Pictures required of Warham's Uncertain Mark

[Rob 3,002]

As the title says. Please email any images you have of it - irrespective of how clear. Thanks.

[Coinery 926]

What's his uncertain mark?

[Rob 3,002]

I think it is C over pomegranate, but just need to prove it. I believe the uncertainty arises from the fact that sometimes the pomegranate has a wavy foot and sometimes not. Coupled with the fact that the overmark is not always centred at the same point on the underlying mark it leads to ambiguity in interpretation.

[Coinery 926]

Is it denomination specific, or have you found it across all coins?

[Rob 3,002]

It is easiest to see on the halfgroats. Halfpennies usually have the mark off flan and pennies are just plain uncommon. The mark is also competing with T, cross patonce and a rare rose reverse, which I haven't seen to date. The first two are also muled both ways and are common in any combination, the rose is paired with the uncertain mark obverse, which is itself never otherwise muled. Given rose was a first issue mark at Canterbury, it being muled with the uncertain mark means that should be at the head of the second issue marks. The frequent muling of the T and cross patonce suggests they ran concurrently and may well be the marks of the Archbishop's (2?) engravers.

[Rob 3,002]

Seeing as nobody has contributed a single picture, here is a montage of uncertain marks.

The earliest would appear to be the bottom left where there is a clear pomegranate with a bottom line. The bottom right looks as if the majority of the bottom line has broken off the punch. The high relief of the angular C is seen clearly on top row nos.1, 4 & 6. The profile of the bottom arm of the C suggests the punch probably degraded quite rapidly, where there is a consistent lump and indent irrespective of the presence of the bottom line. They are very common as a halfgroat, so it is inconceivable that nobody else has one. Anyone has one with a clear image to support or refute the above, please could they send it to me - thanks.

[Coinery 926]

Rob, will definitely take a look for images!

Looking at those images gives me a slightly different idea, but hard to say at the moment?

Can you email me the montage so I can draw on it to propose another angle, which you'll be able to refute (or not), if you have access to any of the coins.

[Coinery 926]

OK, I obviously have poor images to deal with here, as do you, but I'm initially seeing this (red-line) shape as a consistent thing (and as a starting point, because there's obviously an upper part, connected or separate). Below are a list of points your images raised for me.

(edit to add this cropped image for ease)

The key thing for me is the first image (top left) which has a 'knobbly' pomegranate-like surface, which I can easily see as flattening to a letter shape when not fully struck up or worn (the beginnings of which can be seen in the fourth image along [top])?

The pomegranate punch is obviously knackered, as shown by your two larger images. Would there have been any attempts to 'doctor' it on the die? Can we rule that out?

I'm surprised to see the shape (?overmark) so precisely placed on this many examples, given the size of the coin? Could there have been some recutting of the punch itself, only to make it more knobbly and palatable as a pomegranate?

Given the fractures in the C-shape, is there any possibility that there were two 'bobbly-pomegranate-L-shapes' used to improve/enhance the broken mark on the die? The upper part struck first, perhaps, and the lower, second part (the bits I've drawn) laid in on top (though the amazing consistency of positioning probably rules this out)?

Your investigation will be an easy thing to prove, one way or another, we just need some really high-grade examples/images, which span the disintegration of the pomegranate and appearance of this anomaly?

Edited March 16, 2015 by Coinery

[Coinery 926]

I think we are seeing your images, 1, 4, and 6 (top line) as a clear progression of wear (or weak strike) of a knobbly structure, that ultimately ends up looking like an angular C. The story starts at picture 1 for me. Is this an on-die repair (on this limited evidence it doesn't look like an additional overstrike, on account of the prescision), or is it a reworked punch?

If it's a reworked punch, was it meant to be significant (an identifier), or simply serving to make the pomegranate a more satisfactory looking fruit?

[Rob 3,002]

I'm not convinced about a reworked punch because the obviously higher relief of the C would not be possible to add to the punch, so it would have to be a new one. The 1st coinage pomegranate mark has a foot as per the bottom left, so to be missing as per the others it would have to be damaged. A C superimposed on a pomegranate would make sense in terms of the mint (Canterbury) and as the mark leading up to the end of the 1st coinage was a pomegranate, I considered the subtle change in design a possibility to reflect the start of the second coinage.

The shape of the C is consistent across all 8 marks with the slight undulation on the bottom bar, the inner angles and its position relative to the stalk. Images 1 & 4 have a small dot which would tie in with a degraded foot if you compare with the bottom left. That has a definite blob on the left side in the right place. I could do with a high grade example of a mark with a foot, but that's all I have.

[Colin G. 147]

Sorry but I wouldn't buy the "C" theory mainly due to the shape. It is a square edged C, and whilst admittedly I am a farthings man, I cant recall seeing any C's that even closely resemble that shape at that time. I am still mulling over options and will comment further at some point

[Rob 3,002]

Sorry but I wouldn't buy the "C" theory mainly due to the shape. It is a square edged C, and whilst admittedly I am a farthings man, I cant recall seeing any C's that even closely resemble that shape at that time. I am still mulling over options and will comment further at some point

We aren't talking about a letter punch, but the initial mark which will be a separate punch. What I'm suggesting in the previous post is that the mark punch has a high relief C cut on top with the basic pomegranate in lower relief. I think Stuart is right in saying that the position of the C is too consistent to be a separate mark, which means that it has to be a single punch. It always wears down to the same basic C shape.

[Colin G. 147]

I appreciate that it is an initial mark punch and not a letter punch, but it just does not seem to resemble a C as it would have been produced at that time. Is there any chance of a montage of possible initial marks for the series that you know exist for comparison? I could see it as some form of double rose...possibly if I squint and hop up and down on one leg....maybe

[Rob 3,002]

I'll have to look for one in a catalogue. I don't have a 1st coinage pomegranate marked coin.

This is one of only two examples in the DNW archive. The other is Fair (6/9/1995 lot 286)

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rob

[Coinery 926]

My main concern re it being an intended letter, is that it doesn't have a flat top, at least not before it wears flat?

In the top row (no. 1), the beginnings of the shape is clearly knobbly in appearance, with the C only looking progressively C-like, as it wears flat in pictures 4 and 6.

Definitely high-grade examples will be needed to be found! Is it a possibility that a second punch was cut to repair the broken pomegranate punch, and maybe refresh old dies?

[Rob 3,002]

A lot of hammered coins have quite sharp letters which are certainly not flat on top. The first mark is virtually as struck with no. 4 not far behind.

[Coinery 926]

A lot of hammered coins have quite sharp letters which are certainly not flat on top. The first mark is virtually as struck with no. 4 not far behind.

OK, so sharp/angled or flat, they tend not to be knobbly, if it's a punch intended to be a letter?

Something is definitely, and consistently, going on with this punch, and the findings will be interesting, whatever they are?

I guess there's little point in me trawling the net for new images, as I'm sure you've already covered that one off?

[Coinery 926]

Another point, isn't that little drop-tail off the end of the proposed C part of the additional punched in shape? It certainly looks as though it could be, which would negate a C?

[Rob 3,002]

Another point, isn't that little drop-tail off the end of the proposed C part of the additional punched in shape? It certainly looks as though it could be, which would negate a C?

No, that would be the stem of a pomegranate. If you look at the first issue mark, the second issue mark minus the 'C' bit is not wildly different. As a new mark made with a new punch it would never be identical to the previous pomegranante. The bottom two images are the obverse and reverse of the same coin. One has a base, the other not, so given the otherwise general agreement of the shapes, one is clearly a later stage of the other.

[Coinery 926]

I'm stumped then! Have you done a big Internet trawl for further images?

I'll have a surf around later this week, it's interesting...AND hammered, so must be worth a couple hours of browsing!

[Rob 3,002]

It's coin that usually it isn't worth illustrating in hi-res. It would have to be a really good one (like top row 1 & 4) to pay much over a couple hundred. It is also competing with the cross patonce and T marks plus mules.

[Coinery 926]

Understood! Nothing's easy in coins! It would be no fun at all if it was too easy...he says, not quite sure about the truth of it?