Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
Coinery

Class 1 Edward MULES!

Recommended Posts

I've been looking at the Class 1 Mules in the Edward camp, and can't really agree that they are actually mules.

When a situation exists where there are 1a obverses muled with 1c reverses, and vice versa (1c/1a), as just one example (there are many), can they really be called unintentional pairings? The dies were used in combination throughout the lifespan of the Class.

When BCW recorded the Elizabeth pairings in greater detail, the very different die characters were thus catalogued as varieties, where many could've potentially been called mules.

Are the Class 1 mules of Edward I, therefore, better described as varieties, rather than mules?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question and exactly the same topic that was discussed at lst night's meeting when Denis Martin gave a talk on the 'Enigmatic Varieties of the Episcopal Edward I pennies from York and Durham struck from Local Dies". Again, the first thing I questioned was have we sub-categorized to too great an extent. when you have early and late letters on both sides and based on current classification become mules when mixed, then maybe we need to rethink our strategy. Interesting topic and good fun :)

A big problem with a lot of these 'mules' is the sample size. When only single digit numbers are the norm, can we really be so confident in our rigid classification? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the same be said for the 1b which seems to have attracted attention of the pattern variety? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know. Maybe we need to completely rethink the series. It is obvious that our assumptions are not entirely correct.

Personally, I think a broader approach would be more in keeping, such as the Ed.1 halfpenny 3c-e, where there is not enough distinct detail to categorically say where things stand in terms of the Fox classification. There are other considerations too. The classes are only separated by a month or two in some cases. It is pie in the sky to think there could ever be a clear dividing line in such instances. You really need a documented break in production to clearly define one class from the next and you don't have it. The new coinage started in 1279, but by the middle of 1280 they had already gone through all the class 1s and 2s and were up to 3f, so it doesn't give much time for each sub-class.

A guy could leave London with dies for a northern mint and they would almost be obsolete by the time he arrived. How can we be so presumptive to narrow down the classes in the way that we do? There has to be overlap.

And none of this allows for any idiosyncrasies an engraver may possess. That could b****r up the classification big time. Thinking along the lines of the Civil War engravers, each man had his own tools and engraving style. It is likely that was also the case 3 or 400 years earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rob said:

Interesting question and exactly the same topic that was discussed at lst night's meeting when Denis Martin gave a talk on the 'Enigmatic Varieties of the Episcopal Edward I pennies from York and Durham struck from Local Dies". Again, the first thing I questioned was have we sub-categorized to too great an extent. when you have early and late letters on both sides and based on current classification become mules when mixed, then maybe we need to rethink our strategy. Interesting topic and good fun :)

A big problem with a lot of these 'mules' is the sample size. When only single digit numbers are the norm, can we really be so confident in our rigid classification? I don't think so.

Would've enjoyed that meeting and a pint very much! :)

I agree with you entirely!

I think we should be extra cautious in our use of the term 'mule,' especially where coins are known to be minted over a short timescale, it seems ridiculous to do otherwise. The Class 1s are a perfect example of this, where the production date is mostly accepted to be a single year 1279.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HistoricCoinage said:

Can the same be said for the 1b which seems to have attracted attention of the pattern variety? 

 

 

I'm still but a lad with the series, Clive (but I'm working on it! :) )...is the 1b known to have more than one obverse? It's certainly a stand alone die!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coinery said:

I'm still but a lad with the series, Clive (but I'm working on it! :) )...is the 1b known to have more than one obverse? It's certainly a stand alone die!  

As far as I'm aware, no. Just multiple reverses, which lends credence to the theory it's not a pattern.

This is an interesting article by Mayhew on types: http://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1988_BNJ_58_6.pdf 

 

Quote

Four varieties of Class I are usually listed (a to d), but lb is really only a discontinued pattern, and is almost as rare as the unique pattern in the British Museum described long ago by Lawrence.

The Galata Guide is an interesting read but a whole new approach does need to be taken, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have a read of that, Clive, and come back to you! I wonder, does one stand-out die make a coin a pattern? It's unmistakable in both bust and legend, so an unlikely accident? 

I guess the multiple reverses could suggest it was meant for production? Equally, I suppose, it could be a pattern die being trialled with different reverses to see which one it struck up best with (ghosting, weaknesses, etc.)?

The Spink price suggests we are only looking at a handful, so it could just be trialled pattern coins released into circulation because, well, why wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our posts overlapped, Rob, I think we are definitely talking the same language on this one! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another consideration would be the huge number of die sets required which would necessarily involve a number of engravers. I don't have the figures for the number of dies produced, but using back of a fag packet assumptions, a die set would do about 10,000 coins. Between April 1279 and May 1280, London struck nearly £155,000 in pennies at 244 to the £, that's a whopping 37,780,228 coins and would require 3778 die sets. All this would have to be squeezed into roughly a 350 day period given Sunday working would likely be frowned on. Again, this would be 10 die sets (1 trussle & 2 piles) or more per day, i.e 30+ dies a day. It stands to reason that a considerable number of people were employed in the sinking of dies and they would have their own quirky ways.

Any large expansion in mint output or a complete recoinage would require the immediate employment of additional engravers. Where would you find them? You can't just magic up a skilled tradesman, but you can poach one from an adjoining country. The coinage of Britain is littered with names from the near continent, so employment of the odd French or Dutch engraver is quite likely, and for some of the odd letters and punches, it might be necessary to examine contemporary continental currency to find a punch link. It might also explain the use of a Lombardic N on a couple of York local dies which Denis highlighted last night.

That then offers a possible explanation for some of the slight differences. Idiosyncratic die cutting is inevitable when everything is hand-made so it is possible that some of the differences could be ascribed to individuals because there is no way they would intentionally change the design 12 times in just over a year. We would be looking at new punches replacing old as they wore out. It's very difficult to get away from the concept of cut-off points between each group, but it really is a requirement.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×