Civil War Coinage....extraordinary.

[Danelaw 208]

"In 1645-6, during the English Civil Wars, three royalist fortresses under siege produced coinage. When Carlisle was surrounded by a Scottish army, coinage worth £323 was produced. A 17-year-old resident, Leslie Tullie, recorded in his diary that 'an order was published to every citizen to bring in their plate [i.e. silverware] to be coyned, which they did chearfully'. Tullie's mother gave five spoons which weighed 6¼ oz of silver. Overall, 1,162 oz of silver was gathered on that occasion, producing £280 of coin."

Chearfully....Under siege, handing your fortune in, and doing it with a smile on your face! They were made of sterner stuff in those days

p.s. What is the Carey commission please Rob.

[Coinery 1,153]

A great and interesting read, thank-you, gentleman! It would make a fabulous collection, a seige collection, that is!

Just out of interest, are the Newark punches a one-off? Has any investigation been carried out into the die numbers for each denomination, are they likely unique?

The best reference is probably Nelson's, 'Obsidional Money of the Great Rebellion 1642-1649', published in about 1905, but reprinted in 1976. The ISBN for this is 0 903681 06 4. No they aren't unique.

Many thanks, Rob, will look it out! Hope you had a profitable one in Brum!

[Coinery 1,153]

"In 1645-6, during the English Civil Wars, three royalist fortresses under siege produced coinage. When Carlisle was surrounded by a Scottish army, coinage worth £323 was produced. A 17-year-old resident, Leslie Tullie, recorded in his diary that 'an order was published to every citizen to bring in their plate [i.e. silverware] to be coyned, which they did chearfully'. Tullie's mother gave five spoons which weighed 6¼ oz of silver. Overall, 1,162 oz of silver was gathered on that occasion, producing £280 of coin."

Chearfully....Under siege, handing your fortune in, and doing it with a smile on your face! They were made of sterner stuff in those days

p.s. What is the Carey commission please Rob.

Thanks Danelaw, the kind of additional information that gives an irregular-shaped disc of metal context and life, history in three dimensions!

[Rob 3,152]

"In 1645-6, during the English Civil Wars, three royalist fortresses under siege produced coinage. When Carlisle was surrounded by a Scottish army, coinage worth £323 was produced. A 17-year-old resident, Leslie Tullie, recorded in his diary that 'an order was published to every citizen to bring in their plate [i.e. silverware] to be coyned, which they did chearfully'. Tullie's mother gave five spoons which weighed 6¼ oz of silver. Overall, 1,162 oz of silver was gathered on that occasion, producing £280 of coin."

Chearfully....Under siege, handing your fortune in, and doing it with a smile on your face! They were made of sterner stuff in those days

p.s. What is the Carey commission please Rob.

Thomas Carey was granted a commission to strike coins in the four counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire in a document dated 22/5/1644. These are the coins currently assigned to the W, SA, Chester, 'CH' and Hereford(?) mints.

[VickySilver 830]

Hi all, didn't quite follow if it was stated that the coin was special because of Spink illustration on cover (?) or plated?

[Rob 3,152]

Hi all, didn't quite follow if it was stated that the coin was special because of Spink illustration on cover (?) or plated?

I think it started as a case of disbelief that an odd lump of metal with a couple of stamp marks could sell for £58K. Then the topic drifted as is the way of things.

[Saxon 0]

Could anyone tell me about this siege coin?

[Paulus 1,975]

The pics won't open for me, sorry

[TomGoodheart 402]

The pics won't open for me, sorry

Nor for me I'm afraid Saxon. And I can't see enough as thumbnails to give an opinion. Could you try reposting the image(s) please?

Oh, and welcome!

.

[TomGoodheart 402]

Doesn't look right to me...

eBay listing: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Scarborough-silver-siege-coin-Charles-1st-hammered-/262040557519?hash=item3d02d597cf

.

Edited September 8, 2015 by TomGoodheart

[Paulus 1,975]

Lots of recent negatives regarding modern fakes in seller's feedback - hope that's not you Saxon!

And well found Richard!

Edited September 8, 2015 by Paulus

[Rob 3,152]

Why are people taken in by such offerings. Nobody would sell a piece of silver with a price measured in tens of thousands starting at £850. People that have these things know what they are and have a good idea about the market price. If you don't have a clue what it is you would start it at 99p. More to the point, you would sell it through a reputable auction company, not ebay. Ebay wouldn't do due diligence and conveniently absolve themselves of any responsibility. This inaction commanding a fee of nearly 15%.

Quite frankly, if anyone gets taken in by such nonsense then they have only themselves to blame. Even an outlay of £850 isn't something you do just because someone starts at that price. There is only so much you can do to protect the gullible.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Rob

[kal 22]

"Ashmore Replicas- Revisited" by Patrick Finn S.N.C. april 2000.covers these items in detail including illustrations as available.

On the subject of siege coinage what I find alarming is the condition creep evident in the upcoming Baldwin auction #96 lot 3362 the Carlisle three shilling piece described "raised die flaw on reverse, weak at centre,almost very fine for issue"The Bridge Water House description of this coin lot #301 also notes the die flaw but adds "otherwise very good".

Another if less obvious instance of grading creep was the Magnus sale example of a Carlisle three shillings lot #960 described by Spink as about very fine, this same piece later offered by Baldwin as good very fine for issue.

The buyer I know ultimately will use his own judgement,both regarding the grade and if "for issue"is just hyperbole. Any thoughts?

[azda 979]

2 things spring to mind regarding the grade

1. The consigor could have stipulated himself the grade to be added for the auction if he is a dealer and/or known to the Baldwins crew.

2. It could be that Baldwins themselves are overgrading only because its a rare coin and are trying to push the price.

When the eventual buyer comes to one day sell it on he'll then quote the Baldwins grade and so it will go round and around.

I have an Alexander III Scottish Penny, it came from a hoard found in 1974, sold at Glendinnings in 1977 in VF grade, then again in Spink in 2013 with the same garde, after posting it on the forum most agreed it was GVF.

[jelida 1,314]

This vendor has already sold one Scarborough Siege piece for £100 according to his feedback, the buyer is really pleased as he has had it assessed and it is real!

Bo***cks!

Jerry

[azda 979]

My VF Alexander III Penny. What would your opinion be Kai?

[kal 22]

Hi David,

I would also grade the penny as good very fine.My point concerning lot #3622 is the original grade of very good (fair) might be stretched to near fine with a large helping of wishful thinking, but to grade the piece as almost very fine is inexplicable. My experience with Spink and their grading, especially at auction is they tend to be conservative and sometimes under grade.

[Rob 3,152]

"Ashmore Replicas- Revisited" by Patrick Finn S.N.C. april 2000.covers these items in detail including illustrations as available.

On the subject of siege coinage what I find alarming is the condition creep evident in the upcoming Baldwin auction #96 lot 3362 the Carlisle three shilling piece described "raised die flaw on reverse, weak at centre,almost very fine for issue"The Bridge Water House description of this coin lot #301 also notes the die flaw but adds "otherwise very good".

Another if less obvious instance of grading creep was the Magnus sale example of a Carlisle three shillings lot #960 described by Spink as about very fine, this same piece later offered by Baldwin as good very fine for issue.

The buyer I know ultimately will use his own judgement,both regarding the grade and if "for issue"is just hyperbole. Any thoughts?

'for issue' is not hyperbole, rather hyperbol*ocks

I've never had a problem with best knowns being only fair or whatever, but the marketing machine insists on the use of for issue. This is best described as polishing a turd - something well within the competence of the typical marketing department, though to a large extent this problem is a case of the market satisfying demand. Until collectors have a realistic handle on the limited numbers of uncirculated pieces and the relative lack of abundance of high grade coins in general, the market will call them what the customer demands. Uncirculated coins make up a tiny fraction of one per cent of the total number of coins available, so the sooner collectors take this on board the better. It would also improve the market for not quite there pieces if grading standards were consistently applied.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Rob

[azda 979]

It would be interesting to challange Baldwins on their grade given the fact it was noted differently in another sale and ask shy such a huge leap

[azda 979]

I just signed up on the saleroom for the Baldwins auction should anything be of interest and when signing up they are now asking for your projected spend, email arrived with "approval pending" I wonder now If my projected spend is'nt enough for elitest Baldwins and they refuse me. Let's wait and see.

[Rob 3,152]

I just signed up on the saleroom for the Baldwins auction should anything be of interest and when signing up they are now asking for your projected spend, email arrived with "approval pending" I wonder now If my projected spend is'nt enough for elitest Baldwins and they refuse me. Let's wait and see.

That's a standard reply from the saleroom when you sign up.

[azda 979]

I just signed up on the saleroom for the Baldwins auction should anything be of interest and when signing up they are now asking for your projected spend, email arrived with "approval pending" I wonder now If my projected spend is'nt enough for elitest Baldwins and they refuse me. Let's wait and see.

That's a standard reply from the saleroom when you sign up.

Really? I signed up to the St James auction yesterday and was approved straight away. They also Never asked how much i was likely to spend. Edited September 9, 2015 by azda

[Rob 3,152]

I've had that before a few times when signing up for the first time with an auctioneer. I just assumed it was normal. I was asked when I signed up for Spink whilst Spink Live was dysfunctional and there would clearly not have been a problem if I went directly to them. Maybe the questions are an optional extra that the saleroom offer, or maybe they use it to verify the card would be ok up to a certain amount. Maybe it is random as I was also asked when I signed up for St. James's on a previous occasion.

I can see that they would want to eliminate time wasters because you can't re-run a lot after the event if room bidders came second and a few background checks never did any business harm.

[azda 979]

I've bought previously from Baldwins through the saleroom, so you'd think I'd be already on file, but you can't proceed without entering a specified amount.

[Rob 3,152]

New order with everything moving over to SG on the Strand?