How useful is this as a research tool?

[Rob 3,152]

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

If you look at the images in Besly's article in the 1992 BNJ, the illustrations used for the early halfcrowns show similar shapes for obverse H and to a lesser extent E. J14s whicha re the commonest Exter halfcrown are often seen with a square flan. The half unites both have a series of straight edges as do the first shilling, threepence and penny. Clearly a sample size of one is inadequate to make a broad statement, but there are sufficient examples of polygonal flans for the idea to be worth pursuing.

[Colin G. 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?

I can understand your logic and it may be worth investigating, but I just could not see anything being that controlled at that time. I think it is more likely to be a feature related to the individual worker to some extent, but even then the amount of variables would inevitably lead to variations in appearance that would also question the reliability of the study.

If we all did a similar exercise with paper and scissors, there would be some repetition in the principles each of use (the way we hold the paper and scissors, the size of the cuts we adopt etc.) and whilst it may be possible to identify some of the discs coming from specific persons, I would doubt that it would be possible to reliably allocate them all to individual persons.

I also hope that makes sense!!

[Rob 3,152]

I can understand your logic and it may be worth investigating, but I just could not see anything being that controlled at that time. I think it is more likely to be a feature related to the individual worker to some extent, but even then the amount of variables would inevitably lead to variations in appearance that would also question the reliability of the study.

If we all did a similar exercise with paper and scissors, there would be some repetition in the principles each of use (the way we hold the paper and scissors, the size of the cuts we adopt etc.) and whilst it may be possible to identify some of the discs coming from specific persons, I would doubt that it would be possible to reliably allocate them all to individual persons.

I also hope that makes sense!!

These are the lines I was thinking along. An individual has idiosyncracies which are difficult to disguise. In this case it is the difference between two workers, one of whom makes a couple of cuts down two sides, whilst the other is more methodical in trying to approximate to a circle. The second action would undoubtedly take longer to perform and would be consistent with a person who was conscientiously a perfectionist. The other wants to get the job done. This would obviously only apply to distinct features and not to a small arbitrary cut, but the flans with 6 or more flats are deliberate, and would imply a particular individual was involved.

[ski 1]

An individual has idiosyncracies which are difficult to disguise

and yet sometimes difficult to be completely reproducable on a consistant scale.

its a wonderful concept.....the process can be initiated on a very basic level by individuals working to a time scale, its human nature to develop easy ways and short cuts to achieve an end product..........but at that time, with the limited resources, im not so sure.

that said if blank flans were prepared by 1 or 2 individuals....who knows.........worth persuing.

are there blank files ever reported/ found from this mint for these coins?

ski

[Rob 3,152]

A full list of seized items as quoted by Besly the BNJ is as follows.

It is reasonable to assume that this is a full set of tools required for mint operations, though Besly notes the absence of a balance and weights.

The usual method of coin production from plate would be to melt the plate, assay it, refine as required, cast into ingots which were hammered into plate of the correct thickness. Blanks would then be cut out and rounded in a stack with a hammer before annealing to soften them prior to striking. The finished coins would be pickled in an acidic solution to blanche the surface. This was a fairly universal method of production.

The unrounded coins should therefore provide evidence of an individual's hand based on the style of cutting and additionally may possibly be an indicator of a very busy period at the mint. The receipt book A entries for October to December 1643 give a total of about £2715 of plate with a couple of weeks where there were high amounts received. Payments in coin were particularly high from the end of November through to the end of December 1643 when nearly £2000 in coin was paid out. The main military activity in the West Country in this month appears to have been a renewed assault on Plymouth by the besieging Royalists.

All of this can be further muddied by the degree of uncertainty surrounding the actual location of where the undated coins were struck. The currently accepted placements are Truro for the A1 crown and all subsequent issues at Exeter. However, the A and B crown obverses use a T shaped comma in the legend stops. Obverse C is B recut, when the T part of the stop is overcut with a conventional pellet. The question has been asked before and must be asked again and again until a firm location can be established, whether the T stop was a privy mark identifying the mint location as Truro. As the 1644 dated pieces were definitely struck at Exeter, the undated pieces can be assigned to the first 6 months of operations here, possibly extended by a short window at the end of the Truro period when the B2 coins may have been struck.

[TomGoodheart 400]

Very interesting! I can quite see that the shape of a flan could be a clue as to which were made at a similar time or by the same workers. I agree that we all develop techniques for mundane tasks and variation in how we do them can show up in the product. I think for short run coins like these it may also be an indicator that similar shape coins were struck around the same time.

I think the technique might be more difficult to apply with smaller denominations however. My understanding (and do correct me if anyone knows differently) is that shillings (and probably half crowns and sixpences, smaller and larger coins proving more tricky) were crudely shaped and then the planchets were stacked a bit like modern coin rolls. The stack (roll) of coins was then clamped at the ends to hold it together and the resulting 'sausage' hammered along its length to round it into a cylinder shape.

I can imagine therefore that planchets made together might all have a similar shape. The problem with, say shillings, is that I also imagine that the planchets, once rounded, were then thrown into a bucket and the coiners would just pick out some when they were ready to hammer the next coin. Thus a batch might not be used by only one coiner, or separate planchets will have been struck with different dies or a planchet from one batch might be overlooked and not stuck until some time later. There is also of course the problem of clipping and sample size.

But a while back I mentioned the Shuttlewood privy mark ® shilling as having a 'squarish flan'. Well, my ® shilling has a squarish flan (!), as do these few others from a random sample:

And although it's a bit of a leap, I find it tempting to think that they might have been made within a few days of each other, by the same team of workers, from a batch of planchets made at the same time.

[Rob 3,152]

Very interesting! I can quite see that the shape of a flan could be a clue as to which were made at a similar time or by the same workers. I agree that we all develop techniques for mundane tasks and variation in how we do them can show up in the product. I think for short run coins like these it may also be an indicator that similar shape coins were struck around the same time.

I think the technique might be more difficult to apply with smaller denominations however. My understanding (and do correct me if anyone knows differently) is that shillings (and probably half crowns and sixpences, smaller and larger coins proving more tricky) were crudely shaped and then the planchets were stacked a bit like modern coin rolls. The stack (roll) of coins was then clamped at the ends to hold it together and the resulting 'sausage' hammered along its length to round it into a cylinder shape.

I can imagine therefore that planchets made together might all have a similar shape. The problem with, say shillings, is that I also imagine that the planchets, once rounded, were then thrown into a bucket and the coiners would just pick out some when they were ready to hammer the next coin. Thus a batch might not be used by only one coiner, or separate planchets will have been struck with different dies or a planchet from one batch might be overlooked and not stuck until some time later. There is also of course the problem of clipping and sample size.

But a while back I mentioned the Shuttlewood privy mark ® shilling as having a 'squarish flan'. Well, my ® shilling has a squarish flan (!), as do these few others from a random sample:

And although it's a bit of a leap, I find it tempting to think that they might have been made within a few days of each other, by the same team of workers, from a batch of planchets made at the same time.

I don't think it is that much of a leap to say this. In fact this is the point I am making.

I also think it likely that a batch of plate would be completely coined soon after it came into the mint. Levies would be greatest when the largest bodies of troops were present, which would obviously want paying. I don't think there would be that many unused blanks left lying around, rather they would coin the blanks that had been made on the spot with unprocessed plate being retained separately.

The list of articles states a pair of tongs and a hammer for rounding, suggesting the flans were rounded individually. That would result in greater irregularity as it would be necessary to hold the flan in the tongs while hammering the edge. This would not be as stable as a stack of clamped flans.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Rob

[Peter 615]

I flan you sir (as in Tiswas style).A lot of good debate and reasoning.