Super group of British Halfcrowns and others

A few more notes on these before I go out for the evening:

The 1703 Sixpence with the portrait of Queen Anne, and the word Vigo beneath. This celebrates the British Naval victory of Vigo Bay in 1702 when the French and Spanish suffered severe losses. It is often reported that the coins were made from the captured silver, but in fact teh Master of the Mint (no lesser person than Sir Isaac Newton) reported that only about 2 tons of silver were actually handed in. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vigo_Bay for more info.

The E below Queen Anne's bust on the 1707 halfcrown is for Edinburgh. Although England and Scotland had "unified" in 1705, coins were still being minted in Edinburgh.

The 1572 Elizabeth I sixpence is one in a long series of issues and variations that make these coins very complex. I find it interesting that at this time they are introducing the Arabic numeral dates we know today (although not all the time) and also still using the much older mintmark approach to dating. This coin has the mintmark "Ermine" which conveniently also gives us the 1572 date.

The 1731 halfcrown has the "Roses and Plumes" reverse which is one of the more common. Throughout the 18th century there were numerous combinations of Roses, plumes, roses & plumes, plain, and occasionally "SSC" (for South Sea Company) and "WCC" (For Welsh Copper Company) - so collecting these gives huge scope for varieties.

The Charles I Sixpence is not in great condition, but does at least have a decent portrait, which is usually the first detail to go on these coins. This one dates from between 1636 and 1638 from the mintmark (tun). It is Group D type 3a - which alone gives you some idea of the complexity of these coins. It got worse as we descended into Civil War, and coins were minted at numerous local mints, and even in besieged towns - another huge topic!

I hope to post another group from this lot tomorrow, so keep watching.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What a great collection of coins. This collection and your enthusiasm for them remind me of what I like about numismatics: holding a piece of the past and learning about the history behind it. :thumb:

I playfully remind you of this coin (unfortunately not mine) :



This coin was minted AD 292 in Camulodunum (Colchester) and has three sovereigns:
Carausius, Maximianus, and Diocletian.

I will be commenting on this thread later when I get some time.

Once again, what a delightful collection. Thank you for sharing.


guy

 

Several times in the Roman period there were three emperors but this was not one of them. The coin shown is special because Carausius issued it hoping the other two would recognize him as a brother emperor. They did not and considered him a usurper. He died before they got around to killing him.

The triple portrait issue was accompanied by single coins in the name of each of the three. They are identified by the reverse legend ending in AVGGG showing three rulers.

 

Touché, Ancient Doug. Let's say, instead, two legit emperors and one wannabe. Or, three emperors only in one man's mind.

guy

P.S. Then, again, many of my Scottish relations didn't recognize these usurpers, I mean, co-sovereigns as being legitimate, either :devil::

 

OK - here are some more from the group of halfcrowns - a nice spread of different bust and reverse designs.



1689 William and Mary - this basic design issued only in this year, but lots of minor variations in the design of the reverse, and errors on the obverse.
1745 George II Lima - another occasion where we celebrated victory in battle with a name on the coinage. Also features the older bust of G II.
1816 George III - the start of the "New Coinage" - Large Head
1818 George III - small head and a lovely condition coin
1820 George IV - the former Prince Regent - Laureate Head, Crowned Garnished shield reverse
1823 George IV - Laureate Head but now with Shield in Garter
1825 George IV - Bare Head and Crowned Shield with Crest
1837 William IV - Bare head and Shield on Mantle - finally getting down to less variations.

 

Seeing the large number of hammered coins clipped or shaved confirms this quote (and the need for coinage reform):

I would assume, therefore, that a large proportion of hammered English coins around today are clipped?

Question for Ancient Doug: I understand that later Ancient Roman coins were devalued (fiat currency) and it would not have been worth the effort to shave the coins. It seems to me, however, that there seems to be a lower proportion of the earlier Roman coins (closer to bullion) that were clipped. Thoughts? Or is it just selection bias by numismatists for collecting unclipped coins, thus, ensuring their survival?

guy

 

Clipped Vandal copy of Honorius siliqua

We see very few clipped, early ancients. It became more popular late in the 5th century and even hits bronzes in the Byzantine period when the government clipped and restruck coins at decreasing weight standards. I do not know why.

 

Paddy: Thanks, again, for this interesting thread on early milled British coinage.

Here's a good review by the historian / numismatist Guy de la Bedoyere:

http://www.romanbritain.freeserve.co.uk/milledcoinage.htm

There is an interesting review of the obverses and reverses of the coins half way down.


guy

 

I think both Paddy and Ancient Doug are spot on concerning the reason for the slow conversion from a hammered coinage despite aborted trials of a milled coinage a century earlier.

I like the reasons they presented: historical Francophobia, vested interests with "friends in high places," and a traditional conservatism with a resistence to change.

http://www.ascasonline.org/articoloSETTEM136.html

It was not until the demands for a non-clipped and consistant coinage for trade and taxes overcame these impediments that a milled and standardized coinage could finally be achieved.

guy

 

there was a problem in the early days with the milled coins,that was the slow production.hammered coins could be made much quicker

 

there is a rethink about the c mint in england,the view now is that it might not be colchester but bitterne near southampton-clausentum,more finds are found in that area-----lets hope that it is found one day !!!