Help Identifying A Liz Please

[Paulus 1,942]

I am disposing of a bunch of coins on the Bay, and hammered really isn't my area!

I think this is a 6d, I think it is 1573, and I think it is mm 65b (Acorn), but I can't find such a combination in my Spink (2013).

Any help much appreciated! Stuart?

[Rob 3,000]

Bust 5A. S2563. This mark and bust are illustrated in Spink 2013 (p.256)

[Coinery 926]

S2563

That'll go quite well for you, the acorn is a rarer and popularly known PM!

The mintmarks as documented in spinks goes 77-27, which means, if you go back to the mintmarks at the start of the Elizabeth bit, it'll be all the mintmarks between these two numbers, which includes 65b as you rightly say!

[Paulus 1,942]

Bust 5A. S2563. This mark and bust are illustrated in Spink 2013 (p.256)

Thanks Rob, I was staring at that page and couldn't see the reference to the acorn mm, but there it is, pictured!

[Paulus 1,942]

S2563

That'll go quite well for you, the acorn is a rarer and popularly known PM!

The mintmarks as documented in spinks goes 77-27, which means, if you go back to the mintmarks at the start of the Elizabeth bit, it'll be all the mintmarks between these two numbers, which includes 65b as you rightly say!

Never knew that, thanks Stuart!

[Coinery 926]

If you really want to dazzle your public, you could always add it's a "BCW Sixpence AC-2A:b1"

Another point...I'd really try and lighten those images and maybe remove some of the blue? It makes it look very pewtery and polished!

Edited January 11, 2014 by Coinery

[Paulus 1,942]

If you really want to dazzle your public, you could always add it's a "BCW Sixpence AC-2A:b1"

Another point...I'd really try and lighten those images and maybe remove some of the blue? It makes it look very pewtery and polished!

Blinking white balance, it will be the death of me! Thanks again!

[Rob 3,000]

S2563

That'll go quite well for you, the acorn is a rarer and popularly known PM!

The mintmarks as documented in spinks goes 77-27, which means, if you go back to the mintmarks at the start of the Elizabeth bit, it'll be all the mintmarks between these two numbers, which includes 65b as you rightly say!

Never knew that, thanks Stuart!

You're not the first person to say that, so obviously there is a minor issue with interpreting the information laid out. As Stuart described it is as it is. How do you interpret the mms employed?

[Paulus 1,942]

S2563

That'll go quite well for you, the acorn is a rarer and popularly known PM!

The mintmarks as documented in spinks goes 77-27, which means, if you go back to the mintmarks at the start of the Elizabeth bit, it'll be all the mintmarks between these two numbers, which includes 65b as you rightly say!

Never knew that, thanks Stuart!

You're not the first person to say that, so obviously there is a minor issue with interpreting the information laid out. As Stuart described it is as it is. How do you interpret the mms employed?

In this case I thought it meant that the mm could be either 77 or 27, it was not intuitive to me that 77-27 was a range of mint marks! Better in my opinion if Spink listed the applicable ones in all cases, e.g. S. 2562A, but now I know! Still learning, and will be for ever!

Edited January 11, 2014 by Paulus

[Rob 3,000]

If you look at say the J1 spur ryals on p.264, you will see that the mms are 33, 79, 74, 25-32, 132. i.e. rose, scallop, then missing out grapes, crown, missing out key & bell, then mullet to cinquefoil which includes tower and trefoil, and finally book having missed out tun in between. So two marks will be separated by a comma, whilst a run of 3 or more consecutive marks are hyphenated.

[Paulus 1,942]

If you look at say the J1 spur ryals on p.264, you will see that the mms are 33, 79, 74, 25-32, 132. i.e. rose, scallop, then missing out grapes, crown, missing out key & bell, then mullet to cinquefoil which includes tower and trefoil, and finally book having missed out tun in between. So two marks will be separated by a comma, whilst a run of 3 or more consecutive marks are hyphenated.

It does make sense, I guess it just wasn't obvious (enough) to me ... if I examined hammered more than once in a blue moon it would be second nature I'm sure. I think it's more obvious when the run is numerically ascending (e.g. 25-32), rather than descending (e.g. 77-27)

[Rob 3,000]

Yes, but the short run of marks is not 25-32 inclusive as this would include intervening marks not used during James 1's reign - 26 pierced mullet (Ed. VI), 27 eglantine (Eliz.I), 28 sun (Ed. IV), 29 mullet (Henry V), 30 pansy (Ed. IV), 31 heraldic cinquefoil (Henry VII). Rather it refers to the numbers given to the various marks in the Seaby list which is shown on p.645 in the 2013 edition, or p.659 in the current volume.

25 - 32 means 25 (mullet) followed by 71 (tower) followed by 45 (trefoil) followed by 32 (cinquefoil) which are the marks covering the chronological period 1611-1615. They are the marks used for each of the pyx trials in this period.

[Paulus 1,942]

Yes, but the short run of marks is not 25-32 inclusive as this would include intervening marks not used during James 1's reign - 26 pierced mullet (Ed. VI), 27 eglantine (Eliz.I), 28 sun (Ed. IV), 29 mullet (Henry V), 30 pansy (Ed. IV), 31 heraldic cinquefoil (Henry VII). Rather it refers to the numbers given to the various marks in the Seaby list which is shown on p.645 in the 2013 edition, or p.659 in the current volume.

25 - 32 means 25 (mullet) followed by 71 (tower) followed by 45 (trefoil) followed by 32 (cinquefoil) which are the marks covering the chronological period 1611-1615. They are the marks used for each of the pyx trials in this period.

I do understand (honestly!) - it's just the 'obviousness' of it that could be improved I feel ... any truth in the rumours that you might be involved in some future publications??