TomGoodheart

A thread elsewhere (regarding an Edward I groat) reminded me how relative the term 'rare' can be. For collectors of Kew Gardens 50ps it's apparently where there are 'only' 210,000. For me, it's more down to 'how long will I have to wait until an example of this becomes available for me to buy?'. Surely, anything more than one dealer has listed right now can hardly be that rare, can it? Whereas if it's likely to take me a few months to track down an example it's likely to be scarce. And if I can only find one or two examples in museums and no record of one coming up for sale in the last few years, then I would consider that to be somewhat rare. Which doesn't necessarily mean desirable to me. If the only available examples are barely recognisable slugs, I'm only really going to be interested if the slug I can buy is better than the example in say, the Hunterian, because... I want things that look nice. Guess I'm shallow!

I think the 'rarest' coin I have isn't all that rare (6 examples now known). I feel it's very hard to be certain about 'rarities' in respect of currency coins with so many detector finds nowadays. One coin I have was a new type discovery in 1995, but since publication and listing in Spink a further 13 have turned up, so it didn't stay unique for long! Patterns and trial pieces might be a bit easier to be certain, especially if it's clear how many have gone to museums and the like. The rarest 'thing' I have is probably a small Royalist medallion from the 1640s, of which I'm only aware of one other example apart from the British Museum's and which Medallic Illustrations classes as 'Very rare'. But the likelihood there are others, in personal collections (or in museums, poorly or incorrectly identified), has to be pretty high, given these were mass produced items (albeit not in huge numbers when you compare to how many - what are now considered as rare - coins were struck). Similar to Sword, an example in above average condition (or for me, with decent provenance) is now more attractive to me than simple rarity. I have parted with many rarities, because in the end I didn't find them pleasing and valued being able to buy something commoner, but that I would enjoy owning, more.

Which as Sword says, didn't do him any good in the end. Parliament still felt constrained and eventually used its 'liberty'. In a way I'm not sure Charles anticipated!

Yes, Helen Farquhar who was deeply interested in these things suggested as much in her paper in the British Numismatic Journal, Sword! The rock, beset by storms, was one of three symbols used on memorial medals to illustrate this 'fortitude'. The others were a salamander, emerging unharmed from flames (CONSTANTIA CAESARIS) and a diamond which, though placed upon an anvil, resists damage from the blows of a hammer (INEXPVGNABILIS). Medals as propaganda, I guess.

Just got this. Death (and memorial) of Charles I by Thomas Rawlins. MI 341/190, 29mm cast silver. The obverse shows Charles wearing ornate armour with a lion's head to the shoulder, the reverse a rock buffeted by winds storms and lightening, alluding to the fortitude of the king in the face of his 'troubles'. Dated 30 Jan 1648, the date of his execution. Some scratches to the obverse sadly, but they are less noticeable in the hand. Quite a nice piece with little wear and with pleasing old cabinet toning (though, so far I've not been able to trace any provenance).

That's lovely Rob! (Unlike the really shit copy on ebay!)

As I understand it they struggled with production, despite the extra mints. They simply didn't have enough new coin at first so had to allow some hammered to continue in circulation. As for why not clip after, firstly because no coin that wasn't full was acceptable as legal tender (so you risked having it refused) but more importantly because clipped coin (well sixpences and as far as can be seen, shillings) were exchanged by the authority at full face value providing they were not clipped further than to the inner circle. Effectively this meant that if you were going to clip a coin (which was still illegal ) you'd be better clipping first, keeping the extra silver, then handing the central bit in to be melted in return for new coin to full face value! Basically the whole process appears to have been a nightmare and full of problems for the authorities, but I presume the hammered pieces were getting to the stage that foreign traders were refusing to accept them in payment and a reliable modern coinage became essential, despite the cost to the treasury.

Here you go. Silver coinage was basically worth its value because of the weight of precious metal it contained. So older coinage still circulated. The recoinage permitted some coins to continue to be used for a while providing they were on full flans. The official piercing to show they'd been checked was done in a way that didn't remove any metal. This is an officially pierced shilling of Charles I. Not the neatest of examples, but they're quite hard to find, so I'm happy enough with this one.

What a fascinating thread. I'm just going to pop this here. Written by the writer Michael Rosen. Which I found interesting.

Well, that very much reinforces the idea it's designed to defraud. Not sure about Rob's idea of casts. I guess Aberystwyth groats are rare, so someone could have done it to deceive, but it's a lot of work. And if you wanted a counterfeit crown, why not cast a crown in the first place. A real curiosity Larry!

Interesting. Daughter has decided that WFH just doesn't work for her. She gets distracted and needs the routine of going to a specific place for specific hours. Difficult for new starters if the people training you aren't physically present and you can't just call across the office for advice as you can in person. She also missed the social side having made some good friends in previous jobs. Where she currently works they have set days when the team all attend and it seems to work OK. But I also see that for many the benefits of not having to commute and working more to your own schedule is a positive. I work in a shop, so doesn't really apply.

I have split off the discussion about Gary Lineker as it didn't seem to fit the "Stuff to make us laugh" as it didn't seem very humorous. Feel free to continue the chat there if you wish.