How useful is this as a research tool?

[Rob 3,152]

Thoughts please on whether the shape of the flan is of any use in determining the chronology for a type, or within a type. Working on the principle that human beings are fairly predictable creatures with regular habits, I was struck by the consistency of flan shapes within this group of Exeter B2 crowns - which is nearly all the available pieces. The first three have just a couple of straight cuts, whilst most of the rest are distinctly polygonal having 6 or 7 straight edges. A couple are undecided, but first impressions are that these could possibly correspond to two or maybe three distinct production runs.

[azda 979]

Of course it can be useful Rob, but only if you had the information to hand. Are you saying that all those coins are basically as were struck and could give an indication of where and when by the shape of each coin? None of these have been clipped in any way?

Edited September 4, 2012 by azda

[ski 1]

warning, warning, less than useful response coming up

due to a knowledge score of ZERO on this period of coinage, i can only say.......i lurve #3 and #9.

werent coins trimmed by dodgy oiks of the time to get a little silver.....could it be that some of the cuttings of the coins shown was maybe post production?

[ski 1]

sorry dave.......must have been writing my reply when you added yours.....

[davidrj 194]

Thoughts please on whether the shape of the flan is of any use in determining the chronology for a type, or within a type. Working on the principle that human beings are fairly predictable creatures with regular habits, I was struck by the consistency of flan shapes within this group of Exeter B2 crowns - which is nearly all the available pieces. The first three have just a couple of straight cuts, whilst most of the rest are distinctly polygonal having 6 or 7 straight edges. A couple are undecided, but first impressions are that these could possibly correspond to two or maybe three distinct production runs.

Interesting!

If we were talking about newly produced hand cut blanks, a forensic expert could no doubt testify that some were made by Joe and others by Fred, due to the habitual shape and direction of tooling marks. After a couple of hundred years of circulation, clipping and cabinet wear... who knows

[Rob 3,152]

Of course it can be useful Rob, but only if you had the information to hand. Are you saying that all those coins are basically as were struck and could give an indication of where and when by the shape of each coin? None of these have been clipped in any way?

What I'm saying is that with a distinct style of flan trimming, it may be possible to assign each group to an un-named individual. It should also be mentioned that if you look at Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the early halfcrowns, shillings and half unites could arguably be similarly categorised.

Thinking out loud, it would suggest that the group with 2 main cuts was trimmed by holding the point opposite the angle and taking off a larger piece than on the multiply clipped coins where an attempt appears to have been made to retain most of the design. Two distinct groups of coins which I think corresponds to two individuals. This would suggest trimming at the mint given the consistency.

[Rob 3,152]

warning, warning, less than useful response coming up

due to a knowledge score of ZERO on this period of coinage, i can only say.......i lurve #3 and #9.

werent coins trimmed by dodgy oiks of the time to get a little silver.....could it be that some of the cuttings of the coins shown was maybe post production?

Yes coins were clipped post production, but crowns didn't circulate much amongst the lower classes. Clipping tends to be only seen on halfcrowns and smaller denominations. You rarely see the edge of the coin approaching the inner circle on a crown which was the minimum limit for a clipped coin.

The weights of the Exeter crowns varies considerably, by more than 10%, but doesn't appear related to flan diameter. Given the emergency nature of the mint, the price paid by Vyvyan for the silver brought in (varied from 4/8d - 4/10d troy oz) and Vyvyan's right to recoup his costs without accounting for them may go some way to explaining why the coins were considerably underweight on occasions. Also significant may be the use of Spanish ryals which commanded the higher price, being 0.940 fine and so a reduced weight might have been intended to compensate for the higher fineness.

[Rob 3,152]

Interesting!

If we were talking about newly produced hand cut blanks, a forensic expert could no doubt testify that some were made by Joe and others by Fred, due to the habitual shape and direction of tooling marks. After a couple of hundred years of circulation, clipping and cabinet wear... who knows

Hammered coinage was demonetised fifty years later, so circulation wear doesn't come into it very much in my opinion. Many crowns from both provincial and Tower mints can be found in a decent grade implying they were more likely to be viewed as a store of wealth than change for the shops. A crown was two day's pay for a man and horse in the Civil War. The Royalists had proportionately greater numbers of cavalry relative to foot than the Parliamentarians. Cabinet wear is irrelevant to the argument as it would not amount to much more than a few tenths of a gram.

[azda 979]

Of course it can be useful Rob, but only if you had the information to hand. Are you saying that all those coins are basically as were struck and could give an indication of where and when by the shape of each coin? None of these have been clipped in any way?

What I'm saying is that with a distinct style of flan trimming, it may be possible to assign each group to an un-named individual. It should also be mentioned that if you look at Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the early halfcrowns, shillings and half unites could arguably be similarly categorised.

Thinking out loud, it would suggest that the group with 2 main cuts was trimmed by holding the point opposite the angle and taking off a larger piece than on the multiply clipped coins where an attempt appears to have been made to retain most of the design. Two distinct groups of coins which I think corresponds to two individuals. This would suggest trimming at the mint given the consistency.

Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid

[davidrj 194]

Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid

Not so, a skilled worker would be able to get almost identical weights every time, and his work would be recognisable. Given Rob's comments re low circulation, I think he may be onto something useful

[azda 979]

Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid

Not so, a skilled worker would be able to get almost identical weights every time, and his work would be recognisable. Given Rob's comments re low circulation, I think he may be onto something useful

Even so David, a skilled worker could not replicate anothers work exactly, like identical angles etc, much like an engraver could'nt replicate anothers work

Edited September 5, 2012 by azda

[Rob 3,152]

Of course it can be useful Rob, but only if you had the information to hand. Are you saying that all those coins are basically as were struck and could give an indication of where and when by the shape of each coin? None of these have been clipped in any way?

What I'm saying is that with a distinct style of flan trimming, it may be possible to assign each group to an un-named individual. It should also be mentioned that if you look at Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the early halfcrowns, shillings and half unites could arguably be similarly categorised.

Thinking out loud, it would suggest that the group with 2 main cuts was trimmed by holding the point opposite the angle and taking off a larger piece than on the multiply clipped coins where an attempt appears to have been made to retain most of the design. Two distinct groups of coins which I think corresponds to two individuals. This would suggest trimming at the mint given the consistency.

Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid

The crown is nominally 30g. This standard was generally maintained at the Tower mint, but the provincial mints are often a bit low in weight. The supply of plate was limited to that obtained in the levies, so a slightly underwight coin would make the silver go further. The assay standard was typically maintained throughout the war at the provincial mints. A coin was not strictly controlled by size but by weight, but as the sole purpose of the provincial mints was to strike coin from levied plate, there was not likely to be very strict monitoring of the final weight, with general size and appearance taking precedence.

The Exeter mint was only operating during the period of Royalist control from September 1643 until its fall in April 1646, so the individual issues would only have covered a period of a few months. This can be further refined as the sole reason for the mint's existence was to provide coin for the troops. No troops, no need to coin. Hence we can reasonably assume that the mint virtually ceased production in the autumn of 1644 following the defeat of Essex at Lostwithiel in the August of that year. The virtual elimination of Parliamentary forces in the west country for nearly a year meant that Charles' and Maurice's troops could retire to Oxford. This probably explains the existence of the 1645/4 Ex marked reverse die which was obviously cut in 1644, but following the unanticipated success in the summer became redundant.

Unfortunately the number of workers at Exeter is not known, but a reasonable number can be assumed with more than one person sharing a task as the mint would of necessity either be a hive of activity, or virtually hibernating.

[davidrj 194]

Even so David, a skilled worker could not replicate anothers work exactly, like identical angles etc, much like an engraver could'nt replicate anothers work

May have been just one man doing that job in each mint!

Rob, do we have any records of the size of the workforce, the total number of blanks cut, and the time span of the mintages?

Currently doing some research on the production of French Revolutionally bronze 1791-3 (taxing my O level French) entire yearly mintages appear to have taken only a week or so at each mint

[Rob 3,152]

Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid

Not so, a skilled worker would be able to get almost identical weights every time, and his work would be recognisable. Given Rob's comments re low circulation, I think he may be onto something useful

Even so David, a skilled worker could not replicate anothers work exactly, like identical angles etc, much like an engraver could'nt replicate anothers work

It isn't so much recreating the angles as replicating the style of trimming. Is it a quick snip, snip; or is it 6 to 8 snips made by moving gently around the edge to reduce the ensuing irregularity? That is two different styles.

[azda 979]

Ok, excuse my ignorance of the subject, but merely thinking over the possibility. The person who trimmed these coins would have to have some sort of definitive size/weight that a coin should be, if the coin was say overweight he'd trim the coin in certain positions to bring it into weight, surely this would entail some sort of jig or device which was adapted for such measures. Another question which i ask myself is, how many years did the same group appear and is it possible for the same person to do the same job for those periods? Hopefully the questions don't sound stupid

Not so, a skilled worker would be able to get almost identical weights every time, and his work would be recognisable. Given Rob's comments re low circulation, I think he may be onto something useful

Even so David, a skilled worker could not replicate anothers work exactly, like identical angles etc, much like an engraver could'nt replicate anothers work

It isn't so much recreating the angles as replicating the style of trimming. Is it a quick snip, snip; or is it 6 to 8 snips made by moving gently around the edge to reduce the ensuing irregularity? That is two different styles.

Ok, my next question would be, why would they recreate a style of angle during trimming? Why replicate? Why were'nt they crudely trimmed? Sorry, just putting hurdles in there so we can think outside the box

Edited September 5, 2012 by azda

[davidrj 194]

Ok, my next question would be, why would they recreate a style of angle during trimming? Why replicate? Why were'nt they crudely trimmed? Sorry, just putting hurdles in there so we can think outside the box

Repetitive tasks get hard wired into the brain, so you can almost do them in your sleep

your handwriting will be different to mine, even though we are both using the same tools (pens) and producing the same object (words) from the same base resource (letters)

[Rob 3,152]

Even so David, a skilled worker could not replicate anothers work exactly, like identical angles etc, much like an engraver could'nt replicate anothers work

May have been just one man doing that job in each mint!

Rob, do we have any records of the size of the workforce, the total number of blanks cut, and the time span of the mintages?

Currently doing some research on the production of French Revolutionally bronze 1791-3 (taxing my O level French) entire yearly mintages appear to have taken only a week or so at each mint

That is the significant question for all the provincial mints. The ONLY reason for their existence was for striking coin from collected plate in order to pay the Royalist troops. There is no evidence to suggest that there was ever a shortage of coin from the Tower mint for the day to day running of the country. Accordingly, we can assume that there was frenzied activity for very short periods of time. For example, I think that the W below horse Worcester(?) halfcrowns were mostly struck in a period of not much more than a week or two in June 1644 when Charles' army was at Worcester. The evidence suggests that virtually all the mint workforce transferred to Shrewsbury in the July as most military action involved the garrison of 2500-3000 men from the latter place. It appears there were 5 or possibly 6 engravers at W or SA in total in this period. At the same time, I am leaning towards the conclusion that Charles took the engraver who used the tower mark at Worcester with him to the West Country in July 1644, as the mark ceases to be used at either W or SA, yet we have the appearance of the mark on Exeter coins in 1645. If an army of 10000 men marches across the entire width or length of the country, their relocation requires the relocation of a person or persons capable of producing dies at very short notice, preferably accompanying the army to be on hand. The victory over Essex in August meant that the existing dies at Exeter would be sufficient to cater for coining needs and so the tower mark was not initially used as he didn't engrave any dies. Following the departure of Charles and Maurice, the only Parliamentary troops in the west were under siege at Plymouth and Taunton, and so easily contained by a relatively small number of Royalists.

Emergency coinage would be produced under less than ideal conditions at a frenetic rate. This might explain the huge numbers of reverse dies relative to obverses at both Exter and Worcester. From the beginning of Vyvyan's commission in 1642 when coins were struck at Truro until the fall of Exeter in 1646, only 4 crown obverse dies were used against 31 reverses. Some dies lasted a long time, whilst it appears that others disintegrated almost immediately making you wonder whether they were properly conditioned and hardened before use.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Rob

[azda 979]

Ok, my next question would be, why would they recreate a style of angle during trimming? Why replicate? Why were'nt they crudely trimmed? Sorry, just putting hurdles in there so we can think outside the box

Repetitive tasks get hard wired into the brain, so you can almost do them in your sleep

your handwriting will be different to mine, even though we are both using the same tools (pens) and producing the same object (words) from the same base resource (letters)

IF you were the only man doing the repetitive task, even if he were, he could'nt replicate exactly 100 times what he did the 1st time, surely?

Edited September 5, 2012 by azda

[Rob 3,152]

Ok, my next question would be, why would they recreate a style of angle during trimming? Why replicate? Why were'nt they crudely trimmed? Sorry, just putting hurdles in there so we can think outside the box

Repetitive tasks get hard wired into the brain, so you can almost do them in your sleep

your handwriting will be different to mine, even though we are both using the same tools (pens) and producing the same object (words) from the same base resource (letters)

IF you were the only man doing the repetitive task, even if he were, he could'nt replicate exactly 100 times what he did the 1st time, surely?

I think there may have been more people trimming the flans than hammering the coins on the grounds it would take more than a couple seconds to trim a coin whereas a coin could be struck in minimal time if many blows were not required. However, if only a small percentage needed adjustment, then all bets would be off.

[azda 979]

So that would beg the ultimate question of how many were adjusted

[Rob 3,152]

So that would beg the ultimate question of how many were adjusted

I think that the above picture is a reasonably comprehensive selection of the available pieces for research. The only image missing from my list of coins is that of the BM which was accessed in 1915. That would suggest most flans were adjusted. There is no way the coins with 6 to 8 faces in the bottom half of the image have not been modified. The picture is less clear cut on the top half, but a couple of straight lines on each coin does imply some human interference. If they weren't clipped in any way, the alternative would be that the shape was formed when the flans were stacked, clamped and beaten. This would definitely date each general shape, as replication would be virtually impossible.

[Coinery 1,147]

Another variable, Rob, it that these are pretty chunky bits of silver to cut by hand. Forming curves would be near impossible at this thickness without grinding afterwards. Even cutting the thinnest aluminium sheet with modern cutting shears it is all but impossible to get them to form a curve, UNLESS the waste edge is very thin, namely, right against the edge of the sheet!

I don't feel these coins would be cut entirely free-hand, wouldn't there be too many mistakes at apprentiship level to justify it? My thoughts would be a lightly stamped circle to cut around. Also, in view of the near-impossibility of cutting a curve with too thick a waste edge, I'd say the blanks were first squares cut as close to the maximum dimension of the coin, as is possible, and then a circle marked onto these (another point here is this would of course 'lead' the work and take away a lot of the individuality).

My theory then is the circle would likely not always be perfectly centred on the square blank, namely, it could potentially be in a position where it already has one or two sides minutely breaching the edges of the blank.

Where you find one 'longer' flat edge followed by a nice curve, it would be my proposal that the 'stamp' breached one edge of the blank, and was extremely close to the other, allowing the worker to follow the curve more easily, due to the easily bending away of the thin waste strip. Shorter, more arduos cuts, suggest there was a greater amount of waste between the 'curve' and the edge of the blank, and we would be talking millimetres here.

I hope you can understand my thoughts? I did mentally put squares around each of your images, and thought the theory might hold water. Where there were short straight cuts, I presumed to find either a longer straight 'edge' on the opposite side, or a slight curvature, both indicating that the stamp was either perfectly against the edge of the square (curve on coin) or fractionally over (flat edge on coin) with the short cuts opposite being due to the thickness of waste, which couldn't easily be forced away by the shears to form curves. A perfect '50p' crown might indicate a nice centrally struck circle on the square flan...probably a pain in the arse for the cutters!

If you consider any logic in the above ramblings, you could try drawing squares over the coins, using the proposed theory. If the squares all turned out the similar in size, it would add a little weight to the theory, maybe?

[Rob 3,152]

Another variable, Rob, it that these are pretty chunky bits of silver to cut by hand. Forming curves would be near impossible at this thickness without grinding afterwards. Even cutting the thinnest aluminium sheet with modern cutting shears it is all but impossible to get them to form a curve, UNLESS the waste edge is very thin, namely, right against the edge of the sheet!

I don't feel these coins would be cut entirely free-hand, wouldn't there be too many mistakes at apprentiship level to justify it? My thoughts would be a lightly stamped circle to cut around. Also, in view of the near-impossibility of cutting a curve with too thick a waste edge, I'd say the blanks were first squares cut as close to the maximum dimension of the coin, as is possible, and then a circle marked onto these (another point here is this would of course 'lead' the work and take away a lot of the individuality).

My theory then is the circle would likely not always be perfectly centred on the square blank, namely, it could potentially be in a position where it already has one or two sides minutely breaching the edges of the blank.

Where you find one 'longer' flat edge followed by a nice curve, it would be my proposal that the 'stamp' breached one edge of the blank, and was extremely close to the other, allowing the worker to follow the curve more easily, due to the easily bending away of the thin waste strip. Shorter, more arduos cuts, suggest there was a greater amount of waste between the 'curve' and the edge of the blank, and we would be talking millimetres here.

I hope you can understand my thoughts? I did mentally put squares around each of your images, and thought the theory might hold water. Where there were short straight cuts, I presumed to find either a longer straight 'edge' on the opposite side, or a slight curvature, both indicating that the stamp was either perfectly against the edge of the square (curve on coin) or fractionally over (flat edge on coin) with the short cuts opposite being due to the thickness of waste, which couldn't easily be forced away by the shears to form curves. A perfect '50p' crown might indicate a nice centrally struck circle on the square flan...probably a pain in the arse for the cutters!

If you consider any logic in the above ramblings, you could try drawing squares over the coins, using the proposed theory. If the squares all turned out the similar in size, it would add a little weight to the theory, maybe?

This idea might have some merit, so I will have a look later on.

We know that punches existed at York to cut out a circle as the coinage is usually found without any flats except where the sheet was incorrectly positioned and the dies passed over the edge. These coins are usually centred on one side only with the other being slightly off-centre as a result of the dies not being in perfect alignment.

In the case of Truro and Exeter coinage, it would appear from the coins which are frequently double struck that traditional methods were employed, but the use of a rocker press is not excluded as there are coins with a characteristic bow.

The list of equipment seized in June 1646 gives 6 pairs of shears for clipping, 4 large and 2 small, so we know that the flans were trimmed at some point using shears. There is also a pair of tongs and a hammer for rounding listed. There is also 'one iron plate for nayling' (annealing) which would make the shears easier to use.

The later undated crowns (C3-C7a) appear to be mostly round with only the following square examples in my images - C3 (4, 1 clipped), C6 (1), C7 (4) and C7a (1). There are a couple of hexagonal pieces too. The C7s account for nearly half the images I have of this type, but square flans as a percentage of the total C3-C7a (approx. 70) is no more than 15%. The 1644 dated crowns (C8-15) only have one or two at most that are square for any given type which equates to less than 10% (sample size approx.100), the rest are nominally round, as are most of the 1645 pieces. This would date the angular pieces to earlier in the period, or in very busy periods. It is possible the nine items listed as iron rings could be cutters which would be used up to the end of operations. This could explain the improvement over time in shape.

So many questions without answers.

[Coinery 1,147]

Another variable, Rob, it that these are pretty chunky bits of silver to cut by hand. Forming curves would be near impossible at this thickness without grinding afterwards. Even cutting the thinnest aluminium sheet with modern cutting shears it is all but impossible to get them to form a curve, UNLESS the waste edge is very thin, namely, right against the edge of the sheet!

I don't feel these coins would be cut entirely free-hand, wouldn't there be too many mistakes at apprentiship level to justify it? My thoughts would be a lightly stamped circle to cut around. Also, in view of the near-impossibility of cutting a curve with too thick a waste edge, I'd say the blanks were first squares cut as close to the maximum dimension of the coin, as is possible, and then a circle marked onto these (another point here is this would of course 'lead' the work and take away a lot of the individuality).

My theory then is the circle would likely not always be perfectly centred on the square blank, namely, it could potentially be in a position where it already has one or two sides minutely breaching the edges of the blank.

Where you find one 'longer' flat edge followed by a nice curve, it would be my proposal that the 'stamp' breached one edge of the blank, and was extremely close to the other, allowing the worker to follow the curve more easily, due to the easily bending away of the thin waste strip. Shorter, more arduos cuts, suggest there was a greater amount of waste between the 'curve' and the edge of the blank, and we would be talking millimetres here.

I hope you can understand my thoughts? I did mentally put squares around each of your images, and thought the theory might hold water. Where there were short straight cuts, I presumed to find either a longer straight 'edge' on the opposite side, or a slight curvature, both indicating that the stamp was either perfectly against the edge of the square (curve on coin) or fractionally over (flat edge on coin) with the short cuts opposite being due to the thickness of waste, which couldn't easily be forced away by the shears to form curves. A perfect '50p' crown might indicate a nice centrally struck circle on the square flan...probably a pain in the arse for the cutters!

If you consider any logic in the above ramblings, you could try drawing squares over the coins, using the proposed theory. If the squares all turned out the similar in size, it would add a little weight to the theory, maybe?

This idea might have some merit, so I will have a look later on.

We know that punches existed at York to cut out a circle as the coinage is usually found without any flats except where the sheet was incorrectly positioned and the dies passed over the edge. These coins are usually centred on one side only with the other being slightly off-centre as a result of the dies not being in perfect alignment.

In the case of Truro and Exeter coinage, it would appear from the coins which are frequently double struck that traditional methods were employed, but the use of a rocker press is not excluded as there are coins with a characteristic bow.

The list of equipment seized in June 1646 gives 6 pairs of shears for clipping, 4 large and 2 small, so we know that the flans were trimmed at some point using shears. There is also a pair of tongs and a hammer for rounding listed. There is also 'one iron plate for nayling' (annealing) which would make the shears easier to use.

The later undated crowns (C3-C7a) appear to be mostly round with only the following square examples in my images - C3 (4, 1 clipped), C6 (1), C7 (4) and C7a (1). There are a couple of hexagonal pieces too. The C7s account for nearly half the images I have of this type, but square flans as a percentage of the total C3-C7a (approx. 70) is no more than 15%. The 1644 dated crowns (C8-15) only have one or two at most that are square for any given type which equates to less than 10% (sample size approx.100), the rest are nominally round, as are most of the 1645 pieces. This would date the angular pieces to earlier in the period, or in very busy periods. It is possible the nine items listed as iron rings could be cutters which would be used up to the end of operations. This could explain the improvement over time in shape.

So many questions without answers.

Cutting crown flans by hand, you'd need a good pair of tongs/pliers to hold them with! I don't think it would be physically possibly to cut a thick decently-round flan by hand, without much time-consuming nibbling, leaving hand-cut flans, providing the square was close in size, which we'd presume it to be, with at least a third/two-thirds section which was a credible curve ( depending on how conscientious the cutter was) and the remaining edges a struggling series of awkward cuts, for the reasons mentioned?

What a subject, Rob, crikes!

[ski 1]

if this was the process set up at the exeter mint and it did produce crowns where the shape of the flan could give information on production runs, may i ask.......would we not see similarities with other denominations produced at that mint??

ski