Elizabeth I Sixpence

[Mr_Stephen 0]

Quite a nice example, but unfortunately hugely overpolished by a previous owner. Frustratingly, I can't make out either the mintmarks or the date. Can anyone help on either front?

Otherwise coin reads E[L]IZABETH·[D]·G·ANG·FR·[ET]·HI·REGINA // POSV DEVM AD IVTORE[M] MEV[M]

[TomGoodheart 444]

My guess is that the mark is a coronet, 1567-70, but I can only make out the 156 ....

Coinery's your man. Maybe he can tell from the shape of the lettering or something!

[Coinery 1,249]

My guess is that the mark is a coronet, 1567-70, but I can only make out the 156 ....

Coinery's your man. Maybe he can tell from the shape of the lettering or something!

Had my head in the book while you were responding!

I was initially thinking inverted 8, but the reverse devices say 1569. Fortunately, the lions are the very distinctive punch 52 (which instantly gives us 69-72) and, as TGH has already pointed out, the coronet MM was finished in '70. The Lis are also identifiable as 34 (1569-1571). Also, the shield's right for the year, so 1969 is your year (as we can already see the 6).

This reverse was the common pairing with obverse 2 (BCW CN-2). However, whilst it's not a recorded pairing (as many aren't, yet) the obverse Privy mark does look like it might very well be over a lion (BCW CN-1), but that is something that can't be completely confirmed without a die-match, which wouldn't be so difficult, as the Lion privy mark is much rarer.

So, either: BCW CN-1:CN-i4 (coronet over lion obverse) or BCW CN-2:CN-i4 (straight coronet obverse)

Your bust is 4B by the way

[Rob 3,228]

My guess is that the mark is a coronet, 1567-70, but I can only make out the 156 ....

Coinery's your man. Maybe he can tell from the shape of the lettering or something!

Had my head in the book while you were responding!

I was initially thinking inverted 8, but the reverse devices say 1569. Fortunately, the lions are the very distinctive punch 52 (which instantly gives us 69-72) and, as TGH has already pointed out, the coronet MM was finished in '70. The Lis are also identifiable as 34 (1569-1571). Also, the shield's right for the year, so 1969 is your year (as we can already see the 6).

This reverse was the common pairing with obverse 2 (BCW CN-2). However, whilst it's not a recorded pairing (as many aren't, yet) the obverse Privy mark does look like it might very well be over a lion (BCW CN-1), but that is something that can't be completely confirmed without a die-match, which wouldn't be so difficult, as the Lion privy mark is much rarer.

So, either: BCW CN-1:CN-i4 (coronet over lion obverse) or BCW CN-2:CN-i4 (straight coronet obverse)

Your bust is 4B by the way

Damned modern copies. They get everywhere.

[Coinery 1,249]

My guess is that the mark is a coronet, 1567-70, but I can only make out the 156 ....

Coinery's your man. Maybe he can tell from the shape of the lettering or something!

Had my head in the book while you were responding!

I was initially thinking inverted 8, but the reverse devices say 1569. Fortunately, the lions are the very distinctive punch 52 (which instantly gives us 69-72) and, as TGH has already pointed out, the coronet MM was finished in '70. The Lis are also identifiable as 34 (1569-1571). Also, the shield's right for the year, so 1969 is your year (as we can already see the 6).

This reverse was the common pairing with obverse 2 (BCW CN-2). However, whilst it's not a recorded pairing (as many aren't, yet) the obverse Privy mark does look like it might very well be over a lion (BCW CN-1), but that is something that can't be completely confirmed without a die-match, which wouldn't be so difficult, as the Lion privy mark is much rarer.

So, either: BCW CN-1:CN-i4 (coronet over lion obverse) or BCW CN-2:CN-i4 (straight coronet obverse)

Your bust is 4B by the way

Damned modern copies. They get everywhere.

I did just recently pick up a rubbish 1571 copy (another year to add to the watch list)! Though the '71 was not really a 'genuine' counterfeit, I did get a PROPER Liz shilling forgery that seuk emailed me about!

Not sure if I actually thanked you for that seuk? Thank-you!

Just got it, Rob!

Edited February 27, 2013 by Coinery

[Mr_Stephen 0]

Wow. Such detail, and such timeliness of reply. Thank you very much!

On a side note, I stuck my beak into a copy of Spink for the first time yesterday. Was somewhat disappointed to realise that it doesn't appear to tell you the years that the various different sub-types of coins were minted. Is there a better/more thorough work available that would do this...?

[Coinery 1,249]

Wow. Such detail, and such timeliness of reply. Thank you very much!

On a side note, I stuck my beak into a copy of Spink for the first time yesterday. Was somewhat disappointed to realise that it doesn't appear to tell you the years that the various different sub-types of coins were minted. Is there a better/more thorough work available that would do this...?

Yes, you have realised the imperfection of the Spink catalogue. Under one Spink number you can literally have dozens of coins, from an ultra-rare variety, right through to the commonest type, all priced the same, of course! Having said that, as a quick reference I quite like it.

It's a giant leap, but there's really nothing of great value inbetween...Brown, Comber & Wilkinson's book 'The Hammered Silver Coins Produced at the Tower Mint During the Reign of Elizabeth I. (2006) Updated 2012.

It's the best out there, and it is good! In fact it's excellent!

Don't be tempted by JJ North for Elizabeth, it doesn't add anything to the information in Spink's.

[Peckris 579]

Wow. Such detail, and such timeliness of reply. Thank you very much!

On a side note, I stuck my beak into a copy of Spink for the first time yesterday. Was somewhat disappointed to realise that it doesn't appear to tell you the years that the various different sub-types of coins were minted. Is there a better/more thorough work available that would do this...?

Yes, you have realised the imperfection of the Spink catalogue. Under one Spink number you can literally have dozens of coins, from an ultra-rare variety, right through to the commonest type, all priced the same, of course! Having said that, as a quick reference I quite like it.

It's a giant leap, but there's really nothing of great value inbetween...Brown, Comber & Wilkinson's book 'The Hammered Silver Coins Produced at the Tower Mint During the Reign of Elizabeth I. (2006) Updated 2012.

It's the best out there, and it is good! In fact it's excellent!

Don't be tempted by JJ North for Elizabeth, it doesn't add anything to the information in Spink's.

Yes, Seaby's (as the Spink catalogue used to be) was until the mid-to-late-60s a type catalogue, listing the value (often in only two grades) of the most typical i.e. common example of a particular type. I remember the huge leap when in 1969 I saved up my schoolboy pennies for their 'Standard Catalogue Part II - 1816-1968', the first time they published values for EVERY date, and SOME varieties. Since then, the Standard Catalogue has grown and grown into probably the definitive price guide for milled coins, with a vast number of varieties included. In fact, all they exclude these days are micro-varieties.

However, when you go back to the pre-milled section it becomes more and more like the old Seaby's - a type guide, and when you get back to the Roman section, it's even worse : you often get a single type for each denarius/aureus/sestertius/etc to cover an entire emperor's reign, irrespective of how many types there are.

[azda 983]

I womder how spinks new book will look for 2014 given the fact they are pulling the decimal section. Will the be going more in depth or leave it as is.

I'm sure we'll see at the end of year

[Peckris 579]

I womder how spinks new book will look for 2014 given the fact they are pulling the decimal section. Will the be going more in depth or leave it as is.

I'm sure we'll see at the end of year

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't.

[Coinery 1,249]

I womder how spinks new book will look for 2014 given the fact they are pulling the decimal section. Will the be going more in depth or leave it as is.

I'm sure we'll see at the end of year

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't.

I've got a well-thumbed 2012 if you want it (no charge)? Would be a fair swap for all I've learned on here!

[Peckris 579]

I womder how spinks new book will look for 2014 given the fact they are pulling the decimal section. Will the be going more in depth or leave it as is.

I'm sure we'll see at the end of year

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't.

I've got a well-thumbed 2012 if you want it (no charge)? Would be a fair swap for all I've learned on here!

That's a very kind offer! I would at least offer to pay the postage

[Rob 3,228]

I wish they had split it in two with the break around 1662. That would currently be 50:50, though the new material would soon expand part two. As it stands, the size would reduce by about 100 pages, whilst part 2 will be 100 pages and growing.

[azda 983]

1662 sounds about perfect. Lets see what the 2014 brings

[Coinery 1,249]

I womder how spinks new book will look for 2014 given the fact they are pulling the decimal section. Will the be going more in depth or leave it as is.

I'm sure we'll see at the end of year

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't.

I've got a well-thumbed 2012 if you want it (no charge)? Would be a fair swap for all I've learned on here!

That's a very kind offer! I would at least offer to pay the postage

PM me your address, and I'll get it in the post to you! It is battered, though...you might even want to send it back!

Let me do a John and say, no charge at all, but if you fancy dropping a couple of posty/postie quid in the Air-Ambulance kitty, that would make everyone a winner!

[Peckris 579]

I womder how spinks new book will look for 2014 given the fact they are pulling the decimal section. Will the be going more in depth or leave it as is.

I'm sure we'll see at the end of year

If my prayers were answered it would be slimmer and cheaper, but I bet they aren't.

I've got a well-thumbed 2012 if you want it (no charge)? Would be a fair swap for all I've learned on here!

That's a very kind offer! I would at least offer to pay the postage

PM me your address, and I'll get it in the post to you! It is battered, though...you might even want to send it back!

Let me do a John and say, no charge at all, but if you fancy dropping a couple of posty/postie quid in the Air-Ambulance kitty, that would make everyone a winner!

Will do. Message sent. And thanks again.

[Mr_Stephen 0]

If anyone else has any elderly Spinks they'd like to get rid of, then I'd be a happy benefactor too

[HistoricCoinage 160]

If anyone else has any elderly Spinks they'd like to get rid of, then I'd be a happy benefactor too

Send me an email in April and I'll see what I can do.

[Mr_Stephen 0]

Alarm set for fourteen days.

Perhaps I'll have to pester you with less questions if I get more ready access to a Spink...!

[Coinery 1,249]

Alarm set for fourteen days.

Perhaps I'll have to pester you with less questions if I get more ready access to a Spink...!

Greater knowledge leads only to greater questions!

[Peter 615]

I buy more FOIE GRAS than Spinks I do indulge though.

[HistoricCoinage 160]

If anyone else has any elderly Spinks they'd like to get rid of, then I'd be a happy benefactor too

Send me an email in April and I'll see what I can do.

I didn't get me an email!

Send me an email with your address and I'll get one out to you, it'll only cost you postage.

[HAXall 0]

Hello everyone.I wanted to ask for help with my sixpence.i have 3 questions:

1.What is the date on it?

2.Where and Why did Lizzy loose her "Z"?

3.How often does it happen?

[HAXall 0]

[Coinery 1,249]

Hello everyone.I wanted to ask for help with my sixpence.i have 3 questions:

1.What is the date on it?

2.Where and Why did Lizzy loose her "Z"?

3.How often does it happen?

It's just a straight 68, probably a blocked die, though may have been a damaged punch.

The missing Z is a known error, of which there are various misspellings of Elizabeth, for obverse BCW CN-2

How often? I wouldn't say hen's teeth, but certainly not common. The reverse looks to be CN-h7, which would make it an unrecorded pairing but, again, unrecorded pairings turn up quite regularly, and the punch details are not conclusive.

Nice spot, though, and great to have BCW CN-2:h7 in your armoury!