Charles I Mm Anchor Shilling - Sharp F5/1

[mhcoins 95]

Hi All,

I wondered whether anyone could help. Does anyone know whether there was a fine works isue for this type? I have an ex lingford example which has all the charateristics of a fine work. It is perfectly round and although a little weak still very well struck.

I checked Brooker but he never had a Fine works specimen for this issue. I dont have a copy at the minute of Michael Sharps article and wondered does he make any referance to fine works issue

Thank you for your help in advance for any help

[mhcoins 95]

here is the obverse

[mhcoins 95]

this is the reverse of the shilling

[Rob 3,000]

F1/1 & F5/1 fine work shillings are mentioned, the former i.m. Tun, the latter i.m. Anchor with flukes right.

[mhcoins 95]

Thank you for looking that up - I'm not 100% sure whether this is, but it came with a collectors ticket mentioning it may be one, and given its neat round flan it made me think it might possibly be.

[Rob 3,000]

The legend would suggest yes as it is well cut but the rest no because it is too weak. If you are going to have a presentation piece or a specimen strike, it seems unlikely to me that the centres would be so weak relatively.

[mhcoins 95]

I tend to agree with you but there is something about it in hand. I have a group of about 30 shillings in front of me and none are so neatly made. Possibly the coin has been just lovingly handled over the years and is showing signs of wear now. I think to be safe i'll just list it as is and state that a collectors ticket which it comes with, mentions in their opinion it may have been a fine works strike.

[TomGoodheart 373]

This is the Hunterian example Alan. As you can see, despite the scratch, evenly well made. And as Rob says, fine work strikings seem to have been made using the earliest (or previous) mint mark.

I think with the weaknesses of the centres and use of contraction stops rather than colons my feeling is not fine work. Though on a good round flan, so I can see how the previous owner felt it might be.

[Coinery 926]

I think weak strike, as opposed to 'regional' wear, as the beading, relative to the shield quarters, is still rather good.

Whilst my C1 fine-work knowledge is lacking, I have to agree, in light of them being presentation pieces, that a quality strike would've been very important, which your's isn't...at least not to fine work standards?

I suppose the question could always be asked 'how many pieces were struck to achieve 1 quality piece?' Also, what happened to the surplus? Were they circulated or melted?

[mhcoins 95]

Thats a fair and interesting point - i wonder if there is any way of finding out how many "fine works" issues would have been struck.

I previously owned the the brooker Fine works mm bell sixpence and i have seen 1 other example which was well worn and inferior in grade. I can only presume that the worn example must have found its way into circulation

[Rob 3,000]

How about an alternative theory? Maybe the person who made them was a perfectionist and that what we are looking at is the output of a particular person. It may be the main engraver or the main under-engraver working in conjuction with a specific team of co-workers. They may well be special presentation pieces, but as a rule of thumb, rightly or wrongly I typically see better quality pieces with arrangements of pellets than without. I see that both the Hunterian and your piece have a 4 pellet stop before the i.m. which has to mean something. You get the introduction of multi-pellet contraction stops during Plume (June 1630 - June 1631). Prior to that everything appears to be either single pellets, stop/apostrophe, or no stops.

The two periods prior to Plume were Heart and before that Anchor. During this time there was little silver coming into the mint and consequently very little leaving it. Output of silver at the mint increased 15-fold during Plume to a level not previously seen during the reign, which must have meant that there were more workers employed than previously. 4 pellets, 5 pellets (or whatever) coincided with the introduction of the oval shield which replaced the square topped one. There is also a profusion of pellets in the fields on some reverse dies. Multi-pellets stops are then seen all the way through to Anchor (alongside single stops etc). I also note that the latest 'Fine Work' shilling noted by sharp is the F5/1. Brooker 529 is not from the same dies, but is the only anchor shilling in Brooker apart from 522 that has more than single pellet stops. 522 has a 4 pellet arrangement, 529 has 2 pellet stops by the i.m.

Whilst the 4 pellets mark disappears from shilling dies in Anchor, it first appears in Plume and Rose on the crown dies and then after a change to a 'tadpole' like set of stop punches, re-emerges in Crown (obv) and subsequently Tun and Anchor. The crown reverses however are all marked with 4 pellets from Tun right through to the end of the reign. I think the 4 pellets is an individual's mark.

I've long thought that there ought to be some way of identifying the person responsible for individual dies because you see this in the provincial civil war pieces and here we are only a few years before with the anchor mark. I would assume that an existing state of affairs would carry over into the civil war arena simply because that is what people were accustomed to. It's a case of keys fitting locks. People would be on autopilot as that was the way they usually worked.

[mhcoins 95]

What a wonderful and insightful theory. Very plausible too.

[Rob 3,000]

I have thought about this quite a lot. Using the evidence from the marks employed in the Cary commission area, it appears that there were an initial 5 engravers employed. As they all had their personal mark, which accompanied coins using the same punches on the whole it is possible to build up a picture of their movement (which had to be associated with troop concentrations as paying these was their sole purpose). A reasonable assumption is that existing working practices were continued wherever possible as it would not require a new set of rules, hence my belief that the various stop arrangements reflected the work of different individuals. Within the Cary commission area, one engraver used the 3 pellets mark. I think he came from York towards the end of 1643 but before the fall of the city. The idea that an identifying mark can be assigned to an individual based on the above can be extended to Oxford where it is possible to identify dies cut by a couple of individuals who subsequently moved to the Cary area and continued to cut dies using the same punches. I can therefore assign certain stops to certain individuals and believe these to be their personal privy marks.

As the set of rules of the provincial mints would likely mirror that existing at the Tower prior to Parkhurst moving to Oxford, I confidently believe that the decorative stop marks used on some of the Tower coinage was similarly used to identify the engravers.

[TomGoodheart 373]

An interesting idea Rob. I had a quick look at my coins and think it's curious that my rarest three (Sharp C1/1, C2/2 and D1/2) all have five dots to the left of the privy mark.

Tempting to think of 'Mafter Fivedotte' as a senior coyner/experimenter at the mint!

[Rob 3,000]

The thing is that although it is tempting to say that they are just filler, on some dies the dots have to be squeezed in where a single stop would be adequate. This must be done for a reason. It could be date related, decorative or it could be an individual, but the overwhelming case is for the latter.