kildonan

The Lingford catalogue is available on the Newman Numismatic Portal https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=512958&AuctionId=533901

Hi - this is a Scottish Thirty Shilling piece, not an English halfcrown. The mintmark is thistle (as you suspected). https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces55469.html

I am no expert on short cross, so I hope someone more knowledgeable can help! The first coin is from moneyer Ilger on Lvnde, who coined between classes 5b2 and 7b2. The main features of the coin are more consistent with a class 5 or 6 coin rather than a class 7. Furthermore, the reverse die appears to be a duplicate of DNW 6/2/13 Lot 48, which is listed as 6b1. So I would think a reasonable assumption is that your coin is also 6b1? But I don't know enough about mules within the short cross series to know how likely it is that this reverse die was used either before or after 6b1. The second coin is a challenge. The coin has turned in the dies during striking, and this has obscured much of the detail e.g. the 'mouth' is a combination of the actual mouth and a reverse die pellet; a portion of HENRICVS appears on the reverse of the coin, and at least one eye has also been combined with a reverse die pellet. However, I think the majority of the moneyer's name has been transferred to the obverse, and when taken in combination with the reverse this shows that (IMO) it is another Ilger coin. Beyond that, all I can offer is that this probably isn't class 7 as there are clear stops in the reverse legend, but the bust's problems, coupled with lack of other defining detail makes assignment to a class 5 or 6 subclass very difficult (for me anyway). I hope you get more input. It is always good to give a coin a definite classification.

It looks like someone at the auctioneers has got the tickets from several lots mixed up. Your lot of 5 coins is lot 44558 I believe. Also in that sale, potentially matching your tickets, are lot 44553 (Elizabeth shilling mm tun), lot 44561 (James I shilling 2nd bust mm thistle) and lot 44567 (Charles I Oxford sixpence). I can't see an Oxford half pound in the sale so that ticket remains a mystery. It seems a shame to discard the tickets as they should really belong with the coins to which they relate. And presumably, the tickets for your coins are now with the winners of these other lots. Or perhaps some completely different ones? Rather poor service from the auctioneers. I bet they wouldn't have made this type of mistake with US coins?

Any hammered sixpence or Charles I specialists? I'm interested in Spink variety S.2821 - this was originally listed as S.2848A before the sixpence series was re-numbered some years ago. Can anyone confirm when S.2848A first appeared in the standard catalogue? I haven't kept any old copies unfortunately. I seem to recall that initially, an inner circle was listed for one side only (can't remember which), before being changed to inner circle both sides soon afterwards and ever since, including when re-numbered to S.2821. The question arises because I'd like to know what this coin looks like, and how it differs from S.2820. My assumption for many years has been that type S.2848A / S.2821 was introduced to account for the previously unpublished sixpence variety in the Shuttlewood collection (SNC June 2001, HS0677) - hence the interest in knowing when Spink first included it. That coin has now re-appeared in the latest part of the Hulett collection being sold by DNW next week (lot 96). But there is no reference to its Shuttlewood provenance and it is listed as S.2820. I queried this with DNW but have had no reply. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? If anyone has any idea what S.2821 is, if it isn't this variety, then I'd be very interested to hear your opinion.

Follow-up to my post above in which I stated that I know of only two examples of this coin (S.2821) - the images of the Tregwynt Hoard available on the NMW website show that there is a third (item number 98.4H/484). It uses the same obverse die as the others, but a different reverse die, also with mm. sun over eye. I will keep looking for a further example without the corrected obverse mark.

Douglas Saville apparently has one in stock https://www.douglassaville.com/search_results_detail.asp?ID=2873

If you still want it I can send you a scanned copy of the article. It's too large to post here so please PM me with an e-mail address and I'll send it through.

Here you go - 1985 first. Also showing the listings of both.

Sorry to put a spanner in the works! I don't think the SNC provenances are correct. I read your post and was looking through old catalogues etc. seeing if I could find anything, and checked the 1985 and 1986 SNC's. The only coins that match the description (type 7, both priced at £850) are May 1985 no. 3086, pictured on p.140, and Oct. 1986 no. 6944, pictured on p.283. Neither of these are your coin (yours is nicer). Perhaps the seller simply meant these were other examples of the same dies? But the Spink 117 lot 359 provenance is correct (confirmed by picture), as is the 2016 one from Spink listed by Rob.

Could it be that this die is known on 1651 coins? I'm not familiar enough with these halfcrowns, but perhaps someone has observed the die in its original form on other coin(s)?

Taking Rob's suggestion, I've done a bit more work on this. I've taken the best quality online image of the groat I could find (as I don't own an example) and combined this with an image of the 6d (which is in my collection), with the surrounding details removed. I've had to assume that the busts are identically sized, so re-sized the images accordingly. Of course, this may not be true, but without an example of the groat it's the best I can do. These images have then been rotated to ensure accurate alignment and overlaid. The results are shown here - overlaid images ranging from the 6d bust on the left, progressively becoming more transparent towards the 'pure' groat bust on the right. Comments: (i) it confirms Rob's suspicion about the head and crown - the match is almost perfect; (ii) I'm tempted to say that the shoulders are actually the same - the basic size / shape is the same, as is some of the drapery detail, but there are small differences in outline - definitely more 'structure' on the base edge on the groat compared to the 6d - could this just be that the punch was reworked before use on the 6d?; (iii) one difference is the 'lump' in the top of the hair just below the centre of the crown band on the groat. All examples of the groat that I can find online display this defect, so it was presumably present in the groat die for all strikings. But there is no sign of the defect on the 6d - so I'd conclude that the punch itself was 'perfect' at the time it was used to make the groat die, but that the die itself became damaged. When the punch was resurrected some years later for the 6d die, the die defect was no longer present? Overall I think this is very strong evidence that the groat punch was re-used some years later. I confess that I know very little about the pattern series mm. bell. All I can see is reference to possible attribution to E. Greene, but little else. Is anyone aware of a paper that deals with these? As to Rob's other point about this bust /die turning up on a pure mm. eye coin - this must be a possibility. But in all the years since I first knew of this coin's existence (when originally published in 2001), I have kept a close watch for others as I am a hammered sixpence specialist. But the only other example I have ever seen is that pictured here, so this is a very rare coin indeed. It may be a long wait!

Thanks Rob. Here is a composite photo showing the recently auctioned Hulett / Shuttlewood coin top left; another coin (same die, to allow more missing detail to be seen) top right; an example of the small 3a bust sixpence, mm bell bottom right, and the pattern groat mm bell bottom left. I think this shows that there is a lot of similarity between the bust on the sixpence of interest and the 3a bust, fitting with the Spink description. I wonder now if the original description 'like the small 3a portrait, no inner circle' referred to the coin that S.2848A / S.2821 was like, rather than a description of the coin itself? This reference was soon changed to the current one '4.5 var., small 3a type bust, double-arched crown, inner circle both sides, mm. sun (over eye)' The pattern groat is included here because the comment in SNC 2001 referenced the similarity of the sixpence bust to that on the pattern groat. (Is it similar, or actually the same?) The S.2820 sixpence with the 4.5 bust (not shown here) appears to have two bust varieties, both of which have a single arched crown and bear little resemblance to the 3a bust. So to address Rob's point, I feel that the coin of interest is far more similar to a 3a bust than 4.5 (or any earlier type 4 bust for that matter). Overall it seems likely to me that the coin described as S.2848A / S.2821 is this coin. Its (final) description matches the coin well, and its appearance in the 2003 catalogue fits quite nicely with its emergence in SNC during 2001, where it was described as apparently unpublished. Presumably it was recognised too late to include in the 2002 edition, but added the next year.

I'm trying to find pictures of Commonwealth 1655 sixpences, partly to prove / disprove that my own collection coin is or is not really of this date (unclear final digit). I have only a handful of pictures (below) - does anyone have any others that they could share? - DNW, Bole collection Pt 1 lot 1641; same coin later as Bole pt 5 lot 1444 - Bonhams Clarendon collection pt 2 (2006) lot 1557; same coin also Spink 55 lot 73; Lockett lot 2612 and ex-Carlyon-Britton - Spink 154 (Manville 2001) lot 50 - Spink 18004 (2018) lot 433

Thanks both - this has settled it for me - a real 1655 :-)

Here's the reverse of my coin. When I bought it, I was happy it was really 1655 rather than 1653 or an artefact of the double striking at the date, but wanted to locate a die duplicate on a definite 1655 to be sure. Although I had pictures of the coin posted by Coys55 from the earlier sales catalogues, I'd discounted mine as a die duplicate (partly because those images were much lower quality than that just posted, but also because of perceived differences). Lots of similarities, such as the die defect to lower left of the LH shield cross centre; the 2 spots in the field above that cross, positioning and shape of most letters... What had put me off previously was the position of the 'W' relative to RH shield base. But now I think this is an artefact of the double striking evident on Coys' coin at the shield base? It often strikes me as odd how some parts of the design are unmoved whilst others show a shift during double striking, in a way that can be hard to understand. If my coin is the same die I think it possibly is a later strike where additional die damage has occurred such as within LH shield upper left quadrant? Any thoughts?

Thanks - the image seems to have disappeared since I saw it last night? This is (or was) the Clarendon piece, lovely image :-) Interestingly, this is the one that I believe I have a reverse die duplicate of. I'll get a photo of my coin and post it shortly.

There is a Charles I mule sixpence listed in the preview for the next DNW auction (sixpence obverse, double crown reverse), found in 2014. The description states that it is probably the second known example after the Brooker / Bole specimen (which appears to be a die duplicate of the new coin). But in Francis's 1919 BNJ (vol. 15, Plate 1) article, he shows a picture of another such coin (looks like a die duplicate again) and this is listed as belonging to Col. Morrieson. So perhaps the new one is the third known example? Does anyone have the catalogue for Col. Morrieson's auction (Sotheby 1933)? Is this coin listed?

Thanks Rob. It sounds like it probably didn't make it to the sale, so must have been disposed of earlier? I'll pass it on to DNW and see if they take note.

The fair is on 3 floors with the coins on the upper two (stamps on the ground floor). There is a lift. There are seats dotted around the dealers tables although generally quite limited. The bar is situated next to the coin section and this has seating. It's always a good fair, if you make it I'm sure you'll have a great time.

Hi - I can scan a copy of this and send as a PDF. Please PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send it on.

The listing reads "8485 William and Mary. Tin Halfpenny 1689 BMC561. Rarely seen in any condition considerably eroded, otherwise fair/F £300" I think they missed a full stop between 'condition' and 'considerably'? The coin is pictured too.

Hi - this is a halfgroat (twopence) as indicated by the 2 dots behind the bust. Mintmark looks like tun so would place issue between 1592-1594.

I see what you mean - it does look very 'soapy' in the new photo. I don't have any forgeries of Elizabeth I coins (at least none that I know of!) - I suppose I'd be potentially interested in contemporary forgeries, but haven't given it much thought to be honest - I'm trying to get the real ones first...! I'm sure I've seen a few in catalogues etc. listed as such - is this a particular interest of yours?

Not sure if you've seen the BNJ article on the Elizabeth I milled coinage in the BNJ, 1983? You can find the link on the BNS website. There are photos of all the known dies (at that time) including yours - type 23-R2. It was used only with one obverse die and clearly shows the defects you show. If you PM me I have several photos of coins using this die that I've accumulated over the years. Usually the die orientation on these milled sixpences is 180degrees (6h) but I've seen / own a few that are a little different. How large is the rotation on your piece? The weight seems a little low, but other than that I can't see anything obviously wrong with the coin - perhaps its suspect nature is more obvious in the hand?