Charles I Shillings

[Coinery 1,153]

So, first and foremost, we have Michael Sharp and his well publicised work on the series. You also (tomgoodheart) mentioned Osborne in a different thread, where does he fit in? Also, are there any other key die/punch studies out there?

I'm presuming that, unlike Elizabeth, even for each obverse type (say D2 for example) there are a number of different bust punches? If so, have they been identified anywhere, are there any records of numbers, is there a calculated guess if not?

Also, carrying on from a previous thread, yes, I was reffering to the identification of the Harp [Privy Mark] (though I'm now interested in the Osborne link too). I know there's not a lot to go on, but I add them below.

[Rob 3,152]

So, first and foremost, we have Michael Sharp and his well publicised work on the series. You also (tomgoodheart) mentioned Osborne in a different thread, where does he fit in? Also, are there any other key die/punch studies out there?

I'm presuming that, unlike Elizabeth, even for each obverse type (say D2 for example) there are a number of different bust punches? If so, have they been identified anywhere, are there any records of numbers, is there a calculated guess if not?

Also, carrying on from a previous thread, yes, I was reffering to the identification of the Harp [Privy Mark] (though I'm now interested in the Osborne link too). I know there's not a lot to go on, but I add them below.

Osborne's article is in the 1984 BNJ p.164-209, just before Besly's York mint article. A very useful volume.

[Coinery 1,153]

You also (tomgoodheart) mentioned Osborne in a different thread, where does he fit in? Also, are there any other key die/punch studies out there?

Osborne's article is in the 1984 BNJ p.164-209, just before Besly's York mint article. A very useful volume.

Thanks, Rob!

[coin watch 1]

So, first and foremost, we have Michael Sharp and his well publicised work on the series. You also (tomgoodheart) mentioned Osborne in a different thread, where does he fit in? Also, are there any other key die/punch studies out there?

I'm presuming that, unlike Elizabeth, even for each obverse type (say D2 for example) there are a number of different bust punches? If so, have they been identified anywhere, are there any records of numbers, is there a calculated guess if not?

Also, carrying on from a previous thread, yes, I was reffering to the identification of the Harp [Privy Mark] (though I'm now interested in the Osborne link too). I know there's not a lot to go on, but I add them below.

Osborne's article is in the 1984 BNJ p.164-209, just before Besly's York mint article. A very useful volume.

The mentioned Sharp 1977 and Osborne 1984 papers are the best in depth for study with the Sharp having numerous updated BNJ additions along the way. It is hoped that these papers might be revised at some stage, but alas it might take someone with the a great will to do so now. I know of 34 Tower mint Charles portraits, with one of these (Sharp G3) being recognised since. The D type for example has six 'official' portraits but again one or two of these also have (now accepted) know subtle differences, so not conclusive.

The Tower Half crown in my opinion is still a sleeping giant, purely for some types are more scarce/rare than generally accepted.

[TomGoodheart 402]

You say bust punches but I'm not sure if you're aware that at least some of the busts weremade using several puncheons. One for the crown for example, another for the face/head and another for the collar/ body details. I'm not sure that anyone has done a comprehensive study of which busts stand alone and which might be the result of the same puncheons being used in slightly different orientations/positions.

Osborne is the only one I'm aware of that has studied aspects of the coinage (such as differing harp designs, shield garniture and so on) and while his work is very good, it's not as detailed as to go as far as identifying specific die parings and so on as for some other coins.

I think the coins of Charles will be a challenge because they are the most varied of any reign and at time quality control was very poor.

Personally I find just a broad identification of type and variety as per Michael Sharp is adequate for me to use as a basis for my collection. I'm not so interested in the micro-variety sort of thing as having an example of each castle mint mark, however I know another member here has taken more of an interest in Osborne's work. Horses for courses I guess!

[Coinery 1,153]

So, first and foremost, we have Michael Sharp and his well publicised work on the series. You also (tomgoodheart) mentioned Osborne in a different thread, where does he fit in? Also, are there any other key die/punch studies out there?

I'm presuming that, unlike Elizabeth, even for each obverse type (say D2 for example) there are a number of different bust punches? If so, have they been identified anywhere, are there any records of numbers, is there a calculated guess if not?

Also, carrying on from a previous thread, yes, I was reffering to the identification of the Harp [Privy Mark] (though I'm now interested in the Osborne link too). I know there's not a lot to go on, but I add them below.

Osborne's article is in the 1984 BNJ p.164-209, just before Besly's York mint article. A very useful volume.

The mentioned Sharp 1977 and Osborne 1984 papers are the best in depth for study with the Sharp having numerous updated BNJ additions along the way. It is hoped that these papers might be revised at some stage, but alas it might take someone with the a great will to do so now. I know of 34 Tower mint Charles portraits, with one of these (Sharp G3) being recognised since. The D type for example has six 'official' portraits but again one or two of these also have (now accepted) know subtle differences, so not conclusive.

The Tower Half crown in my opinion is still a sleeping giant, purely for some types are more scarce/rare than generally accepted.

Thanks Coin Watch...I'm staggered and very much interested in what you are doing! I hope this thread will develop into an interesting one, with maybe the potential to push the boundaries of C1xii as they are currently understood? The field is still wide open from what I can see, and this is from fresh eyes attributing their first C1 shilling just this week!

[Coinery 1,153]

You say bust punches but I'm not sure if you're aware that at least some of the busts weremade using several puncheons. One for the crown for example, another for the face/head and another for the collar/ body details. I'm not sure that anyone has done a comprehensive study of which busts stand alone and which might be the result of the same puncheons being used in slightly different orientations/positions.

Osborne is the only one I'm aware of that has studied aspects of the coinage (such as differing harp designs, shield garniture and so on) and while his work is very good, it's not as detailed as to go as far as identifying specific die parings and so on as for some other coins.

I think the coins of Charles will be a challenge because they are the most varied of any reign and at time quality control was very poor.

Personally I find just a broad identification of type and variety as per Michael Sharp is adequate for me to use as a basis for my collection. I'm not so interested in the micro-variety sort of thing as having an example of each castle mint mark, however I know another member here has taken more of an interest in Osborne's work. Horses for courses I guess!

Didn't have the foggiest idea that a number of punches made up the busts, now you've got me...just as soon as time and money permits!

I was having a conversation only today about how amazing/surprising it is that such a clear, historically important, and available artefact, is so incomplete in its study. It seems hard to believe that we study the embers of a Tudor/Stuart fire-place with microscopes, but have yet to classify the finer details of the most socially conforming object of all time!

[Rob 3,152]

I think the first complete bust punch was the E3 (easily differentiated from E2 as it has 9 jewels on the crown band)

[Coinery 1,153]

I think the first complete bust punch was the E3 (easily differentiated from E2 as it has 9 jewels on the crown band)

That far on, amazing! We definitely need the Freeman's tower shillings of C1, maybe even the Groom's version (if that didn't create too many gaps in Richard's collection)? [emoticon with tongue sticking out!]

[TomGoodheart 402]

I think the first complete bust punch was the E3 (easily differentiated from E2 as it has 9 jewels on the crown band)

Or as Roy Osborne says "Busts 65 [E2] and 67 [E3]. Small neat portraits on the shillings only. The rare 65 portcullis is the only one with an inner circle [D6]. Superficially alike, these two dies are made by different methods; 65 by small punches, 67 by one punch, it is here that the join in the hair ceases. On 65 the band of the crown has 6 jewels with 2 pearls between each, the hair breaks at the neck and has a parallel curve at its tip, the collar front has a straight line at the throat with dots above, the first rear lobe of the collar is obscured by the hair and there is a fine edging to the pauldron. On 67 the band of the crown has 9 jewels with no pearls, there is no break in the hair, but there is a twist and outward turn at its tip, the collar front has a curved line at the throat with no dots, the first rear lobe is clear of the hair and there is large lobed edging to the pauldren."

... so when are you going to start this book Stuart?

[Coinery 1,153]

I think the first complete bust punch was the E3 (easily differentiated from E2 as it has 9 jewels on the crown band)

Or as Roy Osborne says "Busts 65 [E2] and 67 [E3]. Small neat portraits on the shillings only. The rare 65 portcullis is the only one with an inner circle [D6]. Superficially alike, these two dies are made by different methods; 65 by small punches, 67 by one punch, it is here that the join in the hair ceases. On 65 the band of the crown has 6 jewels with 2 pearls between each, the hair breaks at the neck and has a parallel curve at its tip, the collar front has a straight line at the throat with dots above, the first rear lobe of the collar is obscured by the hair and there is a fine edging to the pauldron. On 67 the band of the crown has 9 jewels with no pearls, there is no break in the hair, but there is a twist and outward turn at its tip, the collar front has a curved line at the throat with no dots, the first rear lobe is clear of the hair and there is large lobed edging to the pauldren."

... so when are you going to start this book Stuart?

Two pages could one quality photo qualify! I think that's what's missing from all the major numismatic works!

With the digital age, there is the opportunity for every punch and die to be viewable in high-definition, at all times!

I can fully understand why MS took the C1 shillings no further than he did, there would not have been the quality plates to support any deeper findings in print; he would have been reduced to extremely lengthy text which, in all fairness, would never have been correctly interpreted...lord knows how difficult it can sometimes be even with images!

Hah, a book! :P

Edited July 9, 2012 by Coinery

[Rob 3,152]

I think the first complete bust punch was the E3 (easily differentiated from E2 as it has 9 jewels on the crown band)

That far on, amazing! We definitely need the Freeman's tower shillings of C1, maybe even the Groom's version (if that didn't create too many gaps in Richard's collection)? [emoticon with tongue sticking out!]

I'm not sure you do. I think there are over 1000 individual dies identified to date, and that's just for shillings. T in C was a huge issue. In fact, everything from Crown onwards with the exception of sceptre was quite prolific.

[TomGoodheart 402]

We definitely need the Freeman's tower shillings of C1, maybe even the Groom's version (if that didn't create too many gaps in Richard's collection)? [emoticon with tongue sticking out!]

I'm not sure you do. I think there are over 1000 individual dies identified to date, and that's just for shillings. T in C was a huge issue. In fact, everything from Crown onwards with the exception of sceptre was quite prolific.

382 pages. Volume one of .. two? detailing the Tower mint coins. Then there are two more volumes on provincial issues ... and I have a sneaking suspicion that shillings could be just as complex, if not more. So not a work for the faint hearted to attempt. Or even read!

Edited July 9, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Coinery 1,153]

I just wonder about how it would work to set up an online resource (for any coinage), founded upon the current major numismatic works; basing it on a kind of 'is it a plant,' yes? 'Go to section 4,' etc. type formula? The gaps could then be filled by others, whose coin data could be entered into the database subject to appropriate coins and quality images. Just a future thought!

[Coinery 1,153]

We definitely need the Freeman's tower shillings of C1, maybe even the Groom's version (if that didn't create too many gaps in Richard's collection)? [emoticon with tongue sticking out!]

I'm not sure you do. I think there are over 1000 individual dies identified to date, and that's just for shillings. T in C was a huge issue. In fact, everything from Crown onwards with the exception of sceptre was quite prolific.

382 pages. Volume one of .. two? detailing the Tower mint coins. Then there are two more volumes on provincial issues ... and I have a sneaking suspicion that shillings could be just as complex, if not more. So not a work for the faint hearted to attempt. Or even read!

Do you think we should stick with the blue cover, Richard, it's quite regal, don't you think?

[coin watch 1]

There are so many Charles Tower shilling dies evident that a complete or even near so study would be impossible the conclude, but for me this is where the interest holds. It is true some type dies where made up in sections which can be seen when comparing coins of the same portrait type, this being (I find) most evident in the likes of the 'common' E2 bust make-up, these subtle differences are also seen in most of the portraits while also in the meantime coins of the following class: C1,C3,F4 for example so far are (from what I have seen) having been struck from one die for each type which only adds to its considered rarity. But interestingly there are also one or two coins which are considered rare but have a number of differing dies, for example the Sharp F7 with the triangle in circle mm, I find this coin the most facinating of the Tower series, a real mess of a coin and out of the 8 known none are in great shape (one just sold with a well known dealer at a VERY good price!) Osborne briefly wrote about it, Sharp said it was probably struck at a time of mint transition when most skilled workers left the Tower mint, this shows in the re-engraving of old dies but what I find crazy is in just 8 examples I know of 3 different obverse dies were used, to me this must have been a trial piece of some kind and at a very interesting time during the civil war, a real history coin which deserves more study. This coin is also apparently related to the 'Briot' crown with the same mark (3 known) and the 3a2 Half crown same mark (2 known) both of which are companion coins to this shilling and probably made again as a trial/test piece.

This is one small reason why I love these coins, I am constantly finding quirky new twists and turns, if only to keep myself happy

[coin watch 1]

We definitely need the Freeman's tower shillings of C1, maybe even the Groom's version (if that didn't create too many gaps in Richard's collection)? [emoticon with tongue sticking out!]

I'm not sure you do. I think there are over 1000 individual dies identified to date, and that's just for shillings. T in C was a huge issue. In fact, everything from Crown onwards with the exception of sceptre was quite prolific.

382 pages. Volume one of .. two? detailing the Tower mint coins. Then there are two more volumes on provincial issues ... and I have a sneaking suspicion that shillings could be just as complex, if not more. So not a work for the faint hearted to attempt. Or even read!

Do you think we should stick with the blue cover, Richard, it's quite regal, don't you think?

Recommended to all......some interesting coins in there!!

[TomGoodheart 402]

I just wonder about how it would work to set up an online resource (for any coinage), founded upon the current major numismatic works; basing it on a kind of 'is it a plant,' yes? 'Go to section 4,' etc. type formula? The gaps could then be filled by others, whose coin data could be entered into the database subject to appropriate coins and quality images. Just a future thought!

Well, it's possible. The problem is agreeing where to stop. If you look at modern coins then differences between one (micro-)variety and another can be down to whether a tooth in the border aligns with a feature or not, or the spacing between the bust and border down to parts of a millimetre. With hammered coins striking quirks, die wear or damage can make two coins struck from the same die look subtly different. Do we count those as varieties, agree that we'll stop at a particular die pairing (Morrieson tried this), or just aim for a general description such as Osborne's (or Sharp or Spink or North ....)

I guess it comes down to what sort of collector you are and whether several broadly similar, but subtly different coins is your aim or you are happy to stop at collecting by type or ...

Personally, while a portrait/reverse combination I don't have would be a draw, I'm not worried about finding examples of each different privy mark, legend variation etc.

[Rob 3,152]

There are so many Charles Tower shilling dies evident that a complete or even near so study would be impossible the conclude, but for me this is where the interest holds. It is true some type dies where made up in sections which can be seen when comparing coins of the same portrait type, this being (I find) most evident in the likes of the 'common' E2 bust make-up, these subtle differences are also seen in most of the portraits while also in the meantime coins of the following class: C1,C3,F4 for example so far are (from what I have seen) having been struck from one die for each type which only adds to its considered rarity. But interestingly there are also one or two coins which are considered rare but have a number of differing dies, for example the Sharp F7 with the triangle in circle mm, I find this coin the most facinating of the Tower series, a real mess of a coin and out of the 8 known none are in great shape (one just sold with a well known dealer at a VERY good price!) Osborne briefly wrote about it, Sharp said it was probably struck at a time of mint transition when most skilled workers left the Tower mint, this shows in the re-engraving of old dies but what I find crazy is in just 8 examples I know of 3 different obverse dies were used, to me this must have been a trial piece of some kind and at a very interesting time during the civil war, a real history coin which deserves more study. This coin is also apparently related to the 'Briot' crown with the same mark (3 known) and the 3a2 Half crown same mark (2 known) both of which are companion coins to this shilling and probably made again as a trial/test piece.

This is one small reason why I love these coins, I am constantly finding quirky new twists and turns, if only to keep myself happy

Do you know who bought it? I was too late.

[Coinery 1,153]

There are so many Charles Tower shilling dies evident that a complete or even near so study would be impossible the conclude, but for me this is where the interest holds. It is true some type dies where made up in sections which can be seen when comparing coins of the same portrait type, this being (I find) most evident in the likes of the 'common' E2 bust make-up, these subtle differences are also seen in most of the portraits while also in the meantime coins of the following class: C1,C3,F4 for example so far are (from what I have seen) having been struck from one die for each type which only adds to its considered rarity. But interestingly there are also one or two coins which are considered rare but have a number of differing dies, for example the Sharp F7 with the triangle in circle mm, I find this coin the most facinating of the Tower series, a real mess of a coin and out of the 8 known none are in great shape (one just sold with a well known dealer at a VERY good price!) Osborne briefly wrote about it, Sharp said it was probably struck at a time of mint transition when most skilled workers left the Tower mint, this shows in the re-engraving of old dies but what I find crazy is in just 8 examples I know of 3 different obverse dies were used, to me this must have been a trial piece of some kind and at a very interesting time during the civil war, a real history coin which deserves more study. This coin is also apparently related to the 'Briot' crown with the same mark (3 known) and the 3a2 Half crown same mark (2 known) both of which are companion coins to this shilling and probably made again as a trial/test piece.

This is one small reason why I love these coins, I am constantly finding quirky new twists and turns, if only to keep myself happy

Thanks for the information, superb stuff, really appreciated!

When you say re-engraved dies, are we talking re-worked, as in repaired/updated with puncheons, or did they literally hand-work current dies for betterment?

Also, forgive my ignorance, but when it is said there are x numbers known of any coin, where does that information come from, where would I locate such records myself?

Thanks again,

Stuart

[Coinery 1,153]

I just wonder about how it would work to set up an online resource (for any coinage), founded upon the current major numismatic works; basing it on a kind of 'is it a plant,' yes? 'Go to section 4,' etc. type formula? The gaps could then be filled by others, whose coin data could be entered into the database subject to appropriate coins and quality images. Just a future thought!

Well, it's possible. The problem is agreeing where to stop. If you look at modern coins then differences between one (micro-)variety and another can be down to whether a tooth in the border aligns with a feature or not, or the spacing between the bust and border down to parts of a millimetre. With hammered coins striking quirks, die wear or damage can make two coins struck from the same die look subtly different. Do we count those as varieties, agree that we'll stop at a particular die pairing (Morrieson tried this), or just aim for a general description such as Osborne's (or Sharp or Spink or North ....)

I guess it comes down to what sort of collector you are and whether several broadly similar, but subtly different coins is your aim or you are happy to stop at collecting by type or ...

Personally, while a portrait/reverse combination I don't have would be a draw, I'm not worried about finding examples of each different privy mark, legend variation etc.

I'm just being curious when I ask this question, quite simply because it would appeal to me, and I'm wondering how you might feel about the scenario?

I know it would be impractical to collect every single micro-variety, but when you do buy a very nice coin, perhaps from a bad image, is it not your first response and greatest pleasure to get your books out and nail it down as tightly as possible with references?

I just wondered whether it would extend the interest and pleasure to follow it through to dies (if it were possible), even though you may well know that the die number catalogued alongside your coin you may never have? Your's however would still have its final resting place, so to speak!

I know pinning down dies would be difficult, but I think there could be enough variation to claim 'C below A,' 'E of Rex rotated clockwise and fully joined at the top cross-bar to X' etc?

I'm not saying I'm angling to pursue this, just curious to know whether, if such a resource existed, you'd take your shilling collection to the next level, and enjoy doing so?

[Rob 3,152]

I just wonder about how it would work to set up an online resource (for any coinage), founded upon the current major numismatic works; basing it on a kind of 'is it a plant,' yes? 'Go to section 4,' etc. type formula? The gaps could then be filled by others, whose coin data could be entered into the database subject to appropriate coins and quality images. Just a future thought!

Well, it's possible. The problem is agreeing where to stop. If you look at modern coins then differences between one (micro-)variety and another can be down to whether a tooth in the border aligns with a feature or not, or the spacing between the bust and border down to parts of a millimetre. With hammered coins striking quirks, die wear or damage can make two coins struck from the same die look subtly different. Do we count those as varieties, agree that we'll stop at a particular die pairing (Morrieson tried this), or just aim for a general description such as Osborne's (or Sharp or Spink or North ....)

I guess it comes down to what sort of collector you are and whether several broadly similar, but subtly different coins is your aim or you are happy to stop at collecting by type or ...

Personally, while a portrait/reverse combination I don't have would be a draw, I'm not worried about finding examples of each different privy mark, legend variation etc.

The is the crux of all detailed references. Morrieson essentially defined varieties by marks, stops, legends and general detail, but then noted several dies conforming to type where the position of the legend varied. These of course would have been recorded by Freeman, Davies, Groom etc as individual varieties. With the double striking inherent in hammered coins, you have to be very careful in attributing any die to a particular variety. If you have a reverse die reading CHRITO for example, it only takes a small rotation between strikes to produce the same result from a die with the full reading. This is easily confused.

This is a good example. The description reads that it is a different die to Brooker 1145 which is Allen obverse C, probably struck at Worcester in Jan-Feb 1644/5. The obverse of this C25 is double struck giving a reading HI I RX. The key indicator is that the A of CAROLVS is almost superimposed on the R. Compare with this image of a C18 which is cleanly struck and you might think they were different dies, but they aren't. You obviously need a number of matching reference points to establish whether dies are the same or not. Up to 30 degrees rotation is not uncommon, but more is possible. I have a shilling with a full 90 degree rotation. There is an Exeter C11 crown ex-Cumberland Clark with a 5 legged horse, and no, it isn't what you are thinking!. You also get remedial work carried out on dies leading to what is effectively another variety but of the same die e.g. the Chester halfcrown with CHST below the horse. There are examples reading HIR for HIB such as the Spink plate coin, but this was subsequently recut along with other parts of the legend to read HIB whilst still retaining the underlying R. Micro varieties are easily distinguished on milled coinage, but with hammered you have to be a lot more circumspect.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Rob

[TomGoodheart 402]

I'm just being curious when I ask this question, quite simply because it would appeal to me, and I'm wondering how you might feel about the scenario?

I know it would be impractical to collect every single micro-variety, but when you do buy a very nice coin, perhaps from a bad image, is it not your first response and greatest pleasure to get your books out and nail it down as tightly as possible with references?

I just wondered whether it would extend the interest and pleasure to follow it through to dies (if it were possible), even though you may well know that the die number catalogued alongside your coin you may never have? Your's however would still have its final resting place, so to speak!

I know pinning down dies would be difficult, but I think there could be enough variation to claim 'C below A,' 'E of Rex rotated clockwise and fully joined at the top cross-bar to X' etc?

I'm not saying I'm angling to pursue this, just curious to know whether, if such a resource existed, you'd take your shilling collection to the next level, and enjoy doing so?

I don't think I would Stuart. While it's interesting to me to be able to recognise that one of my coins is from the same obverse die as Brooker xxx, or a Shuttlewood coin, that's about as far as it goes. Largely it's about budget, in that I only have enough money to buy one decent example of each bust type and if I'm lucky I'll expand that to examples of that variety with each of the privy marks it was struck under.

If it so happens that two similar coins have different legends, that's a bonus of sorts. However I don't then yearn for every overmark variety, every different harp style and so on. For that I would not only need to have a much larger budget to pick up the additional varieties, but I'd also need to accept that I would have to put up with many lower quality coins to fill the scarcer gaps.

Generally I find myself aiming towards a collection in better condition. In fact I've sold on a few very scarce coins to buy better examples of commoner coins, partly because I've come to realise that for most people a knackered coin, however rare, is still just a knackered coin!

For example, I passed on this:

Very scarce with this privy mark, but I just knew that I would find it unsatisfying sitting next to my other coins. Will I ever find one in thegrade I'd like? Possibly not. But if I spend the money on a coin I prefer, even though it's far commoner, I think I will be happier.

[TomGoodheart 402]

Or take these for example.

Seven of the eight known examples of Sharp G3/2. And apparently four different obverse dies! Woule I like an example of each? No. I'm happy to have even one in my collection. But would I upgrade it if I could? ...

But then, we're all different. Otherwise collecting wouldn't be as much fun, all chasing the same things, eh?

And of course, these illustrate a problem with trying to class coins down to the die. Many hammered coins are so worn that the details that distinguish one variety from another such as a recut (re-engraved) shoulder to show armour, or the addition of some rivets to make the armour more obvious, are lost.

Plus it's taken me quite some time to obtain these photos. Many collectors aren't as willing to share their collections or knowledge as my contacts. There will undoubtedly be other examples out there (with four obverse dies perhaps up to another 30 or so!) Some will have been recognised but the owner chooses not to share this with anyone I'm in contact with, or more likely, they simply don't know what they have. And a comprehensive study really depends on as many examples as possible being available to research.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I'm not sure it would be as .. straightforward as Peck (who had access to the BM collection) Groom, Gouby et al who catalogued more modern coins. I'm not sure how long it's taken Maurice Bull to put together his analysis of half crowns, nor how much money he might have invested. But I'm guessing it's been a fair amount of both and shillings will be more of a challenge. But I guess it's an opportunity for someone!

Edited July 10, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Coinery 1,153]

I think you all have made some long and interesting points, and I thank you very much for all your time spent. I take every point onboard and confess that I am very quickly infected by the depth it's possible to go to with any type of coin, I do so hope to have the time and resources to one day grab a numismatic dark alley by the horns and shed some light on it! It's got me all o itchin' like a flea-ridden badger!