Happy Guy Fawkes Day!

Post something English!


Henry V
AR Penny
York, 1413-1422
HENRICVS REX ANGLIE
Crowned bust of king facing; mullet to left and whole annulet to right of crown.
CIVITAS EBORACI
Long cross pattée with three pellets in each angle; quatrefoil at centre.
Spink 1786

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

why did they have problems making the coins round at the time?

Ruben

 

Silver Penny of Edward the Confessor, Trefoil Quadrilateral type issued 1046-1048 (Spinks #1174, North #817)

Obverse: diademed bust of king to left with scepter, 'EDPER D REX'
Reverse: Cross with quatrefoil and pellets in angles, 'PVLFPINE ON LVN' (Wulfwine, London)

 

Are you sarcastic or serious? I'd be glad to answer, but my response depends on this... :mouth:

WOW! I am most jealous.

 

Or blow up a building!

If you can't do either of those, burn someone in effigy.

 

edit; -_- posted this in the wrong topic lol sorry

 

I'm serious. I saw a plateful of Roman coins the other day none round. That coin posted was also not uniformly round. I've seen Byzantium coins at the Museum round? What was the issue?

Ruben

 

this is the best i can do

 

They were capable of it, certainly. But it usually just wasn't worth it - too much work. The weight of the coins was regulated differently as well: silver and gold coins weren't struck at a particular weight per particular coin, but, say, at a rate of 100 gold coins to the pound.

Later, starting in the 4th century mainly, as silver and gold coins got thinner, clipping became a problem. Criminals would snip off bits of silver from the coins and melt it down. This problem eventually led to the widespread use of milling machines for coins in the 16th century. That's why British pound coins to this day say DECVS ET TVTAMEN (An ornament and a safeguard).

 

rim lettering I take it?

Ruben

 

Yes.

 

This pretty much sums up my English collection.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x275/clembo1872/scan0013-6.jpg

 

Here are a few I like and you can see the others in the Link below.
1.TOP Farthing Obverse; Bare head of Edward VII right, EDWARDVS VII DEI GRA: BRITT: OMN: REX FID: DEF: IND: IMP: Reverse; Britannia seated right on rock by sea, holding shield and trident FARTHING date 1906.
2. Bottom Silver Halfcrown of George VI (1937-1946) Diameter: 32.31mm Weight: 14.1380g Fineness: .500 Silver, .400 Copper, .050 Nickel, .050 Zinc Silver Content: 0.2273 oz Obverse: Bare head of George VI left GEORGIVS VI D:G:BR:OMN:REX Reverse: Arms of the United Kingdom, crowned monograms either side FIDEF IND:IMP HALFCROWN date

 

If I had to pick one this would be the one.
Halfpenny (1959-1967) Obverse; Laureated head of Elizabeth II right (composition changed) +ELIZABETH·II·DEI·GRATIA·REGINA·F: Reverse; Golden Hind ship under full sail left HALF PENNY date 1964

 

But even going back into the greek and roman periods they were able to make very exacting metal objects, especially weapons, and you'd think that the easiest way to assure the proper weight was to fix the dimensions of the coins.

It makes for ugly coins. I'd think that alone would motivate them to make better coinage. But you know what, their wasn't that much of a cash economy in those early times.

Ruben

 

I'm sure you're right. I was giving a quick answer that I extrapolated from Roman minting practices. Thanks for fixing it. :smile

 

that is LATE, way after the renaissance

BTW renaissance is the most difficult world to spell in the whole of west tongs.

Ruben

 

Fixing the dimensions of coins is not nearly as easy as you think, first of all.

Second, I do not think the coins are ugly by any stretch of the term. Granted, the penny I posted is an extreme example of the mis-shaping GDJMSP and is obviously not nearly as attractive as a fully shaped one like Drusus posted. But even so, round rims do not make for an attractive coin. The engraving of the dies is the most important part, all other factors are secondary.

As for the economy of the ancient world, I think I can safely say that, in the past few months, I've read all major published works on the topic and examined all scholarly models. Scholars from the 60's to the 90's shared the same view you had, that the economy was not monetized (one even went so far as to say that coins were solely political objects!). But, with the introduction of statistical analysis to numismatic material, it has become obvious that the Roman Empire in particular struck more than enough coinage to support a monetized economy. Attach this to new methods that have been developed to analyze individual coin finds and hoards, and the picture that emerges is a cash economy not too far from our own, complete with fiduciary currencies! (I'd recommend you find a copy of Coinage in the Roman Economy by Kenneth Harl)