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  
Rob

Chronological Order required - sugggestions solicited

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to put these obverses into chronological order. They are all the same die. Thoughts ladies and gentlemen please.

A1-JH - Copy.JPG

2d obv.jpg

A2-Lyall - Copy.JPG

170510-Baldwins BH134 - Copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if anything can be gleaned from that, where do the following fit into the sequence? I'm trying to establish the order of the reverse pairings. Thanks.

A3 Brooker 1179 - Copy.jpg

AUnrec(3)-RJP - Copy.jpg

LB HC2488-2553 - Copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, that's a puzzle Rob!  My thought are that the crosses (?) inside the crown might be a useful indicator.  In the first image and one on the green background they are more like open triangles.  The others, they are filled in, suggesting to me some wear.  Then possibly focus on the hair as it touches the crown.  For example the small pic from a catalogue (top of second post) suggests some die fill/ wear in that area to me. 

Be easier if there were some obvious progressive die cracks but, beggars can't be choosers in these things!   If that helps at all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, these are all the images I have for halfgroats.

I thought the A2 coins might be earlier on the basis of the L which appears to be a single baseline whereas the A1 and A3 have a thicker base to the right of the upright, though the Brooker image isn't really good enough to say. The Baldwins A2 is well struck and has sharp detail with no signs of re-engraving, which would be a good start.

Plus, the first coin's T (A1) looks to have added serifs compared to the 3rd coin (A2). It doesn't help to place A3 in the chronology, but it's a start.

If A2 coins were the first issue, that means they used a groat reverse because they hadn't got around to making the halfgroat. The A1 is the only example I have found and is clearly the rarer of the two types. The halfgroat reverse is also known paired with a threepence obverse.  Again, it doesn't help the placement of A3 which is hampered by my coin being double struck in the legend where it is struck up, and the Brooker image being crap.

I've spent quite a few hours looking at these. :huh:

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first instinct is to say your 2nd image is the youngest coin, basing that on the clogged denomination numerals and what looks to be a chipped A in Caro... also, the PM is looking pretty butchered too! As for the others...I think it can be done! :)

Share this post


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

My first instinct is to say your 2nd image is the youngest coin, basing that on the clogged denomination numerals and what looks to be a chipped A in Caro... also, the PM is looking pretty butchered too! As for the others...I think it can be done! :)

That would mean reversing the order set out above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob said:

That would mean reversing the order set out above

Oh, dear! Never been one for the easy road! I'll give it an hour or so, under enlargement on a PC, and come back to you with anything I spot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no verifiable order. Just a number of opinions with varying evidence to support them.

The A1 reverse is also known paired with a 3d obverse, possibly at a later stage than with the first obverse above. That is based on the merging of the legend to the left side with the inner circle, but given they show different stages of wear, could just be coincidence. A sample size of one in each case is not very helpful.

 

 

2d rev 1.jpg

A1 3d2dmule-JH.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was tempted to say 3,1,4,2

I should add, that it is due to the shapes within the crown, the serifs on some letters and the recutting of the B.

Edited by Colin G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rev 1 is in the previous post, revs 2 & 3 are shown below. Reverse 2 is the size of a groat and subsequently never seen fully on flan. Reverse 3 is quite helpful in that a couple of features place it firmly in a group of dies which as problematical with respect to location or chronology, hence the attempt to pin the obverses in the sequence. The style at the initial mark of a lis surrounded by 4 pellets is early, seen on some halfcrown obverses. The use of the broken annulet punch puts it in a group with the martlet obverse shilling, Boar's Head rev. 6d (and possibly Allen halfcrown rev.43) which are proving difficult to place in the series. The broken annulet 'scroll' reverse mark (which appears to be legend filler rather than a mark) also appears on these shillings. Given the use of a Leopard Head mark for coins that can reasonably be placed at Shrewsbury, and three gerbs and a sword that can definitely be allocated to Chester, the use of the martlet and boar's head may well reflect the use of the dies in another location. Radnor or Radnorshire could be a possibility for the Boar's Head given its current use on the coat of arms and there is documentary evidence that Rupert attempted to raise troops in this area in 1644. More research is required.

To keep an open mind, I have been trying to ignore the reverses which independenly fall into identifiable groups which I previously have assumed to have some order and association with other denominations. The view expressed above that the first coin was the latest based on the width of the base of the L contradicts my previously held views and I am still not saying it with much conviction, but the visual evidence must have some validity until disproved.

Preconceptions derived from alternative evidence agrees with Stuart in that I think the second coin was the last in the sequence, which would place rev.2 as the last.

The rev.2 coins are nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7. The crocket garnishing used on rev.1 would be contemporary with early strikes such as the Tower/Tower 6d. The Tower/Boar's Head coins came later. The shield garnishing appears to lend itself to grouping types across the denominations. This leaves coins 5 & 6 with reverse 3. I am leaning towards the idea that rev.3 came second

2d rev 2.jpg

2d rev 3 - Copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not easy with the coins in your hands ... just looking at four images ( with also different light ) is quite impossible... I would say 2 4 3 1... The second coin in my opinion could be the last one due to the mintmark looks more deterioreted than others.. I personally,  think that  it's important to look at the letter A because in the later example the "hole" in the middle ( sorry, I don't know how to describe it ) should be smaller ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matteo95 said:

it is not easy with the coins in your hands ... just looking at four images ( with also different light ) is quite impossible... I would say 2 4 3 1... The second coin in my opinion could be the last one due to the mintmark looks more deterioreted than others.. I personally,  think that  it's important to look at the letter A because in the later example the "hole" in the middle ( sorry, I don't know how to describe it ) should be smaller ..

I assume you mean 1 3 4 2 if you think 2 to be the latest strike, in which case I concur. The A is showing signs of deteriorating on the base of the crossbar with 1 & 3 intact and 2 & 4 with an indent on the left hand side of the crossbar. This would be in agreement with current accepted wisdom which puts the 2d reverse 1 at the start of the chain.

And so to 5, 6 & 7. No. 7, although cracked, shows no signs of double striking, in which case the A is properly formed and so contemporary to image 3 before any subsequent damage.

5 & 6 are still a problem though as determining the position of no.6 cannot rely on the shape of the A due to double striking. The legend appears double struck following rotation by approximately half a character - or just enough to position the good part of the A crossbar at the same point as the defective part would be. That makes it a bit inconclusive, though the lack of any feature showing the indent must bolster the case for an early place.

The crockets on reverse 1 I believe to be earlier, the pyramid with pellet garnishing is later. In the case of which of the lis or scroll garnishing is earlier, the jury is out, but the die looks to be in a much better state than in image 2, again putting reverse 3 second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning why I have put 3 & 1 in a different order is due to the detail within the crown. This would be dependent on whether the feature to the left of the crown is a die flaw in which case I would agree with 1, 3, 4 and 2, however if it is the remainder of the original design I would say it weakens from 3 to 1 and therefore would stand by 3 1 4 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 7 is around the 2/4 period....

5 looks to be very early

6 I am struggling to fit into the sequence......what is the feature before the C that seems different 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

The reasoning why I have put 3 & 1 in a different order is due to the detail within the crown. This would be dependent on whether the feature to the left of the crown is a die flaw in which case I would agree with 1, 3, 4 and 2, however if it is the remainder of the original design I would say it weakens from 3 to 1 and therefore would stand by 3 1 4 2

The feature to the left of the crown in image 1 is the top of the crown double struck. The line in front of the portrait on 3,5 and 6 looks to be double striking too.

36 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

 7 is around the 2/4 period....

5 looks to be very early

6 I am struggling to fit into the sequence......what is the feature before the C that seems different 

 

I agree with 7

5 and 6 both show a different C due to double striking with some rotation. The C in image 4 shows a well formed C for this coinage. The right hand I of the denomination in 5 is raised, so clearly double struck and giving what looks to be a wide top of the C, despite the poor image. Image 6 is clearly rotated about half a letter, so the apparent flaw between the mintmark and C is the left side of the C. The top of the C also has two points corresponding to the shifted serif. The distance is approximately that from crown to the line before the face which would support double striking.

I recommend you get your metal detector out and find me an upgrade with a third example. Thanks in advance. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob said:

The feature to the left of the crown in image 1 is the top of the crown double struck. The line in front of the portrait on 3,5 and 6 looks to be double striking too.

I think it may be slightly doublestruck, but the feature in the crown is also evident on image 3, it is definitely different to the triangular shape in 2 and 4, and looks to be either a flaw or difference in design. Just to be clear I am on about the inside of the crown...the left side of the inside of the crown...I think I may be better marking up an image :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

I think it may be slightly doublestruck, but the feature in the crown is also evident on image 3, it is definitely different to the triangular shape in 2 and 4, and looks to be either a flaw or difference in design. Just to be clear I am on about the inside of the crown...the left side of the inside of the crown...I think I may be better marking up an image :D

OK, I get you.

I think I need to find another image of an A1. Maybe the BM has an example if I can negotiate a way into the site. Unfortunately the 3d and groat use different punches for the crown.

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  

×