I don't collect hammered....

[Accumulator 52]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

[Peckris 579]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

[Red Riley 2]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Surely Ancient is Greek or Roman (and by extension Celtic)?

[Rob 3,152]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

Along with the CIVITAS EBRAICI S991 its the cheapest way into the Viking series - certainly the most affordable in that grade. We have to thank whoever deposited the Cuerdale hoard, otherwise they would be as expensive as the other coins of this period.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion.

[pies 33]

Looks "easy" to fake

[TomGoodheart 402]

Looks "easy" to fake

True. Definitely a case of needing to know your stuff and trusting the seller.

[pies 33]

trust and ebay

[Peter 615]

trust and ebay

These crop up on Ebay all the time.Even when described as Ashmore the punters love them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Ashmore

[azda 979]

They do crop up in high grades

[Peter 615]

It is easy to collect silver of the period wanted to be counterfeited.

Get a skilled oriental from the local chinky to make the dies,dig out that bunsen burner you borrowed from school and away you go.

I've got my 1st batch of Aethelstan 1's maturing a foot below my cannabis patch.

[Peckris 579]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion.

I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon.

However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest.

In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion.

I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon.

However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest.

In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred.

I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the early thyrsmas and tremisses of the 7th centuries aren't hammered coinage. Admittedly many are based upon Roman examples but they are, essentially, English hammered coinage. I do agree that the majority don't bear the complex beauty that the later coins of the Late Anglo-Saxon era bear but they are still hammered coins and examples which I, and many other collectors of hammered coinage, continue to collect.

I've done a lot of research on the re-emergence of trade centres in the early Anglo-Saxon era and coinage has had a great importance in this as the ephemeral evidence has long since deteriorated leaving coinage, bones and pottery as main sources of evidence. Even in this context amongst archaeologists many hammered coins are deemed ugly, so I can sympathise!

[Peckris 579]

....but every now and again the beauty of a coin catches your eye. This coin does that for me.

I agree with your assessment - gorgeous. Just to be mildly pedantic, I don't think that's classed as "hammered"? It just about falls into the "Ancients" class, though I'm willing to be corrected on that.

I would definitely class it as hammered, otherwise I wouldn't collect it. Ancient would be Celtic or Roman if we're talking about British issues, in my opinion.

I could have resolved this myself by consulting North, whose Vol.1 of hammered coins begins at 650, early Anglo-Saxon.

However, on a purely personal subjective level, I can see a good case for redefining the term "hammered" to correspond more to a look than a strict historical period. For one thing, the first plates in North show coins that have a strong resemblance to Celtic coins (and let's face it, any coins from this period issued in the areas of Cornwall, Wales, the Northwest ARE Celtic). For another, there appears to be a dramatic change to the designs occurring during Aethelred's reign (Plate X) - a beauty to the earlier designs that deteriorate towards what I call "medieval ugliness" in his later years. However, the change seems less abrupt when you look at later reigns, which deteriorate even more as you reach the early Norman kings (see the last few plates of North vol.1), which are truly horrible and exemplify why I dislike hammered coins so much. It's almost as if there was a kind of "de-Renaissance" that takes place between Aethelred and the Norman Conquest.

In the light of this, Viking and earlier Saxon coins seem really beautiful, which is how I also think of Roman, Greek, and some Celtic. I class those together in my mind, which I simply cannot for the medieval period before Henry VII. For me, "hammered" has always meant medieval, but I guess it now has to go back at least as far as the later coins of Aethelred.

I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the early thyrsmas and tremisses of the 7th centuries aren't hammered coinage. Admittedly many are based upon Roman examples but they are, essentially, English hammered coinage. I do agree that the majority don't bear the complex beauty that the later coins of the Late Anglo-Saxon era bear but they are still hammered coins and examples which I, and many other collectors of hammered coinage, continue to collect.

I've done a lot of research on the re-emergence of trade centres in the early Anglo-Saxon era and coinage has had a great importance in this as the ephemeral evidence has long since deteriorated leaving coinage, bones and pottery as main sources of evidence. Even in this context amongst archaeologists many hammered coins are deemed ugly, so I can sympathise!

I think the Greeks, and to a lesser extent the Romans, understood the classic design thesis (as did Steve Jobs) that "less is more". So there is a great use of space on their coins, as also with Viking and some Anglo-Saxon, that allows the design to "breathe" and come alive. It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace.

Greek and Roman art and architecture were astonishing and beautiful, and so was early Anglo-Saxon. It's reflected in their coins. Strangely, there is a simple beauty to Norman churches too (despite the use of very clunky pillars), but otherwise I find their art and coinage is fairly horrible.

[Peter 615]

When we talk about Normans,Celts,Romans,Vikings,Saxons ETC.

Remember we are a Mongrol race with wet noses and waggy tails.

The architecture is our inheritance My wife has Scottish,Irish & French blood in her...she also has a bit of Suffolk

[Red Riley 2]

I think the Greeks, and to a lesser extent the Romans, understood the classic design thesis (as did Steve Jobs) that "less is more". So there is a great use of space on their coins, as also with Viking and some Anglo-Saxon, that allows the design to "breathe" and come alive. It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace.

Greek and Roman art and architecture were astonishing and beautiful, and so was early Anglo-Saxon. It's reflected in their coins. Strangely, there is a simple beauty to Norman churches too (despite the use of very clunky pillars), but otherwise I find their art and coinage is fairly horrible.

The beauty here, at least to my mind is what it tells you about the history of the times. Basically, civilisation was in decline from the 4th century A.D., didn't really begin to catch up again until the Renaissance, and coins reflect that. Between the two dates civilisation was hamstrung by the dead hand of Christian orthodoxy in both material and sociological terms and the coins of the times appear to be in the doldrums both in their design and the care taken in their production. To my mind the point at which coins begin to turn the corner are the profile issues of Henry VII, which exactly correspond to the beginnings of the revival in classical learning.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace.

I wholly agree, that's why I collect Anglo-Saxon and Norman primarily and am working on a paper on the iconography of these pennies and their influences. The pennies of Edward I really look awful in comparison.

[Peter 615]

It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace.

I wholly agree, that's why I collect Anglo-Saxon and Norman primarily and am working on a paper on the iconography of these pennies and their influences. The pennies of Edward I really look awful in comparison.

I agree but all the peck marks on early coins proved coins were merely lumps of silver.I think by Edward 1 coins were more trusted and even the issues copied on the continent.I find early hammered as quality works of art..what happened then until the recoinage after the 1st batch of Edward 1?...again we slipped back to shoddy until the Fine silver issue of 1551/2.

To cap it all how the heck did we end up with paper money?...I promise to pay etc...A good spin doctor. and today? I went to pay for Mrs Peters car with cash...they would not accept it and wondered why I didn't want their finance deal.I said if I couldn't afford it I won't buy it.Next time I will take 15,000 sovereigns....but hey they are now worth £450k

[declanwmagee 122]

I went to pay for Mrs Peters car with cash...they would not accept it and wondered why I didn't want their finance deal.I said if I couldn't afford it I won't buy it.

You don't want to try paying cash for car insurance, Peter! On the phone, before they give you the quote, they go off on their prepared script about doing a credit check. At which point I stop them right there and say "I'm not asking for credit, I want to pay cash". 9 out of 10 can't do it, and lose the sale. Sometimes they can get quite desperate - suggesting that we get someone else to ring in their credit card number, and we pay the someone else our cash.

[Coinery 1,153]

[Peckris 579]

I think the Greeks, and to a lesser extent the Romans, understood the classic design thesis (as did Steve Jobs) that "less is more". So there is a great use of space on their coins, as also with Viking and some Anglo-Saxon, that allows the design to "breathe" and come alive. It's the crammed nature of later coins I find so hateful - a crude representation of a ruler in the centre surrounded by a large legend, and on the reverse, a long(ish) cross, often with pellets, surrounded by another large legend. There's no space and no grace.

Greek and Roman art and architecture were astonishing and beautiful, and so was early Anglo-Saxon. It's reflected in their coins. Strangely, there is a simple beauty to Norman churches too (despite the use of very clunky pillars), but otherwise I find their art and coinage is fairly horrible.

The beauty here, at least to my mind is what it tells you about the history of the times. Basically, civilisation was in decline from the 4th century A.D., didn't really begin to catch up again until the Renaissance, and coins reflect that. Between the two dates civilisation was hamstrung by the dead hand of Christian orthodoxy in both material and sociological terms and the coins of the times appear to be in the doldrums both in their design and the care taken in their production. To my mind the point at which coins begin to turn the corner are the profile issues of Henry VII, which exactly correspond to the beginnings of the revival in classical learning.

Hope you don't me saying Derek - that's now "old history". The Romans were pretty well assimilated into the Celtic British by the time that the legions left. There's archaeological evidence from Ireland and NW England and Cornwall that Britain traded actively with Europe for several hundred years, and that Charlemagne regarded Celtic art and literature among the flower of civilisation. And medieval thought and literature and philosophy and science and education has been long overlooked by the achievements of the Renaissance, but in many respects was of a high order. The Dark Ages are only so-called because we don't know so much about them as we do about the Romans and the Normans onwards. I think it's in technology that Europe fell way behind, and that too is reflected in the coins.

I happen to love the achievements of the Classical era and laterthe Renaissance, but that doesn't mean that everything in between was a hopeless and barbaric mess with no redeeming features.

[azda 979]

Another little something in the hammered range.....A Stephen Penny Type 1 Exeter

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Another little something in the hammered range.....A Stephen Penny Type 1 Exeter

I like this very much. Did you buy this to sell?

[Peter 615]

Another little something in the hammered range.....A Stephen Penny Type 1 Exeter

THAT is as good as you will get.

Maybe I'm an old duffer but some coins are awful.

Do you just need an example ? I just leave alone.I took an early BSE mint Ed 1 penny described as VF but was a pile of tat.It was VF for issue.S1377.

I don't like it,never will.Then Clive sends me an Aethelred 11 and I must have looked at it every day.

[TomGoodheart 402]

Another little something in the hammered range.....A Stephen Penny Type 1 Exeter

THAT is as good as you will get.

Maybe I'm an old duffer but some coins are awful.

Do you just need an example ? I just leave alone.I took an early BSE mint Ed 1 penny described as VF but was a pile of tat.It was VF for issue.S1377.

I don't like it,never will.Then Clive sends me an Aethelred 11 and I must have looked at it every day.

Indeed. Stephens are extraordinarily difficult to find with a half decent portrait. Most can only just be made out for what they are, so that as Peter says, is good. I suspect you'd find it difficult to improve on it for twice the money.