Help & Thoughts 'Elizabeth I BCW Die-Study'!

[Coinery 926]

Hi all,

I'd like to run the following text past you all, and ask for any insights, better processes, etc. etc! It's most certainly a work without end, more a labour of love, really, enriching my interest in the coins I already hold, or coins I see and admire and wish I could hold! I never thought I'd attempt anything like this, it's developed out of the search to verify my own possible 1578/7/6 sixpence.

If I may, I'd like to use this thread throughout the process for all those questions of mine that will inevitably arise, and hope that some of you might help me out with some of the answers! Anyway, I think the following text and images are are reasonably self-explanatory, and an introduction to the basic website idea...

Forward

Firstly, if I might clearly state, this is not a research work, as it is neither rigorous, nor focused upon the discovery of anything new. Neither is it intended to be a new catalogue of micro-varieties, as all the vagarities of hammered coinage would make for an unenviable, if not impossible task. It is however quite simply a series of die observations designed to assist fellow collectors, who are interested in classifying their coins according to Brown, Comber & Wilkinson’s monumental work ‘The Hammered Silver Coins Produced at the Tower Mint During the Reign of Elizabeth I’ (Brown et al. 2009).

A significant number of superb-quality coins currently escape the net of full BCW provenance, on account of ‘inconvenient’ weaknesses in the region of a key-identifier. Resolution can then only be found in die-matching, and this is the focus of this work and the following images.

This is of course a work without end, which lends itself well to the regular updates of a web-based platform, notwithstanding the fact that a book full of thousands of high-resolution images would be unviable.

For those who trouble to make use of the following pages, it is expected, for a considerable number of years to come, that dies will commonly be unrepresented, and better examples will become available. Should this be the case, I would very much appreciate copies of your images for inclusion into the catalogue.

Method

Rather than clarify every oddity of a particular die, it was thought better to gather a core sample of ten or more (where possible) different examples of type, and then identify the more determining irregularities. These were either unique to the die, at least within the preliminary sample, or were at least a less common feature. Any identifiers with potential for confusion, or those that were closely replicated on other dies, have been avoided where possible, but highlighted in red for secondary reference. Similarly, where dies share a number of ‘similar’ irregularities, with few decisive differences, footnotes are added for further clarification.

It is hoped at some point that statistical analysis can be applied to the process, and a more scientific approach used overall. However, in the meantime, be patient with me and enjoy the process.

Brown, I.D., Comber, C.H., Wilkinson, W. (2009) The Hammered Silver Coins Produced at the Tower Mint During the Reign of Elizabeth I. [2009 update] Llanfyllin: Galata Print Ltd.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

BCW ‘A’ Shilling Reverse (30th November 1583 – 13th February 1585)

BCW’s ‘A’ shilling reverse types, numbering just two, are easily distinguished by the presence, or not, of an over-mark. Though much less common, XX dies are thought to exist with an ‘A’ over ‘Bell’.

It is assumed from the outset that, unless the interest is in micro-varieties, attempts are being made here to classify a shilling with inconclusive privy mark detail. Accordingly, the following descriptors noted on the reverse ‘A’ dies, do not involve the privy mark itself.

Reverse Dies of BCW's A-b Shilling

Edited August 11, 2012 by Coinery

[TomGoodheart 373]

Brilliant! .. though daunting in how much work it may involve! But certainly from examining shillings of Charles, it's a very useful thing to have a decent example of a number of different coins to compare and contract to one's own!

An 'A' for effort (and ambition) Stuart!

[Coinery 926]

Brilliant! .. though daunting in how much work it may involve! But certainly from examining shillings of Charles, it's a very useful thing to have a decent example of a number of different coins to compare and contract to one's own!

An 'A' for effort (and ambition) Stuart!

It's all speculation, of course, but I'm thinking around 1000 dies for the shillings alone. Without making it a chore, I mean to have a go at a couple in the small hours of each evening (about an hour with all the staring included), so a couple of years for the shillings!

I have only just realised that I enjoy collecting the images nearly as much as the coins! Well, nearly!

The A's are really a poor place to start, as there are very few 'A' shillings that don't have enough of the privy mark remaining to classify them. I just happened to have a number of images at hand to make a start.

[Debbie 58]

Yes looks very impressive Stuart clearly a labour of love! Like the clear pointers - could do with something similar for all the later milled stuff - points to beads etc etc.. Is there any significance to the number of beads on the inner and outer circles at all in hammered coins? I know very little as you can guess.Good luck and I hope you get lots of contributions.

[Coinery 926]

Yes looks very impressive Stuart clearly a labour of love! Like the clear pointers - could do with something similar for all the later milled stuff - points to beads etc etc.. Is there any significance to the number of beads on the inner and outer circles at all in hammered coins? I know very little as you can guess.Good luck and I hope you get lots of contributions.

No significance really, as very few coins have clear beading to begin with, plus the bead numbers would vary for each die! Also, double-strike, even by a half a degree would change the orientation of the beads altogether (and numbers, of course)!

I guess if you had a couple of extremely well-struck coins from the same die you could certainly utilize the beading in those instances but, on the whole, i don't think you'd convince very many people in the hammered world that your coin was X on account of a point to bead etc., so I'm avoiding that marker altogether...unless there's nothing else left to go on!

I keep praying now that all the mint workers were pi**ed on die preparation day, as the misaligned legends are undoubtably the best friend! Ironically, the larger denominations are more difficult, as there are far fewer misalignments and errors, or the cramming in of letters, because they quite literally ran out of space. Also, lest we forget, that blessing of letters encroaching one upon the other!

All very interesting if you're a nerd/spotter, I mean collector!

[Coinery 926]

Emails delivered into the hands of Chris Comber who, I'm assured, will pass it on to Messrs Brown & Wilkinson...result!

Many thanks to Paul Withers and Richard 'The Thinker'!

[Mongo 1]

Now I see what the pictures you posted recently were for! Looks like this will keep you busy for a while. Not much I can offer to help, but if there is anything I can do, let me know... even if it is just an extra pair of eyes to search google for something in particular

[Coinery 926]

Now I see what the pictures you posted recently were for! Looks like this will keep you busy for a while. Not much I can offer to help, but if there is anything I can do, let me know... even if it is just an extra pair of eyes to search google for something in particular

Thanks, Mongo, that's very decent of you!

[TomGoodheart 373]

Is there any significance to the number of beads on the inner and outer circles at all in hammered coins?

Not the actual inner circles, though they are often helpful when comparing the position of other elements of the design, like the mark of value or legend.

However there are occasions where additional beads appear in the legend. They occur during certain types, but also on 'unusual' coins, such as those struck from Welsh silver and also some 'fine work' coins. I'm therefore tempted to think that they had some significance beyond aesthetics, but I'm not aware that there are any records that describe their purpose.

What is a 'fine work' coin, you ask? They appear to have been carefully struck on specially prepared flans to a (generally) high standard. Such as this:

Sometimes, but not always, the privy mark is unusual suggesting they were produced before other coins of that type.

[Coinery 926]

Is there any significance to the number of beads on the inner and outer circles at all in hammered coins?

Not the actual inner circles, though they are often helpful when comparing the position of other elements of the design, like the mark of value or legend.

However there are occasions where additional beads appear in the legend. They occur during certain types, but also on 'unusual' coins, such as those struck from Welsh silver and also some 'fine work' coins. I'm therefore tempted to think that they had some significance beyond aesthetics, but I'm not aware that there are any records that describe their purpose.

What is a 'fine work' coin, you ask? They appear to have been carefully struck on specially prepared flans to a (generally) high standard. Such as this:

Sometimes, but not always, the privy mark is unusual suggesting they were produced before other coins of that type.

I guess there could be examples where beads could be used to assist in identification with good effect. I'm thinking, particularly in that second image, that the 'Privy' mark is in such close promiximity to the beads that it could be used as a 'xxx points to bead' etc?

Interesting stuff!

[Peter 615]

Superb info chaps.

It widens my eyes to unexplored areas of collecting.I think with hammered and individual striking it ain't easy

[Coinery 926]

Does anyone know the legal stance regarding the use of images in published works, where the photograph was taken by the author, of a coin he no longer owns? Namely, if I have an image of a coin I photographed and formerly owned, can I use it in any medium without violating the rights of the new owner?

[Rob 3,002]

Does anyone know the legal stance regarding the use of images in published works, where the photograph was taken by the author, of a coin he no longer owns? Namely, if I have an image of a coin I photographed and formerly owned, can I use it in any medium without violating the rights of the new owner?

Yes. It is your picture and you own the rights. The new owner only possesses the coin, just as you would own the rights to any image of a picture you took in a public place. A building may have belonged to many people over the years, but any images of it are only copyrighted by the person who took them. If not, you wouldn't find many images in newspapers, magazines, on the tv, or anywhere else.

[Coinery 926]

Does anyone know the legal stance regarding the use of images in published works, where the photograph was taken by the author, of a coin he no longer owns? Namely, if I have an image of a coin I photographed and formerly owned, can I use it in any medium without violating the rights of the new owner?

Yes. It is your picture and you own the rights. The new owner only possesses the coin, just as you would own the rights to any image of a picture you took in a public place. A building may have belonged to many people over the years, but any images of it are only copyrighted by the person who took them. If not, you wouldn't find many images in newspapers, magazines, on the tv, or anywhere else.

As always, Rob, common sense prevails! Thank-you!

[ski 1]

Does anyone know the legal stance regarding the use of images in published works, where the photograph was taken by the author

yes intellectual copyright applies to images taken by the author of material in his possesion.....however as much as intellectual copyright exists it can be controlled by corporate copyright. an example of this is when i photograph at premier league football matches, i own the intellectual copyright of the images i capture but am governed by the rules of the premier league, an example being the number of images i can post on my personal website without having to pay for a licence.

the same applies to buildings, whilst i can capture images for example on national trust land and own the intellectual copyright of those images, what i can do with those images is controlled by the national trust and what licence i may have to pay them, for earning monies from their property.

it is also possible to have your intellectual copyright removed in certain circumstances, such as under the terrorism laws if you were photographing a sensative subject such as a military installation, a government office block on the north bank of the thames!!!......

youre question though is clear cut......you owned the coin, you own the intellectual copyright to the image you captured.

you can publish.

[Coinery 926]

Does anyone know the legal stance regarding the use of images in published works, where the photograph was taken by the author

yes intellectual copyright applies to images taken by the author of material in his possesion.....however as much as intellectual copyright exists it can be controlled by corporate copyright. an example of this is when i photograph at premier league football matches, i own the intellectual copyright of the images i capture but am governed by the rules of the premier league, an example being the number of images i can post on my personal website without having to pay for a licence.

the same applies to buildings, whilst i can capture images for example on national trust land and own the intellectual copyright of those images, what i can do with those images is controlled by the national trust and what licence i may have to pay them, for earning monies from their property.

it is also possible to have your intellectual copyright removed in certain circumstances, such as under the terrorism laws if you were photographing a sensative subject such as a military installation, a government office block on the north bank of the thames!!!......

youre question though is clear cut......you owned the coin, you own the intellectual copyright to the image you captured.

you can publish.

Many thanks, Ski, much appreciated!

[Coinery 926]

Any advice would really be appreciated from those on, who've been on, or are thinking of being on this journey!

I notice in Spink that they use BCW's bust ID's to classify their own Spink numbers, with only a 'for further reading see BCW....etc.' acknowledgment at the end of the Elizabeth silver section.

I also notice that Dave G. has used Peck & Freeman following permission to use their numbering system.

So, I initially wanted to record the individual dies of the Elizabeth varieties as laid out by BCW (primarily so that I and others could better identify a variety [overdate etc.] should a particular feature be weak/missing), and have been approaching this by taking a BCW number and adding to it my own extra die-identifying references (as seen in the images above). However, before I go much further (I'm still awaiting responses from BCW themselves) and end up with a lot of back-tracking and time-consuming changes to my filing, can I actually do this, provided I appropriately reference BCW (as you might in a dissertation)?

Or, is the correct 'approach' to this quite simply to create your own unique referencing system, where you then might say, for example, "Shilling SBGa1 (BCW A-2) with 14 known dies SBGa1:GA, SBGa1:GB, etc"

So, entirely new referencing system, or blatant use of someone elses (with permission of course [do you actually need permission if it's appropriately referenced?])?

What is the numismatically recognised standard for what I am attempting to do?

[azda 973]

If you think about it logically, how would auction houses photograph major collections to sell if they could'nt take the pictures

[TomGoodheart 373]

What is the numismatically recognised standard for what I am attempting to do?

I don't know. But it occurs to me, what's the point of designing a system of classification and then publishing it for everyone to read about if not the hope that people will find it of assistance?

And surely, part of finding something useful will be that you will want to adopt it yourself, no? This is certainly the case with collectors of the shillings of Charles I, in that Michael Sharp's system is much more useful than Spink's numeric one (such as S.2793 which doesn't really differentiate within a type group) or Grant Francis' (1b2 etc ..) And Michael's introduction to his paper seems fairly clear that he designed his system for reference and in the hope that it could develop if any further types or varieties were found.

The fact that we call a coin Sharp C2/6 effectively gives MS credit. Similarly it seems to me that by using BCW (or Peck or Spink or Freeman etc) notation we are acknowledging their work.

As to a new system, while it's your area and you have the expertise, not I, my personal feeling would be that if BCW classifications are adequate, why re-invent the wheel? That's what Roy Osborne tried to do (again with the Charles I series) but to be honest he went into so much detail that the result is just unwieldy and inelegant. While it can be helpful if you can't access or send a photograph, but want someone to be able to recognise an individual coin by description (down to the style of harp and beard shape), for the most part simplicity equals functionality.

IMHO

.

Edited September 23, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Coinery 926]

What is the numismatically recognised standard for what I am attempting to do?

I don't know. But it occurs to me, what's the point of designing a system of classification and then publishing it for everyone to read about if not the hope that people will find it of assistance? The assistance element would be if you had an unclear 7/6/5 date, for example, you could hopefully find a 6/5 die to match and confirm, or quite simply being able to rule out an overmark because you have found the die match in the 'solo' marks, meaning you can give it the full BCW title!

And surely, part of finding something useful will be that you will want to adopt it yourself, no? This is certainly the case with collectors of the shillings of Charles I, in that Michael Sharp's system is much more useful than Spink's numeric one (such as S.2793 which doesn't really differentiate within a type group) or Grant Francis' (1b2 etc ..) And Michael's introduction to his paper seems fairly clear that he designed his system for reference and in the hope that it could develop if any further types or varieties were found.

The fact that we call a coin Sharp C2/6 effectively gives MS credit. Similarly it seems to me that by using BCW (or Peck or Spink or Freeman etc) notation we are acknowledging their work. But can I publish material stating "BCW Shilling A-b (Die G1)" with the G1 being my own extension to their cataloguing?

As to a new system, while it's your area and you have the expertise, not I, my personal feeling would be that if BCW classifications are adequate, why re-invent the wheel? I'd love to use BCW, it's a superb system, just uncertain whether I can or not? My thoughts on a new system were about avoiding red tape (if there is any) That's what Roy Osborne tried to do (again with the Charles I series) but to be honest he went into so much detail that the result is just unwieldy and inelegant. While it can be helpful if you can't access or send a photograph, but want someone to be able to recognise an individual coin by description (down to the style of harp and beard shape), for the most part simplicity equals functionality.

IMHO

.

Thanks, Richard! I have marked above in your text, just because it would be simpler to follow (I often think it can look rude, you know it's not)!

I guess my key point here is, can you use the numbering systems of Freeman, Spink, BCW, Sharp, etc. (and add to them using brackets) provided academic acknowledgement is given? Whilst I believe it's courtesy to contact the authors of these works, notwithstanding their endorsement would be an important part of the process, and not to mention I'd feel it akin to meeting Keira Knightley should either BCorW as much as give a passing interest in what I am doing, I wonder if it's legally neccesary?

Essentially, what is the correct process/etiquete/presentation when taking a BCW Shilling A-2 and sub-dividing it by the 10 different dies that potentially make it up?

Do I have to get consent (other than as a courtesy)?

Can I numerically add to their system without consent (if clearly and academically noting the division)?

[azda 973]

What is the numismatically recognised standard for what I am attempting to do?

I don't know. But it occurs to me, what's the point of designing a system of classification and then publishing it for everyone to read about if not the hope that people will find it of assistance? The assistance element would be if you had an unclear 7/6/5 date, for example, you could hopefully find a 6/5 die to match and confirm, or quite simply being able to rule out an overmark because you have found the die match in the 'solo' marks, meaning you can give it the full BCW title!

And surely, part of finding something useful will be that you will want to adopt it yourself, no? This is certainly the case with collectors of the shillings of Charles I, in that Michael Sharp's system is much more useful than Spink's numeric one (such as S.2793 which doesn't really differentiate within a type group) or Grant Francis' (1b2 etc ..) And Michael's introduction to his paper seems fairly clear that he designed his system for reference and in the hope that it could develop if any further types or varieties were found.

The fact that we call a coin Sharp C2/6 effectively gives MS credit. Similarly it seems to me that by using BCW (or Peck or Spink or Freeman etc) notation we are acknowledging their work. But can I publish material stating "BCW Shilling A-b (Die G1)" with the G1 being my own extension to their cataloguing?

As to a new system, while it's your area and you have the expertise, not I, my personal feeling would be that if BCW classifications are adequate, why re-invent the wheel? I'd love to use BCW, it's a superb system, just uncertain whether I can or not? My thoughts on a new system were about avoiding red tape (if there is any) That's what Roy Osborne tried to do (again with the Charles I series) but to be honest he went into so much detail that the result is just unwieldy and inelegant. While it can be helpful if you can't access or send a photograph, but want someone to be able to recognise an individual coin by description (down to the style of harp and beard shape), for the most part simplicity equals functionality.

IMHO

.

Thanks, Richard! I have marked above in your text, just because it would be simpler to follow (I often think it can look rude, you know it's not)!

I guess my key point here is, can you use the numbering systems of Freeman, Spink, BCW, Sharp, etc. (and add to them using brackets) provided academic acknowledgement is given? Whilst I believe it's courtesy to contact the authors of these works, notwithstanding their endorsement would be an important part of the process, and not to mention I'd feel it akin to meeting Keira Knightley should either BCorW as much as give a passing interest in what I am doing, I wonder if it's legally neccesary?

Essentially, what is the correct process/etiquete/presentation when taking a BCW Shilling A-2 and sub-dividing it by the 10 different dies that potentially make it up?

Do I have to get consent (other than as a courtesy)?

Can I numerically add to their system without consent (if clearly and academically noting the division)?

Have a look at Chris Perkins book CCGB. Chris adds peck and freemans if i'm not mistaken. He's not making his own numbers to add to his book, just a reference for people who bought his book. In time, all these books will inevitably need redoing, some form of reworking because authours pass and more discoveries made, such as ESC which i think Rob is doing something about? Its a daunting task, but one day will be needed eventually. Also with the aid of better photography and clearer images, people such like TPGs in America might just get a coin attribution correct eventually Just saying. My personal view is, stick at it Stuart, your references, pictures and knowledge will be helpful in the near future and a collaboration with Rob might be in the offing.

How about a book on fakes...............Collaborating with Seuk

Edited September 23, 2012 by azda

[Coinery 926]

Have a look at Chris Perkins book CCGB. Chris adds peck and freemans if i'm not mistaken. He's not making his own numbers to add to his book, just a reference for people who bought his book. In time, all these books will inevitably need redoing, some form of reworking because authours pass and more discoveries made, such as ESC which i think Rob is doing something about? Its a daunting task, but one day will be needed eventually

Cheers, Dave, I'll had a dig around in there and see how Chris has played it!

[azda 973]

Have a look at Chris Perkins book CCGB. Chris adds peck and freemans if i'm not mistaken. He's not making his own numbers to add to his book, just a reference for people who bought his book. In time, all these books will inevitably need redoing, some form of reworking because authours pass and more discoveries made, such as ESC which i think Rob is doing something about? Its a daunting task, but one day will be needed eventually

Cheers, Dave, I'll had a dig around in there and see how Chris has played it!

Chris is aguy you can ask personally, ask red riley (aka derek) who wrote the book on grading, i'm sure Chris helped him with that and was published with Chris' help and also with help from forum members. Every little helps as they say at azda

[Peckris 579]

Have a look at Chris Perkins book CCGB. Chris adds peck and freemans if i'm not mistaken. He's not making his own numbers to add to his book, just a reference for people who bought his book. In time, all these books will inevitably need redoing, some form of reworking because authours pass and more discoveries made, such as ESC which i think Rob is doing something about? Its a daunting task, but one day will be needed eventually

Cheers, Dave, I'll had a dig around in there and see how Chris has played it!

This is the difference between a catalogue, a reference, and a price guide.

Spink and Coincraft are catalogues, in that they identify each major type of a nation's coinage between certain dates, giving unique identifiers to each type that can be quoted as definitive. Both those mentioned are combined with price guides too, as values are given not only for major types (as Seaby started out to do) but for each year, and latterly for each major variety too. They sometimes began as genuine sale catalogues, e.g. Spink's 1925 forerunner of ESC offered each listed item for sale at the prices quoted.

A reference covers one particular aspect of a coinage - e.g. Peck for British Museum base metal post-Tudor, Freeman for bronze, and ESC for milled silver. Again there are unique identifiers for each type, and they further subdivide into year, and include proofs and patterns to boot. You will find that references like this don't usually quote prices, though Freeman 2nd edition does in supplement form (which he quickly realised was a mistake, as a reference should last for years while prices are out of date as soon as they are published; Davies quotes prices, but these are now only of use as a guide to comparative rarity).

A price guide is not a major reference, but will - like CCGB - quote existing references from Peck, Freeman, etc. Coins and Market Values, the Yearbook, are also simply guides. CCGB is actually one of the best for being comprehensive, but doesn't go back as far as early milled or earlier.

[Coinery 926]

My personal view is, stick at it Stuart, your references, pictures and knowledge will be helpful in the near future and a collaboration with Rob might be in the offing.

How about a book on fakes...............Collaborating with Seuk

I've just picked up on your revision! Hah, now there's a case of David meeting Goliath (with Dave being me in this instance)! I'm going to have to get my Dundee friend to deliver a bottle to your house if you're back for Christmas!