Commonwealth 'Overdates'

[hibernianscribe 159]

I have been collecting English hammies for nearly sixty years but have never been completely sure or confident about identifying specific date-change varieties such as the coin shown, which I have owned for a couple of years. It is a 1652 over 1 halfcrown (ESC 26) with excellent provenance, but my problem is that I really can't see for sure that it is a 2 over 1. Often where such a die alteration has been made there is a serif or other remnant that is evident, but not in this case.

Indeed, I am unable to see even any 'ghost' of a 1 below the 2, unlike the clear example illustrated on page six of ESC, but is it just me I wonder? The fact that mine differs so much from the ESC illustration obviously indicates that more than one die was altered, which would be expected. What I can see is darker 'scuffing' evident around the 2 on my coin (see photo) so is this the evidence that this is a changed digit?

Actually, I have never asked this question before, so maybe the answer is as simple as it being evidence of 'disturbance' around a digit. I've not seen any written account of how to identify these varieties but I have yet to trawl through BNS journals to discover if there is any recorded opinions. The 'sun and anchor' website <www.cromwellcoins.com> does not go into much detail and North does not list any of these Commonwealth varieties, just a 'general' categorisation of N2722.

Regarding this coin's provenance, it was sold by Knightsbridge Coins on 11 August 1985 and then was subsequently sold by Spink on 6-7 December 2017 (lot 152) and listed in that auction as being from the 'Tisbury' Commonwealth collection. In fact the coin was illustrated on the front cover of the sale catalogue, which further reinforces my certainty about its identification - I just wish I could see it!

Any advice on this would be appreciated.

Frank

[Rob 2,996]

I'd say it was based on the deformation of the bottom of the 2 in the angle area, with the marked widening on the side of the character directly above the  angle where you can see two lighter spots where it reaches the field which would correspond to the sides of the 1. You have two options. Either fill the 1 on the die, or polish it out.

[Paulus 1,942]

Just landed - ticks plenty of boxes for me, including my first triangle mm example, my first 3a2 with rough groundline (S 2776), full weight (15.05g), and the Bull plate coin (383b/32)

[kildonan 10]

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)?

[hibernianscribe 159]

58 minutes ago, kildonan said:

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)?

Thanks for this, that's an interesting point and a bit of lateral thinking. It could certainly explain how such a coin with little evidence around the concerned digit could be diagnosed with certainty.

Frank

[hibernianscribe 159]

On 5/17/2020 at 9:19 PM, Rob said:

I'd say it was based on the deformation of the bottom of the 2 in the angle area, with the marked widening on the side of the character directly above the  angle where you can see two lighter spots where it reaches the field which would correspond to the sides of the 1. You have two options. Either fill the 1 on the die, or polish it out.

I see what you mean Rob, now that you have pointed that out, although I would not have easily noticed this without foreknowledge of the variety.

Frank

[Diaconis 695]

Not strictly related to the topic at hand but still a question related to the Commonwealth coinage however after the appointment of Simon.

Brooke, in English Coins, mentions that the breeches coinage was probably the work of under-gravers East and Burgh whereas Oman, in the Coinage of England, states "... Simon, the talented engraver to the mint, must have chafed sadly at the bald design that he was directed to reproduce." Considering that both books were published within a year of each other, and by such learned scholars, I find it strange that they held such varying opinions. Any thoughts?

[Rob 2,996]

It's conceivable that all were responsible. Simon is known to have been employed in 1649 as chief engraver,  so having been promoted to that position I can envisage Simon being required to and producing a new design in fairly quick time to allow the rapid entry of the Commonwealth currency into circulation. What is less likely is that he was regularly employed in engraving currency dies. It's fair to say that the simplicity of the design would mean that any engraver with a few rudimentary skills could produce either die, and the quality of some dies where the legend is left wanting in both alignment and spelling suggests it was a person of relatively lower skill that was responsible. The question therefore is whether documentary evidence occurs to swing the evidence one way or the other. but given his primary role was the production of seals which obviously required a much higher level of skill than the currency dies, I would think that the vast majority of dies were cut by the under-engravers.

[Diaconis 695]

The only time I can see Simon's hand is in the competition pieces of 1651. Even 'fine work' pieces dated 1651 are of a much lower standard and probably, as you point out, cut by the under-gravers.  Upon re-reading Oman it is now clear to me that he is referring to reproducing the breeches design for the 1651 milled pieces. Simon probably, therefore, had little or no involvement with the original 1649 engraving, maybe assisting only in helping to sketch out a design (?). Brooke then is also correct, in referring to the 1649 pieces, by stating that they were indeed the work of the under-gravers. 

Clear now, thanks👍