and it has a large hole in the middle which detracts. I'd hazard a guess and say £40-50, but it all depends on supply and crucially the demand for defective material. Scottish is less widely collected, but rarer than English or British. There won't be many who could live with a holed coin, so unless ridiculously rare, probably best avoided. Maybe Scottishmoney can make a contribution here.

Thanks Rob. Always wanted a good portrait of Charles 1st though.

[azda 979]

Cracking portrait, just a pity about the hole though

[Rob 3,152]

I'd go along with it being a recoinage piercing. As to value, Coin Market Values gives it as £110 fine and £300 VF. That's only fine or good fine and it has a large hole in the middle which detracts. I'd hazard a guess and say £40-50, but it all depends on supply and crucially the demand for defective material. Scottish is less widely collected, but rarer than English or British. There won't be many who could live with a holed coin, so unless ridiculously rare, probably best avoided. Maybe Scottishmoney can make a contribution here.

Thanks Rob. Always wanted a good portrait of Charles 1st though.

If it doesn't have to be Sottish, you would be better off with a type G Briot bust with the t-in-c mark or similar. They are much more common, and if you found a really good one it would be a lot cheaper than a Scottish to buy. You should be able to get a really good one for £250-350. Or if you don't want a hammered coin, then an English Briot's Milled would come in under £1K for an EF or thereabouts shilling. Much better value for money.

[unc 0]

I'd go along with it being a recoinage piercing. As to value, Coin Market Values gives it as £110 fine and £300 VF. That's only fine or good fine and it has a large hole in the middle which detracts. I'd hazard a guess and say £40-50, but it all depends on supply and crucially the demand for defective material. Scottish is less widely collected, but rarer than English or British. There won't be many who could live with a holed coin, so unless ridiculously rare, probably best avoided. Maybe Scottishmoney can make a contribution here.

Thanks Rob. Always wanted a good portrait of Charles 1st though.

If it doesn't have to be Sottish, you would be better off with a type G Briot bust with the t-in-c mark or similar. They are much more common, and if you found a really good one it would be a lot cheaper than a Scottish to buy. You should be able to get a really good one for £250-350. Or if you don't want a hammered coin, then an English Briot's Milled would come in under £1K for an EF or thereabouts shilling. Much better value for money.

Well, That's great thanks. I don't particularly collect Scottish or hammered but have an interest in anything of the civil war period especially the King. I will start doing the overtime and try to get myself one of those puppies. Funnily enough, it cost me £60-.

[Peckris 579]

Just thought i'd put up images of this 12 shilling Scottish coin of Charles the 1st for discussion. i bought it as 'holed' which it most certainly is but, I think it might have been de-monetised because the hole is to the centre of the coin which isn't practical for a touchpiece. I liked the portrait at the time and think it is a well struck coin. I don't know how scarce it is or whether the hole detracts massively from it's value. It was also legal tender as a shilling in England. What do you think?

Alex.

You may be right about that, but it is actually perfectly placed for a charm bracelet or similar.

[DaveG38 405]

Are you sure this isn't a case of a coin that became a victim of 'on the nail'? Many, many years ago, I bought, quite cheaply a Charles II half groat S3326 from a dealer. The coin has a small four sided irregular hole through it, which the dealer claimed was probably made in antiquity and was a result of a trader piercing the coin with a hammer and nail and displaying it on a post above his goods to indicate the price. A sort of ancient form of bar code! Hence the price being described, even in relatively modern times, as 'on the nail.' Of course he may well have been bullshitting me as I was a naive lad at the time. Anybody know if this is a true process or just a story made up to lend some romance to a coin with a hole in it?

[Colin G. 147]

I think coins of this time were used for many purposes and became a wide array of artefacts as a result. I have seen many coin buttons, brooches, charms etc. and then mix in recoinage....it could be one of many reasons....and the nail approach would also sound plausible to some extent. Without finding the culprit I don't think we will ever know with certainty. Why is it always the nice coins that get holed!!!

[unc 0]

I think coins of this time were used for many purposes and became a wide array of artefacts as a result. I have seen many coin buttons, brooches, charms etc. and then mix in recoinage....it could be one of many reasons....and the nail approach would also sound plausible to some extent. Without finding the culprit I don't think we will ever know with certainty. Why is it always the nice coins that get holed!!!

Hi Colin,

I am hanging on to the notion that this is demonetised officially because the hole is crudely made. I also think that the coin was folded over in two places at the time it was holed. I could be wrong. At least holing the coin made it more affordable to people like me though. I still get to enjoy aspects of it.

cheers.

[Colin G. 147]

I think coins of this time were used for many purposes and became a wide array of artefacts as a result. I have seen many coin buttons, brooches, charms etc. and then mix in recoinage....it could be one of many reasons....and the nail approach would also sound plausible to some extent. Without finding the culprit I don't think we will ever know with certainty. Why is it always the nice coins that get holed!!!

Hi Colin,

I am hanging on to the notion that this is demonetised officially because the hole is crudely made. I also think that the coin was folded over in two places at the time it was holed. I could be wrong. At least holing the coin made it more affordable to people like me though. I still get to enjoy aspects of it.

cheers.

I agree it gives the coin added history and does appear to be a crude hole rather than something which was done with any level of care, but inevitably it detracts from the value. Mind you if it did add to the value imagine how many people on ebay would be knocking holes through their coins

[Rob 3,152]

I think coins of this time were used for many purposes and became a wide array of artefacts as a result. I have seen many coin buttons, brooches, charms etc. and then mix in recoinage....it could be one of many reasons....and the nail approach would also sound plausible to some extent. Without finding the culprit I don't think we will ever know with certainty. Why is it always the nice coins that get holed!!!

Hi Colin,

I am hanging on to the notion that this is demonetised officially because the hole is crudely made. I also think that the coin was folded over in two places at the time it was holed. I could be wrong. At least holing the coin made it more affordable to people like me though. I still get to enjoy aspects of it.

cheers.

I agree it gives the coin added history and does appear to be a crude hole rather than something which was done with any level of care, but inevitably it detracts from the value. Mind you if it did add to the value imagine how many people on ebay would be knocking holes through their coins

It's only a short step away from those who polish them so they can call them BU

[TomGoodheart 400]

Hi unc. Interesting piece as I've not seen an officially pierced 12/- before. But you need to remember that these machine made coins were generally struck to a good standard, certainly compared to the hammered issues. As always, you need to know what a near perfect example looks like before you can generally grade a coin!

As for other Chas I coins, as Rob says, it's possible to get nice portraits with the hammered coins too, particularly the 'Briot' style busts with the triangle or triangle-in-circle marks. Here's one from the AMR site that was going for £120 (gone now I believe) that shows you can pick up decent pieces for not such huge amounts. Though had it been rounder and fuller in the flan it would have been more expensive I think!

[unc 0]

Hi unc. Interesting piece as I've not seen an officially pierced 12/- before. But you need to remember that these machine made coins were generally struck to a good standard, certainly compared to the hammered issues. As always, you need to know what a near perfect example looks like before you can generally grade a coin!

As for other Chas I coins, as Rob says, it's possible to get nice portraits with the hammered coins too, particularly the 'Briot' style busts with the triangle or triangle-in-circle marks. Here's one from the AMR site that was going for £120 (gone now I believe) that shows you can pick up decent pieces for not such huge amounts. Though had it been rounder and fuller in the flan it would have been more expensive I think!

Wow, that is a cracker.

I bought this 12/- because as you say, it's unusual to see cancelled, high denomination coins and there's a relatively full flan on it still. I did think it was hammered though and am interested to hear you say it is milled. I feel better to hear you say that it is 'officially' pierced. It's more like a coin now and less like an amulet. I still love the portrait.

There must have been some serious inflation in Scotland if 12/- was equivalent to 12 English d back then eh?

Cheers,

Alex (unc)

[unc 0]

I think coins of this time were used for many purposes and became a wide array of artefacts as a result. I have seen many coin buttons, brooches, charms etc. and then mix in recoinage....it could be one of many reasons....and the nail approach would also sound plausible to some extent. Without finding the culprit I don't think we will ever know with certainty. Why is it always the nice coins that get holed!!!

Hi Colin,

I am hanging on to the notion that this is demonetised officially because the hole is crudely made. I also think that the coin was folded over in two places at the time it was holed. I could be wrong. At least holing the coin made it more affordable to people like me though. I still get to enjoy aspects of it.

cheers.

Yeah, it's bad enough as it is. Everything is tooled or polished. Ever get anything nice on e-bay?

I agree it gives the coin added history and does appear to be a crude hole rather than something which was done with any level of care, but inevitably it detracts from the value. Mind you if it did add to the value imagine how many people on ebay would be knocking holes through their coins

[unc 0]

Are you sure this isn't a case of a coin that became a victim of 'on the nail'? Many, many years ago, I bought, quite cheaply a Charles II half groat S3326 from a dealer. The coin has a small four sided irregular hole through it, which the dealer claimed was probably made in antiquity and was a result of a trader piercing the coin with a hammer and nail and displaying it on a post above his goods to indicate the price. A sort of ancient form of bar code! Hence the price being described, even in relatively modern times, as 'on the nail.' Of course he may well have been bullshitting me as I was a naive lad at the time. Anybody know if this is a true process or just a story made up to lend some romance to a coin with a hole in it?

Hi Dave,

That sounds quite feasible but the 12/- value would have worried me at the time. Wouldn't want the cash-strapped locals to nick it. lol.

Probably worth a fair bit of livestock.

Alex.

[unc 0]

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but...

'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued,

requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.'

The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers..

Alex.

(unc)

[Peckris 579]

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but...

'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued,

requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.'

The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers..

Alex.

(unc)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

[Rob 3,152]

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but...

'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued,

requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.'

The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers..

Alex.

(unc)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

I'm afraid you will have to stand corrected, sort of. The terms of the recoinage concerning pierced pieces reads as follows. Ruding R., Annals of the Coinage (1840), vol.2 p.44.

"And in regard that such coins of the realm, formerly made with the hammer, and not by the mill and press, and which at that time remained whole and unclipped, would still be most liable and subject to the pernicious crime of clipping and rounding by wickedpersons, who regarded their own unjust lucre more than the preservation of their native country: for the better prevention thereof it was further enacted, thet every person having such unclipped hammered monies in his possession, should, before the 10th day of February 1695, or before he disposed of the same, cause them to be struck through, about the middle of every piece, with a solid punch that should make a hole without diminishing the silver; and that after the said 10th day of February no unclipped hammered monies, that is, as it is explained in the act, such pieces as had both rings or the greatest part of the letters appearing thereon, should be current, unless they were so struck through; and if any piece struck through should appear afterwards to be clipped, no person should tender or receive the same in payment, under the penalty of forfeiting as much of the clipped monies so punched through should amount to in tale, to be recovered to the use of the poor of the parish where such money should be so tendered or received.

Hope this helps.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Rob

[TomGoodheart 400]

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

What Rob said!

I guess that piercing allowed the authorities a bit of flexibility since even more new coin would have been needed if every old one was melted down. Why throw away decent coin that was fit to circulate a bit longer if you don't have to?

It's rarely 100% certain that pierced coins are recoinage pieces however those that are tend to be round with a very central and normally neat piercing. And while usually a hole takes a fair chunk off the collectability/price of a coin, recoinage pieces are quite scarce and historically interesting so retain some appeal.

A pierced half crown from Lloyd's site:

When you consider the recoinages of 1696 and then 1816, the mangling by making into 'love tokens', use for jewellery etc, then it's quite amazing that any coins more than 250 years old are still about that weren't hoarded or lost!

Edited December 13, 2011 by TomGoodheart

[Peckris 579]

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but...

'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued,

requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.'

The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers..

Alex.

(unc)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

I'm afraid you will have to stand corrected, sort of. The terms of the recoinage concerning pierced pieces reads as follows. Ruding R., Annals of the Coinage (1840), vol.2 p.44.

"And in regard that such coins of the realm, formerly made with the hammer, and not by the mill and press, and which at that time remained whole and unclipped, would still be most liable and subject to the pernicious crime of clipping and rounding by wickedpersons, who regarded their own unjust lucre more than the preservation of their native country: for the better prevention thereof it was further enacted, thet every person having such unclipped hammered monies in his possession, should, before the 10th day of February 1695, or before he disposed of the same, cause them to be struck through, about the middle of every piece, with a solid punch that should make a hole without diminishing the silver; and that after the said 10th day of February no unclipped hammered monies, that is, as it is explained in the act, such pieces as had both rings or the greatest part of the letters appearing thereon, should be current, unless they were so struck through; and if any piece struck through should appear afterwards to be clipped, no person should tender or receive the same in payment, under the penalty of forfeiting as much of the clipped monies so punched through should amount to in tale, to be recovered to the use of the poor of the parish where such money should be so tendered or received.

Hope this helps.

I think so - that's some quote (why use one word when 70 would do! )

[unc 0]

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but...

'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued,

requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.'

The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers..

Alex.

(unc)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

Well that's it exactly. Some dealers offer coins as being 'oficially de-monetised' because the coins offered are holed in the centre. Well how do they know that the provenance of their claim is correct? We don't know what they did to demonetised silver coins at that time in 1696. I will stand corrected if people enlighten me. This is of interest to numismatic enthusiasts as far as I know though.

I can imagine (anecdotally of course) a group of contemporary tax officials punching and bending coin to make it unrecognisable and to prevent re-circulation. Then dumping it all into a big basket or something and then farming the lot out to the treasury etc...

It was all done by weight and there must have been some primitive security associated with the process.

If you look at the thing, it has been bent twice on two sides. The coin has been repaired by being bent back into shape. It has been crudely holed with a square piercing metal object which would have made it sharp at the point of contact. Would you have taken more effort if making a touchpiece etc?

I stand firm on the issue that this is probably a survivor of the re-coinage of the 17th century. There must have been a few dodgy types who tried to feather their nests at that time. maybe that's how it got through.

Cheers,

Alex

(unc)

[unc 0]

Don't get me wrong Guys, I know it's got a flipping great hole through it and it's worth peanuts but...

'Old coin was taken back by weight rather than face value. On 10 June 1696 a Proclamation was issued,

requiring all Receivers and Collectors of the Publick Taxes to take hammer'd Silver Money at five shillings and eight Pence an Ounce.'

The destruction is mind boggling. Maybe, (I'd like to think) I have a survivor of the re-coinage carnage of 1696. We are at least applying some science to my theory so cheers..

Alex.

(unc)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

I'm afraid you will have to stand corrected, sort of. The terms of the recoinage concerning pierced pieces reads as follows. Ruding R., Annals of the Coinage (1840), vol.2 p.44.

"And in regard that such coins of the realm, formerly made with the hammer, and not by the mill and press, and which at that time remained whole and unclipped, would still be most liable and subject to the pernicious crime of clipping and rounding by wickedpersons, who regarded their own unjust lucre more than the preservation of their native country: for the better prevention thereof it was further enacted, thet every person having such unclipped hammered monies in his possession, should, before the 10th day of February 1695, or before he disposed of the same, cause them to be struck through, about the middle of every piece, with a solid punch that should make a hole without diminishing the silver; and that after the said 10th day of February no unclipped hammered monies, that is, as it is explained in the act, such pieces as had both rings or the greatest part of the letters appearing thereon, should be current, unless they were so struck through; and if any piece struck through should appear afterwards to be clipped, no person should tender or receive the same in payment, under the penalty of forfeiting as much of the clipped monies so punched through should amount to in tale, to be recovered to the use of the poor of the parish where such money should be so tendered or received.

Hope this helps.

Brilliant.

[Rob 3,152]

Well that's it exactly. Some dealers offer coins as being 'oficially de-monetised' because the coins offered are holed in the centre. Well how do they know that the provenance of their claim is correct? We don't know what they did to demonetised silver coins at that time in 1696. I will stand corrected if people enlighten me. This is of interest to numismatic enthusiasts as far as I know though.

I can imagine (anecdotally of course) a group of contemporary tax officials punching and bending coin to make it unrecognisable and to prevent re-circulation. Then dumping it all into a big basket or something and then farming the lot out to the treasury etc...

It was all done by weight and there must have been some primitive security associated with the process.

If you look at the thing, it has been bent twice on two sides. The coin has been repaired by being bent back into shape. It has been crudely holed with a square piercing metal object which would have made it sharp at the point of contact. Would you have taken more effort if making a touchpiece etc?

I stand firm on the issue that this is probably a survivor of the re-coinage of the 17th century. There must have been a few dodgy types who tried to feather their nests at that time. maybe that's how it got through.

Cheers,

Alex

(unc)

We do know what happened because the dates for demonetising various denominations wwere set by decree, just as they are today. Consequently it became illegal to use clipped crowns for example after one date and half crowns on another. The hammered coinage could be used for payments to government officials and was collected for recycling in this way. A specific cut off date for use was set for each denomination and a finite period of time allowed for exchanging the old currency by weight. Ruding devotes half a dozen pages to the recoinage and it is difficult without copying the whole text verbatim to get all the info out. There is also a useful 6 page article in the BNJ, vol.3 (1906) by Philip Nelson, who listed figures for the recoinage in terms of the amount of silver coined which he found in a contemporary manuscript and combined them with data extracted about the recoinage from Ruding. There are slight discrepancies, but the data holds up fairly well in Ruding from that written in 1697.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Rob