Circa 1689 Rose Farthing Pattern of Mary II of England, Scotland, & Ireland

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share this rose farthing pattern coin that I've had for a couple months now. It came in an undescribed lot of a couple coins with terrible photos so I took the gamble and it paid off in my opinion.

I don't know much about the coin (or even this era of British coinage) so any further information would be appreciated! I shared it on Reddit awhile back and one person said they thought it was gold-plated which, after looking at other photos online, I think they're right. Has anyone else ever ran into these coins?


Sources: Auction 1, Auction 2, Colin Cooke Website (halfway down), Website

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Can't help but a cool find, hopefully, more info surfaces for you.

 

I have not run across a gilt example before, but I am not surprised that they exist. I think the term "pattern" in this context is a bit misleading. With that said, several references still refer to them as "patterns". Montagu, for instance, cataloged with these with some detail but made no mention as to why he included them as patterns. However, it should be noted that Montagu, as some note, was not very keen on details. Peck lists these items as "uncertain" pieces and makes the case that they were officially struck but not as pattern farthings. It seems as though this point is mostly grounded in the fact that copper, as opposed to tin, was used to strike these pieces. Peck notes that these "patterns" were likely nothing more than officially struck medalets.

I just wiped the dust off of my 1895 copy of Montagu, and it appears he even makes a note that these pieces were likely struck as jettons or medalets for political purposes. Peck mentions this as well and does not include your piece in his catalog. From a quick glance, it appears your piece is listed as Montagu 18 (pg. 71 of the 1895 edition of "The Copper, Tin, and Bronze Coinage and Patterns for Coins of England").

 

Amazing help and context for this piece. Thank you so much for this research! I was able to find "The Copper, Tin, and Bronze Coinage and Patterns for Coins of England" online for free (thanks Google) and found the exact reference as listed by Montagu. I took a capture and will post it here for anyone else looking into this.

It's interesting that the copper weight is (according to Montagu) the same as that of a farthing which is probably why they are seen as patterns, but I do see that the official medalets is a more likely story.

Equally curious is this gilded coin of mine that appears to be unique was circulated so heavily. I would think that if it were officially gilded, it would be rare enough to not have other existing copies surviving. On the other hand, if it were that rare and significant to be gilded while most are not, it's odd that it was circulated as it is. Perhaps I'm thinking about it too deeply? Is there a possibility or tradition of post-mint gilding of tokens or coins like this?

 

I am more than happy to help when I can! That was a great idea to copy the page from the digital book. I thought about scanning my hardcopy but it seemed liked a bad idea to put a book that old through the stress. Good thinking!

You bring up a good point about the weight. That very well may have been one of the tidbits that made Montagu think of these originally as patterns.

I am not entirely sure that this piece was officially gilded. I could be completely wrong about that, but I have never come across any indication that any were officially gilded. That is by no means to say that it is not a possibility. Stranger things have certainly happened. Although I can not speak to this era, in particular, it is not uncommon to find circulated gilt pattern pieces from the George III era. For example, here is a picture of a 1788 proof gilt pattern halfpenny and a 1797 gilt proof 2 pence struck at the Soho Mint. These coins were not meant to circulate but spent some time being passed around.

And here is yet another example of a gilt proof 2 pence that found its way into circulation.

 

Woah thank you so much for these examples! They look quite similar to mine. Am I right in assuming these were gilded by the mint? That 2 pence is especially gorgeous.

 

Of course! The way the gilt wore off certainly does look similar. I think that attests to the relative age of the gilt. Yes, the planchets were gilt before being struck on both of these. I appreciate the compliment on the 2 pence! That was a cherry-pick off of eBay not too long ago.

 

It's a very nice addition to any collection. Before my piece I'd never seen or heard of old gilded British pieces, so I appreciate you weighing in so much and for the reference.

 

I agree I like the design even if they are medalets. I have seen quite a few silver varieties come up for sale over the past few months. I will eventually not be able to resist the temptation and add one or two to my collection.

 

I hadn't actually seen the silver pieces before but I went hunting on eBay and found one; the design is elegant and gorgeous in silver. I'd love a piece someday. The gilded piece of mine is probably the rarest British coin I have so I'm looking to hold on to it for awhile probably, but do you have any idea what the approximate value could be? I see the copper ones sell for ~$25 but any idea what the premium could approximate for the gilded surface?

 

I am a copper guy at heart, but I like the design in silver. I have a proof pattern farthing in silver (Peck-623) that I find attractive but otherwise, my collection is mostly copper. I think it would be difficult to put a price on it simply because these pieces are more or less traded in lots as opposed to individual sales. Given that the coin is gilt I can see a sale going one of two ways:

1. The gilt may be viewed as damage if they come to the conclusion that is was not done officially. This would likely lower the selling price.

2. With sufficient evidence that it was gilt officially, it might command a slight premium (not sure how much). Gilt pieces only seem to command strong premiums when they are well preserved.

The other major limitation is demand. These pieces do not seem to be in demand right now and that keeps the price down. With that being said, this is a pretty cool piece that tells an interesting story. Just think of the stories this little piece could tell.

 

Great, thanks for all of the help and assistance researching more into these pieces. They're truly interesting and something I'n glad to have stumbled into. If you do grab a silver piece sometime feel free to show me! I'd love to check it out.

 

I bought one of these a while ago in silver from a reputable eBay seller I trust on these sorts of things. Until now, with the link to Montagu's book, I hadn't been able to verify the attribution, but it does look to be a Montagu 18. It has a lot of luster, so, I would give it a minimum grade of AU58. Best of all, it was offered in a true auction, so I ended up getting it for ~50% of retail!

Seller's pics collaged together below:



What I'm curious about is how the date 1689 gets attached to these. Is it just because that's the first year of William and Mary's reign? If these are assumed to be patterns, that makes some sense. Otherwise, I'm not sure.

 

Very nice silver piece! I'm unsure of why the date is attached but many sellers list a circa to it so it may just be an effort to give a likely year from a range.

 

That is a very nice looking piece! I can’t say this with any certainty because this is my pure speculation, but I believe the date “1689” originated from the proposed purpose of the medalets. Both Montagu and Peck mention that these pieces were likely made for political reasons. William was somewhat insecure in his position and wanted to give legitimacy to his rule. Producing these medals allowed him to insinuate his position. It makes sense that the date would be circa 1689 because that is when they gained power.