Crosses Scratched in the Fields of Hammered?

[Coinery 1,153]

I bought this recently (BCW Shilling CC-2Ei:C1), not for the grade (obviously), but rather the rarer bust 1Ai ( i=all pearls present in crown, the state of the punch at Christmas 1560 ).

In case anyone is interested, the reverse Lis have the classic 'nibble' out of the left petal, making them BCW14 (not one of the major identifiers, as every known currency Cross-Crosslet and Martlet shilling has Lis 14).

So two questions:

1)Does anyone know the reason behind an annoyingly common practice of scratching lines into the fields of these old coins, typically two lines crossing.

2)Does anyone know of a source that identifies the rarity of the various varieties within Elizabeth's coins? Is there a better option than the 'how often you see them available for sale'?

BCW only attempt a rarity based on their 'virtual collection' and to some extent the mint records and indentures, but these do not look at the individual types within the same denomination privy mark. For example, the Cross-Crosslet is identified as the most common Elizabeth I shilling ever produced (6 million), but it doesn't distinguish between the six different busts and the staggering 52 different die-pairings for the CC shilling alone. I guess a lot of people would not be interested in a Cross-Crosslet shilling beyond its Bust Type, but the RARITY of the six CC Shilling Busts, anyone know?

[Rob 3,152]

I bought this recently (BCW Shilling CC-2Ei:C1), not for the grade (obviously), but rather the rarer bust 1Ai ( i=all pearls present in crown, the state of the punch at Christmas 1560 ).

In case anyone is interested, the reverse Lis have the classic 'nibble' out of the left petal, making them BCW14 (not one of the major identifiers, as every known currency Cross-Crosslet and Martlet shilling has Lis 14).

So two questions:

1)Does anyone know the reason behind an annoyingly common practice of scratching lines into the fields of these old coins, typically two lines crossing.

2)Does anyone know of a source that identifies the rarity of the various varieties within Elizabeth's coins? Is there a better option than the 'how often you see them available for sale'?

BCW only attempt a rarity based on their 'virtual collection' and to some extent the mint records and indentures, but these do not look at the individual types within the same denomination privy mark. For example, the Cross-Crosslet is identified as the most common Elizabeth I shilling ever produced (6 million), but it doesn't distinguish between the six different busts and the staggering 52 different die-pairings for the CC shilling alone. I guess a lot of people would not be interested in a Cross-Crosslet shilling beyond its Bust Type, but the RARITY of the six CC Shilling Busts, anyone know?

Many have assumed they were made as a mark of protest against the monarch, but that doesn't explain why the fields are always defaced and not the bust itself. If the bust had been defaced I would say it was on religious grounds as this was the political hot potato of the day - catholicism vs the various forms of the protestant religion that were followed in northern Europe. I don't have a satisfactory answer.

I don't have any definitive figures for percentage distribution, but can say that 1B is rare, 3A is quite rare, 3B less so and I don't know anyone who has a 3J. When I was actively seeking a 3A and 3B about 8 years ago, only one or two 3A coins came up on ebay over a 12 month period and probably no more than 5 for both busts, suggesting the bulk of the cross crosslet shillings are 1A and 3C with a guestimiate of say 1:3 or 4. But don't hold me to that.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rob

[pies 33]

could the scratches be to test the coin is silver

[seuk 85]

could the scratches be to test the coin is silver

I guess that's likely as an easy way to spot most counterfeit coins. However there's also the possibility that some marks were made for identification or accounting purpose.

[Coinery 1,153]

could the scratches be to test the coin is silver

Possibly, pies, it had crossed my mind, but this would mean ALL the silver hammered coins of the period would be a mess of cross-hatching, and this doesn't seem to be the case? Also, as Rob has said, it is unlikely to be political/religeous defacing, as people would be much more inclined to vent their aggression upon the portrait itself.

It's a consistent activity, usually 2 lines only, and of the same width/gauge, so probably scratched with the same type of impliment (knife probably?), would be good to get to the bottom of it!

[Coinery 1,153]

could the scratches be to test the coin is silver

I guess that's likely as an easy way to spot most counterfeit coins. However there's also the possibility that some marks were made for identification or accounting purpose.

This would mean a mess of lines across all denominations, though, wouldn't it? Also, thinking suspiciously, as I'm inclined to do, I'd never have taken receipt of a 'scratched' coin in that period, thinking hmmm, 'two lines,' must be safe, someone else has already checked it? I'd be thinking 'that's just what I'd be doing to any fake produced'!

With the accounting possibility, I know notes are marked in banks, but generally the top note, which can be conveniently banded to the top of the pile...how would that work in the medieval realm?

Interesting point, though, would love to have a definative answer!

[Coinery 1,153]

I bought this recently (BCW Shilling CC-2Ei:C1), not for the grade (obviously), but rather the rarer bust 1Ai ( i=all pearls present in crown, the state of the punch at Christmas 1560 ).

In case anyone is interested, the reverse Lis have the classic 'nibble' out of the left petal, making them BCW14 (not one of the major identifiers, as every known currency Cross-Crosslet and Martlet shilling has Lis 14).

So two questions:

1)Does anyone know the reason behind an annoyingly common practice of scratching lines into the fields of these old coins, typically two lines crossing.

2)Does anyone know of a source that identifies the rarity of the various varieties within Elizabeth's coins? Is there a better option than the 'how often you see them available for sale'?

BCW only attempt a rarity based on their 'virtual collection' and to some extent the mint records and indentures, but these do not look at the individual types within the same denomination privy mark. For example, the Cross-Crosslet is identified as the most common Elizabeth I shilling ever produced (6 million), but it doesn't distinguish between the six different busts and the staggering 52 different die-pairings for the CC shilling alone. I guess a lot of people would not be interested in a Cross-Crosslet shilling beyond its Bust Type, but the RARITY of the six CC Shilling Busts, anyone know?

Many have assumed they were made as a mark of protest against the monarch, but that doesn't explain why the fields are always defaced and not the bust itself. If the bust had been defaced I would say it was on religious grounds as this was the political hot potato of the day - catholicism vs the various forms of the protestant religion that were followed in northern Europe. I don't have a satisfactory answer.

I don't have any definitive figures for percentage distribution, but can say that 1B is rare, 3A is quite rare, 3B less so and I don't know anyone who has a 3J. When I was actively seeking a 3A and 3B about 8 years ago, only one or two 3A coins came up on ebay over a 12 month period and probably no more than 5 for both busts, suggesting the bulk of the cross crosslet shillings are 1A and 3C with a guestimiate of say 1:3 or 4. But don't hold me to that.

Thanks, Rob, all makes perfect sense! I won't hold you to it, though I'm confident it would be incontestable!

[pies 33]

How about weight adjustment at the mint

Just clutching at straws

[Coinery 1,153]

Bugger!

Edited June 24, 2012 by Coinery

[Coinery 1,153]

How about weight adjustment at the mint

Just clutching at straws

Keep it coming, Pies, you'll come upon it before me at this rate!

Adjustment marks were made on the planchets/flans before hammering/milling, so were typically/mostly squeezed out by the manufacturing process (except where you see adjustment marks, of course)!

The marks we regularly see on these coins are post production, so get your thinking cap on!

[seuk 85]

How about weight adjustment at the mint

Just clutching at straws

Adjustment marks are different:

http://www.vcoins.com/thalersofeurope/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=96

[HistoricCoinage 146]

As these seem only to be found on Tudor and Stuart coinage may I suggest that these marks were to test the coin due to the uncertainty of hammered silver when milled began to be circulated alongside? There's a good hundred or so year gap between this coin and the Great Recoinage. Just a thought, but probably wrong.

[Peckris 579]

As these seem only to be found on Tudor and Stuart coinage may I suggest that these marks were to test the coin due to the uncertainty of hammered silver when milled began to be circulated alongside? There's a good hundred or so year gap between this coin and the Great Recoinage. Just a thought, but probably wrong.

Wasn't there some kind of marking done during the Great Recoinage to allow hammered coins to be used for some purposes, e.g. taxation? I'm not sure exactly, but I seem to remember a thread on this.

[pies 33]

makers mark like they did on bricks

These straws are getting very slippery

[Rob 3,152]

As these seem only to be found on Tudor and Stuart coinage may I suggest that these marks were to test the coin due to the uncertainty of hammered silver when milled began to be circulated alongside? There's a good hundred or so year gap between this coin and the Great Recoinage. Just a thought, but probably wrong.

Probably wrong because you see them on quite a lot of high grade pieces. After over 100 years of use, it is unlikely they would be much more than washers given the lower relief seen on hammered as opposed to milled currency.

[Generic Lad 25]

I think it would be unlikely for counterfeit detection when you compare them to things like Athenian owls. The test cuts there are deeper than the scratches on the coins (granted, a tetradrachm is thicker than most English hammered) and I would think if this was such a widespread practice counterfeiters would make coins with the scratches "built in" like they did for the tetradrachms. Similarly, each new owner would want to verify the silver and would scratch them leaving many hammered with lots of crosses in them, but it is rare to see it.

See this site: http://athenianowlcoins.reidgold.com/fourrees.html for more info on the owls and counterfeits made with test cuts

[Debbie 58]

Love tokens for those that couldn't read or write?

[Peckris 579]

I think it would be unlikely for counterfeit detection when you compare them to things like Athenian owls. The test cuts there are deeper than the scratches on the coins (granted, a tetradrachm is thicker than most English hammered) and I would think if this was such a widespread practice counterfeiters would make coins with the scratches "built in" like they did for the tetradrachms. Similarly, each new owner would want to verify the silver and would scratch them leaving many hammered with lots of crosses in them, but it is rare to see it.

See this site: http://athenianowlcoins.reidgold.com/fourrees.html for more info on the owls and counterfeits made with test cuts

..and most milled too, let's face it!

[Coinery 1,153]

Love tokens for those that couldn't read or write?

"Sign 'ere!"

Class!

[Danelaw 208]

Just checked my Elizabeth shilling. Where the cross is scratched in on the coin above mine has the Tudor rose. The cross on my coin is in front of Liz's face with the cross just hitting her nose.

[Coinery 1,153]

Just checked my Elizabeth shilling. Where the cross is scratched in on the coin above mine has the Tudor rose. The cross on my coin is in front of Liz's face with the cross just hitting her nose.

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post?

[Danelaw 208]

Just checked my Elizabeth shilling. Where the cross is scratched in on the coin above mine has the Tudor rose. The cross on my coin is in front of Liz's face with the cross just hitting her nose.

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post?

Quite right! I meant to say I checked my sixpence.

[Coinery 1,153]

Just checked my Elizabeth shilling. Where the cross is scratched in on the coin above mine has the Tudor rose. The cross on my coin is in front of Liz's face with the cross just hitting her nose.

I'm not 100% clear from your description, but the shilling never had a rose? I may have misinterpreted your post?

Quite right! I meant to say I checked my sixpence.

Ahh, right, yes! It seems to be a very common practice, and nobody seems to know why?

I wonder if it's ever cropped up in ancient text? I'm sure the facts are out there somewhere!

[Debbie 58]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

[Rob 3,152]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.