Edwardian Farthing Classifications?

[Coinery 926]

I don't have Withers, or North Vol. 1, yet, so I'm referencing various websites for the following:

Could I please have some feedback on the following points, in the absence of the above?

- Spink appears to end the Edward I farthing series with North's Type 10 which, as I presently understand it, has crown M? Spink has the beginning of the Edward II reign 'classically' start with Type 11 (10-11), which has Crown N (or withers type 30), where do the two reigns overlap? Is the confusion quite simply that Withers has Crown N (type 30) dated 1310-1314, and North has Crown N (Type 10-11) as 1305-1335)?

- Spink has the first coinage of Edward III marked as indistinguishable from the Edward II coins (Type 30-32). Is this still the position, or does Withers attribute them more precisely?

I'm sensing from the 'net that the Edward II dies likely continued into the first coinage of Edward III, so are we only looking at early strikes (undamaged punches/dies) for the confident attribution of ANY Edward II farthing?

AND finally, I've spent a great deal of time this evening looking at the crowns of the Edward farthings, is the 28f on this link misattributed? It looks like a crown N, rather than an M, making it a Withers 30 I'm guessing?????

http://hammered_farthings.tripod.com/edward-i-farthings/edwardvsrex.htm

Edited March 27, 2015 by Coinery

[Peter 615]

Sorry Stewie

Hammered fart

I've have currently Quest on the TV and they are doing Sardines.

Now where are my mushrooms?

[Coinery 926]

Sorry Stewie

Hammered fart

I've have currently Quest on the TV and they are doing Sardines.

Now where are my mushrooms?

Yes, not the perfect link-break.

[Coinery 926]

Now hang on, does Edward I also have crown N on some of his later coins?

[Peter 615]

I have North 1 so will check later.

It is my birthday Saturday and my mother and Mrs Peter have a day out for me.

Hopefully it will be the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge followed by a Japanese flag ring sting with adequate toilet rolls in the freezer.

I have been after Hereforder Pils and hopefully the weekend should be better than the last couple.

[Colin G. 147]

Stu in fairness I am the opposite, I tend to use Withers as my reference, and have not really looked at North/Spink in any great detail for this series, and that has mainly been due to the fact that Withers break the classifications down in to greater detail . Withers do show the dates overlapping, but the series is broken down int smaller time periods.

Type 28-29 : 1300-1310

Type 30 : 1310 -1314

Using date alone the type 28 could potentially be attributed either way, however type 30 has been attributed to Edward II. Although Withers do clearly state that they feel the farthings are not that easy to classify from a date perspective because of prolongued re-use of the remaining dies, and therefore additional combinations can be found which could potentially have been produced during either reign, but for the purposes of classification they have been attributed to a specific time period.

[Coinery 926]

Thanks, Colin.

I guess, as the most detailed study to-date, I will also be running with Withers as my primary reference, adding North and Spink only as points of interest.

Am I correct in thinking that crown N is exclusive to type 30 (I will have the book in the next few days)?

I've also read that crown N, with its 'wire-line' band, broke up fairly early on in the type, leaving the majority of crown N coins with fractured/no band? I've looked at as many 'Ns' as possible, and have noticed that the missing bits in the band can sometimes reappear on in the later Withers 30s.

Do you think we are seeing clogs, rather than damage, though it may/likely have broke up eventually, but perhaps a bit later?

My point re the broken/clogged band, is whether you consider it safe to assume that a perfect crown would come from an early part of the reign?

Thanks, again!

[Coinery 926]

Can anybody else shed some light on this point below too?

- Spink has the first coinage of Edward III marked as indistinguishable from the Edward II coins (Type 30-32). Is this still the position, or does Withers attribute them more precisely?

I'm sensing from the 'net that the Edward II dies likely continued into the first coinage of Edward III, so are we only looking at early strikes (undamaged punches/dies) for the confident attribution of ANY Edward II farthing?