purchased this last week and the 2x2 it was in was labeled with all the usual stuff as well as "made from crude local dies" and "York mint".The guy who sold it to me said you could tell the mint by the quadrefoil design on the center part of the cross.My questions are:is this true and what were crude local dies??
I was looking around on English penny websites to find a coin similar to mine and found this one.Only problem is,it's Henry IV and listed as very rare. Ian,any possibility of showing it to your expert?
I'm sitting with me oldye worldye Coincrafte bookye open, so I claim no mystical expyrtyfe. During the first reign (1461-64) the York Mint was under the control of Archbishop Booth. Obverse legend: Edward DI GRA REX ANG. Front facing king quatrefoils by bust, mintmark `rose'. Reverse legend: CIVITA EBORACI (City of York). Voided quatrefoil in centre of reverse cross. So, it appears that the voided quatrefoil was a design element of the York issue for that period, and yes, you can identify it as `York' as a consequence. The sede vacante issue of York (1464-5) under Archbishop Neville has a quatrefoil at the centre of the cross. Quote `This issue was rather crude in style, being struck from locally made dies'. The obverse has a G and key by the kneck. The mintmark is either a plain cross or a rose. A similar one was sruck from better qualitydies produced in London. Different mm's. His second reign saw coins being minted at York too. Quatrefoil in the reverse cross in most cases. Ian
Simply looking at the Coincraft book, your coin does appear to be more in keeping with Edward IV portrait and the issue under Archbishop Neville, than it does Henry IV. The quatrefoil design at centre is common to York. The York mint issues for Henry IV have him with a long neck. Unless they have found a new variety, it looks to me that whoever attributed it as Henry IV got it wrong. The bit at the lhs next to his neck (A `G' perhaps?) leads me to reach that conclusion. I see no mention of that anywhere for Henry IV. Ian
Thanks so much Ian,I knew I could count on ye,and thy resources... I guess I can keep my label "as is"? Unfortunately,it is difficult to see any of the inscription,can you make out anything?
You are most welcome. The coin is most definitely (at least to my mind) the sede vacante issue and as such it has a definite minting date of 1464-5. It's not often that you can be so exact with coins of that era as to pinpoint it's date of minting within a one year margin of error. In my rush to help you find an answer I forgot to say the obvious. It's a neat coin and a very nice find!! Sorry mate...the legends are well off the flan by the looks of things. Ian
