Cracked die?

[RENNES 0]

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/LouisX1V/library/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

[RENNES 0]

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/LouisX1V/library/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

PLEASE

[Nick 325]

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/LouisX1V/library/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

I have no knowledge of Jersey coinage, but the coin pictured is definitely the result of a cracked die. It is pretty common for die cracks to roughly follow the baseline of the legend as this one does through "ELFT".

[davidrj 194]

http://s1277.photobu...y/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

I have no knowledge of Jersey coinage, but the coin pictured is definitely the result of a cracked die. It is pretty common for die cracks to roughly follow the baseline of the legend as this one does through "ELFT".

JerseyCoins is a mine of information - die varieties etc

David

[RENNES 0]

http://s1277.photobu...y/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

I have no knowledge of Jersey coinage, but the coin pictured is definitely the result of a cracked die. It is pretty common for die cracks to roughly follow the baseline of the legend as this one does through "ELFT".

JerseyCoins is a mine of information - die varieties etc

David

Wow that it is! thankyou

thats great

[RENNES 0]

http://s1277.photobu...y/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

I have no knowledge of Jersey coinage, but the coin pictured is definitely the result of a cracked die. It is pretty common for die cracks to roughly follow the baseline of the legend as this one does through "ELFT".

JerseyCoins is a mine of information - die varieties etc

David

Wow that it is! thankyou

thats great

Shame its not a penny aye!

[RENNES 0]

http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/LouisX1V/library/Another%20one

Hello

can anyone confirm the error,

I really like these coins!

Has anyone heard or seen of this before with these coins?

many thanks

I have no knowledge of Jersey coinage, but the coin pictured is definitely the result of a cracked die. It is pretty common for die cracks to roughly follow the baseline of the legend as this one does through "ELFT".

Hi,

When the Planchats are rolled out and stamped is that the final size?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the reverse and the obverse dies strike the round and the collar retains the alloy in a nice round shape?

My question is does the coin spread and fill the collar to an exact size upon being struck.

Many thanks

[Mr T 169]

I believe the actual striking will compress the width and push out the diameter into the collar.

I think that the final width should be pretty constant but the thickness may vary a little with strike pressure.

[RENNES 0]

I believe the actual striking will compress the width and push out the diameter into the collar.

I think that the final width should be pretty constant but the thickness may vary a little with strike pressure.

Ok, thanks

So that explains why a tired or over used die will generally crack or weaken towards the "baseline legends" in a circular fashion. If the planchet is being compressed and its pushing out the diameter surely this is what creates the cracking effect, opening up the die as it weakens! maybe not the exact science but I understand.

Thanks for your help.

[Mr T 169]

I've never thought of that but I guess it makes sense.

I've never seen what a cracked die looks like though.

[RENNES 0]

I would be interested to see one.

Can anyone confirm which metal is generally used for die?

thanks

[VickySilver 775]

Hardened steel in modern times.

[Rob 3,001]

I've never thought of that but I guess it makes sense.

I've never seen what a cracked die looks like though.

I would be interested to see one.

Can anyone confirm which metal is generally used for die?

thanks

A cracked die would just be incuse detail of the raised detail seen on the coin. Cracked dies are very useful for chronology, as you can then sort out the order in which different coins were struck if they use a common die. So for example, the 1824 halfcrowns had a number of different strikes which probably ended with those struck in Barton's Metal, as this coin has a large number of flaws not seen on any of the other varieties.

[Rob 3,001]

Double post again.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Rob

[Rob 3,001]

Die cracks can also indicate other possible reasons concerned with the equipment used or the state of the dies. One thing I stumbled across is that the Chester halfcrown with the declaration reverse is only known with a large flaw on the left hand side of the declaration. I suspect that this was due to a mismatch in the size of the dies. The obverse die was definitely big enough to accommodate a crown design even though it was used for striking halfcrowns, whereas the reverse die may have been smaller as it was previously used for halfcrown reverse dies which were not engraved on diestock identifiably larger than halfcrown size. The shear forces associated with a rocker press which has a crown size die overshooting the edge of a smaller die with which it was paired would account for the edge of the reverse die partially breaking. With no collar to restrain the edges, the trailing edge of the smaller die would have the vertical force used for impressing the design translated into a sideways force as it left the contact position which could fracture along any lines of weakness.

[Coinery 926]

Interesting re crown-sized dies for halfcrown designs, something I'd never considered before!

Oh, and another nice example coin again!

[Rob 3,001]

Interesting re crown-sized dies for halfcrown designs, something I'd never considered before!

Oh, and another nice example coin again!

Hammered coin dies were just a piece of diestock with the design engraved on the end. When a new design was required, all they did was rub down the old one and re-engrave with the new. A die could therefore have many re-incarnations. Sometimes there was sufficient detail remaining from the previous die(s) to work out what it was before, so the Chester declaration reverse die was previously Oxford halfcrown 1643 rev. 23 for example. It also appears to have been one of the small date 1644 dies too, but I'm still working on that one. The obverse die with which the declaration reverse is paired was recut from the CHST below the horse die, but the re-engraving was rotated and displaced from the original, so we can be certain that the die was of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown because they wouldn't have engraved only half the design with the remainder off the side of the die! Next coin up would be a crown, but equally could have been big enough to accommodate a triple unite or a pound/half-pound. It also explains why some dies are far too big for the denomination on which they are found. A Shrewsbury shilling reverse and Oxford halfcrown 1645 rev.7 immediately spring to mind.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Rob

[Coinery 926]

Interesting re crown-sized dies for halfcrown designs, something I'd never considered before!

Oh, and another nice example coin again!

Hammered coin dies were just a piece of diestock with the design engraved on the end. When a new design was required, all they did was rub down the old one and re-engrave with the new. A die could therefore have many re-incarnations. Sometimes there was sufficient detail remaining from the previous die(s) to work out what it was before, so the Chester declaration reverse die was previously Oxford halfcrown 1643 rev. 23 for example. It also appears to have been one of the small date 1644 dies too, but I'm still working on that one. The obverse die with which the declaration reverse is paired was recut from the CHST below the horse die, but the re-engraving was rotated and displaced from the original, so we can be certain that the die was of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown because they wouldn't have engraved only half the design with the remainder off the side of the die! Next coin up would be a crown, but equally could have been big enough to accommodate a triple unite or a pound/half-pound. It also explains why some dies are far too big for the denomination on which they are found. A Shrewsbury shilling reverse and Oxford halfcrown 1645 rev.7 immediately spring to mind.

That's really interesting Rob, and something I'll be looking out for in future. You'd have to have some staggering grades to spot it though!

A good comparison/example of your point would be very welcome if you get five minutes spare?

[Rob 3,001]

I'll sort something out later when I've time.

[Rob 3,001]

I'll sort something out later when I've time.

This will kill a few birds with one stone. Below is my 'Hartlebury'. By the OL of CAROLVS you can see a lion. This only appears on York coinage. To the left of it on the inner circle is the remains of the sword and another example shows the flaw between Charles' foot and the 3rd leg to be a foot and spurs. Clearly this is a York die, and appears to be the 1A die pair, but I can't confirm yet.

This creates a problem for Besly's article on the York coinage in the 1984 BNJ where he states that the equipment used at York involved the use of a cylinder press with the dies engraved on the cylinder. The evidence for the shillings is quite compelling with 5 discrete die pairs and 5 pairs which appear to be rotated by one die. The same cannot be said for halfcrowns as my 2F is clearly a re-engraved die (details to follow), coupled with the fact that some die pairs are common whilst others are out and out rare. I suspect the rare ones are recut dies, such as the 2F. There is also evidence that some of the W/SA dies are ex- York dies. Clearly you cannot take a bit of the cylinder, so the assumption must be that the equipment either had some sort of clamping arrangement to hold a number of dies, or they were used as individual pairs.

This also throws a spanner in the works regarding the attribution of Hartlebury which is considered to be struck in 1646 as there is no way the dies would havve been removed from York by July 1644 and lain unused for nearly 2 years. Also, the siege at Hartlebury only lasted a day, and Worcester wasn't cut off at this point which isn't favourable for a siege coinage. A somewhat larger spanner is the fact that the 'Hartlebury' dies are recut to form the CHST below the horse Chester issue, whose obverse was recut to form the Chester declaration obverse which is dated 1644. 1646 it ain't. 'Hartlebury' it ain't either. The pear/3 pears marks are I believe, gerbs. The obverse has only one stalk, but the reverse 'pears' have 3 stalks. The pears are lion paw/claw punches as seen at York. I think the HC coins are probably Hawarden Castle, and were struck to pay the troops returning from Ireland in Dec. 1643 because there is documentary evidence that Byron arranged for all these troops to be paid 2/6d for each common soldier (they hadn't been paid for 2 years previously). Hawarden is 4 or 5 miles to the west of Chester on the road from the landing points at Mostyn etc. Anyway, enough spanners for the time being - to the 2F next

[Rob 3,001]

This is my 2F halfcrown. You will see a flaw by the 3rd hoof. Spin the picture round and you can see that it is an arm holding a sword. There is also a stop between I & T of BRIT. If the dies were cut on a cylinder, it is unlikely that you would get more than a trace of double striking. You certainly aren't going to get the cylinder jumping out and rotating by 180 degrees. The dies have to be removable, which is why I say the cylinder theory is wrong.

The 2F is one of the rarer die combinations.

[Coinery 926]

I'll sort something out later when I've time.

This will kill a few birds with one stone. Below is my 'Hartlebury'. By the OL of CAROLVS you can see a lion. This only appears on York coinage. To the left of it on the inner circle is the remains of the sword and another example shows the flaw between Charles' foot and the 3rd leg to be a foot and spurs. Clearly this is a York die, and appears to be the 1A die pair, but I can't confirm yet.

This creates a problem for Besly's article on the York coinage in the 1984 BNJ where he states that the equipment used at York involved the use of a cylinder press with the dies engraved on the cylinder. The evidence for the shillings is quite compelling with 5 discrete die pairs and 5 pairs which appear to be rotated by one die. The same cannot be said for halfcrowns as my 2F is clearly a re-engraved die (details to follow), coupled with the fact that some die pairs are common whilst others are out and out rare. I suspect the rare ones are recut dies, such as the 2F. There is also evidence that some of the W/SA dies are ex- York dies. Clearly you cannot take a bit of the cylinder, so the assumption must be that the equipment either had some sort of clamping arrangement to hold a number of dies, or they were used as individual pairs.

This also throws a spanner in the works regarding the attribution of Hartlebury which is considered to be struck in 1646 as there is no way the dies would havve been removed from York by July 1644 and lain unused for nearly 2 years. Also, the siege at Hartlebury only lasted a day, and Worcester wasn't cut off at this point which isn't favourable for a siege coinage. A somewhat larger spanner is the fact that the 'Hartlebury' dies are recut to form the CHST below the horse Chester issue, whose obverse was recut to form the Chester declaration obverse which is dated 1644. 1646 it ain't. 'Hartlebury' it ain't either. The pear/3 pears marks are I believe, gerbs. The obverse has only one stalk, but the reverse 'pears' have 3 stalks. The pears are lion paw/claw punches as seen at York. I think the HC coins are probably Hawarden Castle, and were struck to pay the troops returning from Ireland in Dec. 1643 because there is documentary evidence that Byron arranged for all these troops to be paid 2/6d for each common soldier (they hadn't been paid for 2 years previously). Hawarden is 4 or 5 miles to the west of Chester on the road from the landing points at Mostyn etc. Anyway, enough spanners for the time being - to the 2F next

Unfortunately, I'm unable to comment on the historical data, as yet, but the HC series of C1 would be another logical step for me at the end of the year, they've always felt like a serious bit of silver, very nice in the hand, I wish I still had some!

I'm thinking C1 HC's and Mary are on the winter cards for another numismatic adventure?

Where does the literature begin for the HC coins?

[Coinery 926]

This is my 2F halfcrown. You will see a flaw by the 3rd hoof. Spin the picture round and you can see that it is an arm holding a sword. There is also a stop between I & T of BRIT. If the dies were cut on a cylinder, it is unlikely that you would get more than a trace of double striking. You certainly aren't going to get the cylinder jumping out and rotating by 180 degrees. The dies have to be removable, which is why I say the cylinder theory is wrong.

The 2F is one of the rarer die combinations.

'Kin hell!

Edit: this is what I meant by grade! What a fabulous piece of hammered history that is! I'm always surprised to find so many people either disinterested, or shying away from, such an exciting coinage! It ticks all the boxes really...size, weight, history, numismatic mystery, discovery, etc. etc.

Boy oh boy!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Coinery

[Rob 3,001]

I'm thinking C1 HC's and Mary are on the winter cards for another numismatic adventure?

Where does the literature begin for the HC coins?

Morrieson's BNJ articles on the Bristol, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth, Coombe Martin & Lundy. Besly BNJ, York & Truro/Exeter. Allen BNJ, W/SA + Vincent supplementary data. Lockett BNJ, Truro & Exeter. Then combine all these articles with hundreds and hundreds of sales catalogues, sylloges, Bull, Charles I halfcowns etc.

[Rob 3,001]

On the question of diestock diameters being potentially larger than the denomination, this rather desirable Shrewsbury shilling from DNW 79 says it all.

The obverse is nearly all on the flan. There is no way the reverse would ever fit on a shilling sized flan, being barely able to fit a halfcrown. But it is definitely a shilling rev. die because of the 3 line declaration.

The second coin that sprang to mind was the Oxford 1645 F7 halfcrown. Again, the obverse is full, but the reverse is too big. Neither of these are double struck which would be a potential explanation for off flan detail. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the bar end was a greater diameter than the denomination norm, and was engraved too large in error.