Another Rose Noble

The Noble was first struck in Edward III's reign to replace the Florin (Double Leopard or whatever you want to call it).

The Noble was discontinued in the reign of Edward IV, and was replaced by a Ryal (or Rose Noble). If i remember rightly the Ryal was valued at 10/- rather than 6/8d that the noble always had been.

The angel was introduced shortly afterwards as a new 6/8d coin to help fill the void left by the absence of the Noble.

The Ryal came and went over the next century or so, Edward VI struck them, Henry VII had then, Queen Mary I and the demomination ceased in James I's reign if i remember rightly. A somewhat patchy, sporadic and totally unsuccessful existance for that 10/- coin.

The Angel was later revalued to 10/- anyhow and circulated alongside the gold half sovereign of the same value.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

......and seeing my chance to butt in to this thread.....

Just to make a point, here's a silver `Ryal' of James VI of Scotland before he also became James I of England (valued at 30 shillings Scots).

 

Not according to my CoinCraft 2000 or my Seaby 1993 he didn't.


The only monarchs listed as having had Ryals are;

Edward IV (as 10/-)
Henry VII (as 10/-)
Mary I (as 15/-)
Elizabeth I (as 15/-)
James I [Rose Ryal] at 30/-


No mention of Henry VI, he just had Nobles and Angels.

 

And yes they did all look diffeent, but the denomination wasn't always different.

As you can see the Ryals of Elizabeth and Mary were both 15/- pieces and the Rose Ryal of James I was actually in reality a Double Ryal.

 

I'm with you on that score Syl. The Noble had a weight of 108 grains. The Ryal (aka `Rose Noble') had a weight of 120 grains.

The Angel had a weight of 80 grains and a value of 6/8d. That's the exact same weight as the Half Ryal (which was worth 5/-). Hence I presume that the Angel was introduced at 6/8d either because the half Ryal's gold value had become worth more than its issue value or there was rampant inflation (effectively both) .

The Rose Ryal of James I of Britain had an original issue value of 30/-, but by 1612 the value had risen to 33/-. By the third coinage (1619-25) it's weight had been dropped to 196.5 grains and face value returned to 30/-.

Sticking with James 1, the Angel had an issue value of 10/- . That was 11/- by 1612. The third coinage saw a smaller coin (reduced dimension and weight) returning the value back to 10/-.

The Laurel had a value of 20/- and (as a 3rd coinage coin) was minted presumably to replace the earlier `Sovereign' (?) The Half Laurel (10/-) appears to have circulated contemporaneously with the Angel, but no doubt there would also have been Half Sovereigns around at the same time too. Personally I can't fathom why they felt the need for different coinage of the same value on the go at the same time. Must have been a `bad timing' thing (or something).

All very confusing....but to add to that general confusion, James before ascending to the throne of England had issued Nobles and Ryals . Mary Queen of Scots did not issue any coin with the name of `Noble' but there were three separate silver Ryal issues.

1) Gold Lion Noble (78.5 grains) value of 75/- Scots.
2) Gold Thistle Noble (117.75 grains) value 146/8d Scots
3) Silver Ryal with an issue value of 30/- in 1567 (rising to 36/9d in 1578

Just my bodle's worth ;-)

Ian

 

Going back to your point on the 'angels', 'half unite', 'half laurel', 'half sovereign', 'double crown'... scenario.

They were all 10/- pieces (per say, taking out the complex gold price rises leading to fluctuating values). Sovereigns and half sovereigns were named after the monarch and were 20/- and 10/- coins respectively (yes the value changed sometimes, but generally that was their value), there was a hammered gold pound in Elizabeth's reign, but since the sovereign was worth a pound anyhow it's not too difficult to follow.

When England and Scotland were joined in 1603 with James VI, they changed the name of the sovereign/pound to Unite, to celebrate the uniting of kingdoms. Then when they changed the profile to show the King wearing Laurels instead of a crown they quickly became nicknamed Laurels. So Unites shifted to Laurels, and then with the Charles I issue it was back to the Crown and back to the old name, Unite.

It might seem a bit easier to follow if we think of the denominations as 20/- pieces with different names, so kinda like Liberty, Buffalo, Jefferson. US collectors refer to them by those names and they are generally understood.

Gets more confusing in the 10/- and 5/- departments though.

The 5/- for instance; Crown (gold), Quarter Laurel, Crown (silver), Half Angel...

10/-; Angel, double crown, half sovereign, half unite, half laurel, silver half pounds, gold halfpounds.

Add into this fluctuating gold prices and frequent changes in denominations and i'm surprised your Jacobean merchant knew what to think.

 

No i'm saying they are called Ryals, no matter what the design or the denomination they are (and were called Ryals), Ryal is a fairly loose term, a recycled term you may say.

Just like the term florin was recycled, would you argue that an Edward III florin is not a florin because it had a different value to a Victorian florin?

Edward IV Ryals are just that, ryals. Rose noble is not generally used.

 

Scots Ryal.

Ian,am I correct in saying that the Scots Ryal was first introduced in 1565? I know that are 2 types for that year - one with Darnley's name appearing first & the other with Mary's name appearing first.Later on,the Ryals were counterstamped with a thistle (as in the one in the picture) to revalue it. I have seen the Coincraft catalogue that lists the coins of Scotland,Ireland,the Isle of Man & the Islands.It is a pink-coloured one that came out in 2000.Have you read this book?

 

No but i've got the blue version and if the pink one is anything like the blue then it's well worth the money.

 

Sylvester,I have seen the blue one,which,like Spink's lists the coins of England & Great Britain.I should email Richard Lobel & ask him when is the new edition coming out.

 

The first silver Ryal was introduced in 1565 , that much is true. Coincraft has it that the Scot's Three Pounds gold coin was also called a Ryal. That may well have been what it was called in other countries but I do not believe that it was actually called a Ryal in Scotland. Here it appears to have been known simply as a Three Pounds piece. It had a weight of 117 3/4 grains of gold. The reverse legend is `Justus Fide Vivit' that is, `the just man lives by faith' (Rom.i.17). It was struck each year of 1555, 1557, and 1558 before her marriage to Francis II of France. All are extremely rare (as are all coins with Mary's portrait on them).

As to the silver Ryals, the two Ryals dated 1565 are different by more than just the placement of the names in the legends. The first has Darnley and Mary facing each other (obv.) with a crown over shield (rev). The second has the crown over shield as the obv. and a tortoise climbing a palm tree as the reverse. It was issued during 1565, 1566, and 1567.

The third Ryal type issued during Mary's second widowhood sees Henry's name removed from the obverse legend but the style is the same as for the second Ryal. Here's the one I have (which is also counterstamped with the crowned thistle):-

I have that book, yes. It has lots of useful information but strangely enough doesn't provide information like dimension / weights. When checking reference on Scottish coinage, the first book I reach for by choice is actually the much more compact Seaby's `Coins and Tokens of Scotland'.

The revaluation of 1578 saw silver coins that were in circulation at that time being recalled for counterstamping to upgrade the value in keeping with the value on the world market for silver. The silver Ryal as a denomination was subsequently significantly revalued upwards from the original issue value of 30/- to that of 36/9d.

 

Ian,there's a section on Scots coins that will interest you.I am sure that you will be impressed with the list of what I have got in my collection.

 

Nice coin!

 

You sure got that right Doug! Congratulations.

 

Yes. I see what you mean and i bet it's even better in the flesh too



Ian