As some of you may know, I primarily collect regal English and Irish copper coins with an emphasis on those struck by the Soho Mint. Although my collection is primarily focused on dates ranging from the reign of William and Mary to George III, I occasionally come across an earlier piece at a price I can not resist. The coins pictured were purchased from incorrectly identified dealer inventory for next to nothing, hence my inability to resist them. On any note, I have been trying to attribute them, and I came up with Breen 212 on the first and Breen 208 on the last. Breen notes that multiple variations exist within both 212 and 208, but I do not have a more specific reference to investigate further. Does such a reference exist? Also, please feel free to chime in on the attribution if you know. I am eager to learn more! Breen 212? Breen 208?
I don't think I could consider myself a St. Patrick collector, I have a total of 1 farthing! Would like to pick up a halfpenny though. Syd Martin wrote an excellent book on the St. Patrick coinage that covers all known die varieties. It is the only way to go for attributing these coins.
@l.cutler thank you for the information! I wonder if this is something I could check out from the ANA. Do you have any pictures of your farthing?
I don't have a picture, I am afraid I am pretty much technologically illiterate! I do have Martin's book and if I can find an extra hour or two may be able to ID them. I would definitely recommend getting your hands on the book if you can though. It goes way beyond IDing the coins and the information it contains would be invaluable if you have an interest in the coins.
@l.cutler that would be extremely helpful. I found a copy of Martin’s book but I’ll hold off for a cheaper option if/when it comes available.
OK, here is what I came up with and I am pretty confident on the attributions. The top coin is 1b.1-Ba.1 which is a Rarity 6+. R6 is 13 to 30 known so a R6+ would be closer to the 13 than the 30. The second coin is 3e.1-Fd.2 which is an R7. R7 is 4 to 12 known. Now usually rarity numbers like these would be reason to jump up and down and scream. On the St. Patrick coins though this is about the average. A quick look and I didn't see any more common than R6 and quite a few R8. Mine is also an R7. Interestingly Martin doesn't call them halfpence and farthings, he differentiates them by calling them small and large. His belief is that they were all intended to be the same denomination just made at two different times. Looking at these has peaked my interest, and I think I'll be rereading the book! Thanks for showing them.
Very cool! Thank you for taking the time to attribute these. I’ve read a few articles on the St. Patrick pieces, and apparently they are shrouded in mystery. There just isn’t a whole lot of information on them. I also noticed that several articles made the argument for large and small as opposed to halfpenny and farthing. It seems as though most believe these were struck in Dublin (1663-1672). If that were the case, then it is likely that Swedish copper was used. From what I recall, there were no major fluctuations in the copper market at the time. I found an excerpt from a book written by Franklin D. Scott (1988) that seemingly supports the idea of somewhat stable copper prices. He points out that when Spain ceased production of copper coins the market price of copper fell considerably between 1626-1631. He then argues that Sweden tried to gain a monopoly on the market but never succeeded. It appears that prices remained low even though Sweden was trying to create more demand. All of this is to say that there was likely not enough fluctuation in copper prices to warrant a reduction in weight if struck at two different times. From the sources I have, it also appears these pieces were not well received in Ireland so it seems odd they would strike a second batch at a later date with a reduction in the weight if they were trying to gain public acceptance. Of course the flaw in this logic is that it assumes the small pieces came after the large, but if it were the opposite, it would make a stronger case for the small vs large designation( i.e., increasing the weight to gain more public acceptance). These points make me lean towards the explanation that the size difference marks two denominations. All of this, of course, is my speculation and I am confident that Martin has an excellent argument for why he uses the term large and small as opposed to halfpenny and farthing. Now I’m even more curious, so perhaps I should break down and spend the $80 on the book.
$80? Must have come way down. I thought it was $150 back when it first came out. Yes, $80 would be a bargain. Where can I get a copy? Did some checking cheapest I can find is $95 through Charlie Davis. Still a good deal. Next best I could find was $125.
