All things Elizabeth I

[Coinery 1,148]

I've recently aquired this HA-2:b Sixpence. Does anyone have any thoughts on the reverse legend? Is this IPOSV, or just die rotation, possibly explaining the rounded O-like bottom of the P? My other thought was a broken foot on the P punch, and a botched attempt at repairing it on the die? Anyone?

[Coinery 1,148]

The obverse is better than the reverse I think!

[Coinery 1,148]

With regards to the hammered series, is there a calculation that is a ball-part (hope this is the term) figure to aid pricings on rarities?

As an example I note that the multiples on grade typically run at X3 between VF to EF (as a very rough figure) so, is there a similar 'rough' figure for rarities where (in this example) a date is found at 1:2 of the common issue?

What I'm trying to say is BCW suggest in their virtual collection of 3000 coins that, for example, a 1561 coin is twice as common as a 62 so, bearing in mind there are not many of either in top grade, can anybody speculate a percentile calculation that has been noted through personal experience?

If a regular VF date of a denomination was £400, is there a figure that has some statistical integrity for a different VF date (of the same type) that is twice as rare?

[Rob 3,152]

With regards to the hammered series, is there a calculation that is a ball-part (hope this is the term) figure to aid pricings on rarities?

As an example I note that the multiples on grade typically run at X3 between VF to EF (as a very rough figure) so, is there a similar 'rough' figure for rarities where (in this example) a date is found at 1:2 of the common issue?

What I'm trying to say is BCW suggest in their virtual collection of 3000 coins that, for example, a 1561 coin is twice as common as a 62 so, bearing in mind there are not many of either in top grade, can anybody speculate a percentile calculation that has been noted through personal experience?

If a regular VF date of a denomination was £400, is there a figure that has some statistical integrity for a different VF date (of the same type) that is twice as rare?

Depends on the coin and whether there are two or more people desperately seeking the variety. 6 or 7 years ago I had a nice Elizabeth 1 shilling pencilled in for a bid of 5 or 600 which was about right for the prices at the time, but it went to over 2K because two variety collectors were competing. The greater the number collecting a series, the greater the likelihood that prices will exceed expectations.

[Coinery 1,148]

With regards to the hammered series, is there a calculation that is a ball-part (hope this is the term) figure to aid pricings on rarities?

As an example I note that the multiples on grade typically run at X3 between VF to EF (as a very rough figure) so, is there a similar 'rough' figure for rarities where (in this example) a date is found at 1:2 of the common issue?

What I'm trying to say is BCW suggest in their virtual collection of 3000 coins that, for example, a 1561 coin is twice as common as a 62 so, bearing in mind there are not many of either in top grade, can anybody speculate a percentile calculation that has been noted through personal experience?

If a regular VF date of a denomination was £400, is there a figure that has some statistical integrity for a different VF date (of the same type) that is twice as rare?

Depends on the coin and whether there are two or more people desperately seeking the variety. 6 or 7 years ago I had a nice Elizabeth 1 shilling pencilled in for a bid of 5 or 600 which was about right for the prices at the time, but it went to over 2K because two variety collectors were competing. The greater the number collecting a series, the greater the likelihood that prices will exceed expectations.

In your experience, have you found the Elizabeth market consistent (mostly) regarding rarities (dates/Privy, etc.), I have recently seen a couple of examples of the rarer dates/PM's (both around 1:2 according to BCW) sell for around a third higher than their lesser-dated counterparts, would you say this ties in with your own observations?

[TomGoodheart 400]

Depends on the coin and whether there are two or more people desperately seeking the variety. 6 or 7 years ago I had a nice Elizabeth 1 shilling pencilled in for a bid of 5 or 600 which was about right for the prices at the time, but it went to over 2K because two variety collectors were competing. The greater the number collecting a series, the greater the likelihood that prices will exceed expectations.

I really don't think that you can apply statistics to the price of rarities Stuart. It will all come down, as Rob says, to who wants the coin on the day. As an example, when I bought my D1/2 shilling the previous Spink prices were £450 and £1250 for F and VF respectively, on the basis of four known examples.

But two further coins turned up in the Prestbury hoard, almost halving the rarity. The first was Fine, the second nVF and comparable with the earlier specimens. DNW estimated them at £1000-£1200 and £1800-£2000, which I thought was about what I'd expect. But in the end, neither sold for those amounts. I got the second for below lower estimate and the poorer coin didn't meet reserve and was bought after the sale. Were they overpriced? I'd have said not. But clearly there wasn't the interest on the day I had assumed there might be. Was it that they were no longer as rare? That everyone that wanted one had one? Or just that the photos weren't very flattering and those with the money preferred to hold out for a better grade or provenance? Who knows.

I know that's bit of a diversion from your example Stuart. And undoubtedly where a few dozen or more examples are (eventually) available to collectors it will be easier to see a pattern to prices over time than if there were only a handful. But I still think it's difficult to predict with any real certainty what a scarce coin will fetch.

I know in my earlier collecting days I bid way over what was reasonable, on the basis I hadn't seen a variety or the coin was better than I'd previously seen. But of course, with time I've found other, nicer, coins. Often at less than what I paid in my fit of enthusiasm.

You only need one enthusiastic collector to push up the price. And one thing that undoubtedly helps learner collectors is a comprehensive published work describing varieties and their scarcity. There's an appeal to Lizzy coins (Virgin queen, first explorations of 'the new world', Shakespeare etc) just as with Charles and the Civil War. There's a good quantity of available material at (mostly) modest prices. Maybe in time BCW will do for Elizabethan coinage what Peck or Brooker/Sharp/Bull have done for other series? Instead of collecting bun pennies people will collect sixpences by BCW number?

OK, now I am off track! Stopping now.

[Coinery 1,148]

Maybe in time BCW will do for Elizabethan coinage what Peck or Brooker/Sharp/Bull have done for other series? Instead of collecting bun pennies people will collect sixpences by BCW number?

OK, now I am off track! Stopping now.

great read, I hope you're right! Should I buy everything up now?

[TomGoodheart 400]

Maybe in time BCW will do for Elizabethan coinage what Peck or Brooker/Sharp/Bull have done for other series? Instead of collecting bun pennies people will collect sixpences by BCW number?

OK, now I am off track! Stopping now.

great read, I hope you're right! Should I buy everything up now?

Buy and publish, why not!

[Coinery 1,148]

Any ideas why a '2' would be in the obverse legend (E of Elizabeth over 2) of a sixpence? Has this been seen before in other series, it's not recorded in BCW?

The 2 measures 1.79mm, identical to the reverse 'inverted' 2!

[Coinery 1,148]

Whilst I'd be looking for a better obverse, it cannot be denied that, compositionally speaking, this is a staggeringly beautiful design! The big obverse fields give the coin a very appealling 'something' that I can't quite put my finger on, reminds me of the Tudor equivilent to a Victorian gothic!

Twelve months or so, it's going to be on my hit list for the pension fund...that gives me around 20 years to enjoy it first, of course! Another BCW book coming up, me thinks!

Ooops! 120993184054

Link appreciated!

Edited November 9, 2012 by Coinery

[davidrj 194]

Link appreciated!

link

[Coinery 1,148]

Link appreciated!

link

Thanks, David!

[Coinery 1,148]

I'm feeling fairly certain that this is another contemporary hammered counterfeit, but would love comments. If it weren't for the positive silver test I'd be certain...did the pre-recoinage bods ever silver plate? Anyone know, or have examples? Of course, the recent Mary groat wasn't plated, so would you plate a threehalfpence?

This is a BCW Threehalfpence CN1:c weighing very light at 0.54g. It's hammered-style thin (very thin) and doesn't really draw any attention to itself except at magnification where, to me, it looks 'wrong' and plated, possibly? It tests positive for silver, suggesting that either it IS silver throughout, or that it's plated as suggested??? The silver-test I use does turn the tiniest silver filing into an instant blood-red, so it's very sensitive to high-grade material (plating included).

My nagging doubt here is that it's such a small denomination coin. Why would you trouble yourself with a threehalfpence, when there were bigger fish to fry? Maybe the dim light of Tudor England made the smaller denominations a better bet, who knows?

So, if 'I' had a coin like this in my collection, I wouldn't be happy with it as 'genuine,' any thoughts? I'm really going to say, in the absence of a greater study of this type and date, that the jury's OUT with me, though I'm on the side of 80% guilty as charged!

Edited November 27, 2012 by Coinery

[Coinery 1,148]

I'm feeling fairly certain that this is another contemporary hammered counterfeit, but would love comments. If it weren't for the positive silver test I'd be certain...did the pre-recoinage bods ever silver plate? Anyone know, or have examples? Of course, the recent Mary groat wasn't plated, so would you plate a threehalfpence?

This is a BCW Threehalfpence CN1:c weighing very light at 0.54g. It's hammered-style thin (very thin) and doesn't really draw any attention to itself except at magnification where, to me, it looks 'wrong' and plated, possibly? It tests positive for silver, suggesting that either it IS silver throughout, or that it's plated as suggested??? The silver-test I use does turn the tiniest silver filing into an instant blood-red, so it's very sensitive to high-grade material (plating included).

My nagging doubt here is that it's such a small denomination coin. Why would you trouble yourself with a threehalfpence, when there were bigger fish to fry? Maybe the dim light of Tudor England made the smaller denominations a better bet, who knows?

So, if 'I' had a coin like this in my collection, I wouldn't be happy with it as 'genuine,' any thoughts? I'm really going to say, in the absence of a greater study of this type and date, that the jury's OUT with me, though I'm on the side of 80% guilty as charged!

poor resizing again, sorry!

[Coinery 1,148]

Unrecorded BCW die-pairing Threepence BA-6G:h.

This is an interesting coin in that the rose 9 on the obverse was hitherto unknown on 1564 coins and is recorded in BCW as a 1565 punch. The preceding rose 8 used between 1562-64 was a pretty knackered old thing so, it's no surprise, really, to find a new punch was being manufactured to be used as soon as possible.

There were approximately 150,000 of this year struck, making it one of the rarest of all the Elizabeth 3d dates, and a bit of a bonus to find it with an unknown rose type too

WHOOPS! A possible error!

There was an earlier rose 5 used on the threepence obverses, but these were thought to be discontinued in 1562. Rose 5 also doesn't appear in BCW with the 322 legend or anything later than a '62 reverse. Either way it's a very unusual pairing (?mule), and a new rare variety for BCW, as well as presumeably an update of the chronology that accompanies rose 5?

Here are the original BCW line-drawings alongside, I think it's a rose 5, what do you think?

[Coinery 1,148]

OK, so a bit more of a breakthrough! I've struggled to find threepence coins with decent roses, however, I've managed to find a reasonable rose 5 on a 1562 coin, which I've chopped out and added to the image below. I think it's confirmation that the rose on the 1564 coin is indeed a 5, which presents many firsts...1562 rose on a '64 coin (possible mule), unrecorded legend with a rose 5, and an unknown die-pairing obviously.

There is one possible explanation, and one I stumbled on by accident, through the constant overlaying of these roses, and ongoing struggle with the closeness of the two roses 5&9.

I noticed that the rose on the '64 coin was mushy and weak compared to the sharpness of the bust and other devices, hinting at a possible worn punch, which would certainly be the case if it was still being used in '64. It's obvious that the '64 coin's rose is degraded when comparing it to the rose on the '62 coin (centre component sheared off at 6 O'Clock,and deterioration of most of the remaining petals), so it seems possible the punch continued on beyond 1562, negating my own coin's mule possibility?

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I began to wonder whether rose 9 was actually a re-cut of rose 5, implying that the rose 5 punch carried on for much longer than is currently documented, and an explanation for its appearance on my '64 coin?

The two roses are remarkably similar, so I overlaid BCW's 1565 Rose punch 9 over Rose 5 (bottom image) to look at the similarities. Of course more rigorous work, using the actual roses would be required to substantiate it but, it seems to me that rose 9 could be a re-cut 5? The light grey outline is the fractionally heavier-set underlying rose 5, and the dark/black areas belong to the slimmer overlaid rose 9. It either fits extremely well, or has surplus metal surrounding it for a possible re-cut.

Any thoughts?

Edited December 2, 2012 by Coinery

[seuk 85]

The 62 and 64 roses are certainly identical - What about the other punches? It is possible to rule out an old obverse being used at a later date and confirm that the die were cut in 64?

When it comes to comparing punches I distrust drawings so I guess one will not be able to conclude anything untill a #9 shows up.

BTW are the rose punches normaly in the same position or turned randomly?

[Coinery 1,148]

The 62 and 64 roses are certainly identical - What about the other punches? It is possible to rule out an old obverse being used at a later date and confirm that the die were cut in 64?

When it comes to comparing punches I distrust drawings so I guess one will not be able to conclude anything untill a #9 shows up.

BTW are the rose punches normaly in the same position or turned randomly?

I guess this would be another example of how a web resource cataloguing as many of the dies as possible would be useful. Because finding a matching obverse die with a '62 reverse would provide the answer, and maybe this is the next natural line of enquiry.

I think the use of drawings have their place, and for the most part are excellent in BCW, though I still think a quality photographic equivilent would be better. Just imagine a resource where you could find say 5 different rose 9's in varying grades and states of break-up! And then with another click, pop up 5 rose 5's to view alongside!

And re the orientation, they are not consistent, though I will know a great deal more when I start poking around with the dies. I've been playing with the shillings up until now, so no roses involved.

[seuk 85]

The 62 and 64 roses are certainly identical - What about the other punches? It is possible to rule out an old obverse being used at a later date and confirm that the die were cut in 64?

When it comes to comparing punches I distrust drawings so I guess one will not be able to conclude anything untill a #9 shows up.

BTW are the rose punches normaly in the same position or turned randomly?

I guess this would be another example of how a web resource cataloguing as many of the dies as possible would be useful. Because finding a matching obverse die with a '62 reverse would provide the answer, and maybe this is the next natural line of enquiry.

I think the use of drawings have their place, and for the most part are excellent in BCW, though I still think a quality photographic equivilent would be better. Just imagine a resource where you could find say 5 different rose 9's in varying grades and states of break-up! And then with another click, pop up 5 rose 5's to view alongside!

And re the orientation, they are not consistent, though I will know a great deal more when I start poking around with the dies. I've been playing with the shillings up until now, so no roses involved.

A matching obverse won't be needed - I was mainly thinking about the letter punches as it would be unlikely that only the rose punch were changed during the period.

[Coinery 1,148]

The 62 and 64 roses are certainly identical - What about the other punches? It is possible to rule out an old obverse being used at a later date and confirm that the die were cut in 64?

When it comes to comparing punches I distrust drawings so I guess one will not be able to conclude anything untill a #9 shows up.

BTW are the rose punches normaly in the same position or turned randomly?

I guess this would be another example of how a web resource cataloguing as many of the dies as possible would be useful. Because finding a matching obverse die with a '62 reverse would provide the answer, and maybe this is the next natural line of enquiry.

I think the use of drawings have their place, and for the most part are excellent in BCW, though I still think a quality photographic equivilent would be better. Just imagine a resource where you could find say 5 different rose 9's in varying grades and states of break-up! And then with another click, pop up 5 rose 5's to view alongside!

And re the orientation, they are not consistent, though I will know a great deal more when I start poking around with the dies. I've been playing with the shillings up until now, so no roses involved.

A matching obverse won't be needed - I was mainly thinking about the letter punches as it would be unlikely that only the rose punch were changed during the period.

Thanks, seuk, I'll take a look and see what I can dig-up, I've got a couple from both periods.

I've just spent all morning searching the internet for a decent image of a rose 9 without success, so...

Does anyone have a 1565 Pheon threepence, or can lay their hands on a good image? These are all meant to bear rose 9, as does one obverse of the 1565 rose-mintmarked threepence.

Will check-out the letter punches

[Coinery 1,148]

Now a straight 1564 date without the 4/2 is a rarish thing, but I wasn't expecting over £200! It's not THAT good, surely?

370696830493

[azda 979]

http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=370696830493

[Coinery 1,148]

http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=370696830493

[TomGoodheart 400]

Now a straight 1564 date without the 4/2 is a rarish thing, but I wasn't expecting over £200! It's not THAT good, surely?

370696830493

Decent coins and he always seems to get good prices for his listings. I wonder if I should get him to sell my stuff too!?!

[Coinery 1,148]

Now a straight 1564 date without the 4/2 is a rarish thing, but I wasn't expecting over £200! It's not THAT good, surely?

370696830493

Decent coins and he always seems to get good prices for his listings. I wonder if I should get him to sell my stuff too!?!

He certainly does, £51 for a £30-book C1 farthing too! That sixpence wasn't even that good either!

He can certainly sell mine too! I always speak to someone called Heather when I've dealt with them???