Unpopular Monarchs

[Ukstu 436]

Has anybody got any hammereds that have been deliberately damaged or defaced?

I dug this one a few years ago. I've seen quite a few more since of James I that have been defaced in a similiar manner. Occasionally Commonwealth coins pop up in bad shape also with graffiti.

 

[Rob 2,996]

I have and have seen many with crosses before the bust. Pointedly they are usually early issues, so there is certainly a case to be made for their defacement being a political statement. You don't see so many James third coinage with this mark. The earliest I have seen are Elizabeth shillings, so maybe they were a catholic thing started after the demise of Mary?

Although the Civil War is regularly promoted as a War between the King with his 'Catholic' tendencies and the Puritan parliament, you don't see the King's face defaced very often, which given the divisive nature of war is surprising.

[Ukstu 436]

Quite true. Good analysis.

Considering how unpopular Charles was it is odd that many coins of his do not turn up defaced.

I figured with James it was Catholics or people who were anti scottish that defaced them. 

I've seen a few crossed out of his. That ones got peck marks also like someone's took a stab at him. 

Your right also about it being early issues. The others I've seen are all 1603-1605. Thistle & Lis mm.

 

[Coinery 926]

I'm still unresolved on this, thinking that a lot of shillings (unmarked) from Elizabeth onwards (and also where future xii coins were worn) were ritualistically scratched/scribed with crosses (and often XII to coroborate)to ID them in the new shilling culture, right up until W3 of course.

It happens too frequently, and in the language of Shilling, and on just the one denomination, to mean very much else in my humble opinion!

not succinctly put, but I have had a beery day off! :-)

[Ukstu 436]

26 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I'm still unresolved on this, thinking that a lot of shillings (unmarked) from Elizabeth onwards (and also where future xii coins were worn) were ritualistically scratched/scribed with crosses (and often XII to coroborate)to ID them in the new shilling culture, right up until W3 of course.

It happens too frequently, and in the language of Shilling, and on just the one denomination, to mean very much else in my humble opinion!

not succinctly put, but I have had a beery day off! :-)

Think my one aboves a clear defacement. 4 lines plus peck marks. I've seen James I sixpences also scratched. If it was badly worn I'd agree but the denomination is clearly eligible also. 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/James-I-1603-49-Hammered-Silver-Sixpence-1603-mm-Thistle-/391858831445

[Coinery 926]

In which case I humbly, though unconvincingly, stand down! ?

It's been a long-standing and numismatically debated subject on here, without any strong evidential conclusion to convince me otherwise..which sensibly  leaves me remaining in the scratch for ease of identification in a candlelit environment camp! :-)

[Coinery 926]

Why don't we see 6ds significantly defaced with crosses from the same period, except on the rare occasion where perhaps it's used to defraud a 6d? Otherwise it's an exclusive phenomenon to the Shilling! X/XII scratched on shillings, which doesn't draw me to defacement...instead, at best, a ritual from J6 that had to deal with unmarked Elizabeth shillings, which then culturally continued thereafter, as best I've understood it to date! 

X or X|| scratched on an unmarked or worn Shilling (in the masses and consistencies with which it happens), with all the other variants (fraud, mistake) inbetween, is a no-brainer for me.

I'm sticking with the sensible tudor, and subsequent Stuart community solution to big coins, which had to deal with clipped coins, and the introduction to the peasant communities of a new denomination...makes social and numismatic sense to me!  

[Ukstu 436]

I suppose in some cases your theory could well be the case but I'd still swing towards a political or faith statement in others. Depending on how you rotate a coin a x could well be + so it could symbolize the cross which could point towards Catholics. Also the x could symbolise a ritual killing if you like. I suppose it depends on individual coins and the wear on them plus the markings placed on them, if i saw a badly worn shilling that had a defined xii marked into it I'd roll with your theory.

[Coinery 926]

Yes, but very few if any of these marks are drawn as crosses and, regardless, were they ever held as a spiritual statement, or used as a singularly specific denomination for passing on a spiritual message?

Also, if you had a valuable comodity/coin in that period, would you seriously deface it with your spiritual or political statement/beliefs/values before passing it on? Wouldn't that make it a troublesome coin to spend if that were true?

[Coinery 926]

1 hour ago, Ukstu said:

, if i saw a badly worn shilling that had a defined xii marked into it I'd roll with your theory.

The examples are endless! However, more importantly, what about the Elizabeth shillings that are scribed with either an X or very often XII? They are the Shilling coins I would argue are the most often engraved this way and, interestingly, the first and most confusing of the new denomination/shillings that where introduced...and most likely the reason for the XII in the reign of JI and all the shillings going forward 

[Ukstu 436]

I can see your point about that. Early shillings from the reign of Elizabeth definitely yes. Once they are clipped they would be extremely hard to distinguish from say a Sixpence but once they started clearly stamping coins (J1) with the denomination this would render such an act pointless so it doesn't explain the damage on mine in my opinion plus there is stab marks on the kings effigy , a strong case for defacement I'd say. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Ukstu

[Peckris 579]

I'm utterly amazed we don't see defacement of George IV coins - a more loathsome monarch it would be hard to find!

[seuk 85]

On ‎18‎-‎08‎-‎2017 at 10:46 PM, Peckris said:

I'm utterly amazed we don't see defacement of George IV coins - a more loathsome monarch it would be hard to find!

Plus a large number of flattering medalets/counters produced in connection with his coronation and death (though Queen Caroline counters also are common).