TomGoodheart

That's quite possibly so with thinner / earlier coins. With larger coins like shillings it appears a number of roughly circular pieces were cut from the plate then stacked into a pile, a bit like a sausage. The ends of the 'sausage' were clamped to keep the individual blanks together and then someone went along the sausage with a hammer bashing the whole thing more-or-less circular. This means that you tend to get thicker edges and an almost concave lens like shape to the blanks. The result being that legend is well struck up but the bust/reverse design towards the centre where the metal is thinner is weak. I imagine bashing the edges also caused quite a few blanks to stick together. Coupled with the fact that the dies were not made from one master die but punched from a number of puncheons (up to three for the bust, one for the privy mark and numerous for the lettering and elements in the royal shield) makes the liklihood of finding a perfectly struck coin nigh impossible. And that's before you take wear of dies and subsequently the coin itself into account!

Oh, and an example of an American description of a hammered coin that amuses me: Lot 2161 Great Britain. Charles I (1625-49) silver Shilling (1643-44). S-2843. Tower Mint issue, under Parliament (1642-48). "P" in brackets mm (Spink #98, struck 1643-44). Extremely elusive variety, the first time this cataloguer has ever seen this peculiar mintmark on a superior coin! The standard catalogue describes this issue as "coarse work" and that is clearly an understatement, for the die-work here is almost comical. The reason, of course, is that the talent escaped London with the king at almost the same moment this very coin was struck. The king was under threat of life and Crown even at the outset of the Civil War, when this coin was minted. He was as yet not disowned as Monarch, however, and the weak Parliament which preceded Cromwell's rise to overlordship was the official issuer of this coin, or "in the king's name" as the saying went. If you understand this groundwork, this historical context, you must perforce be impressed by this extraordinary specimen! NGC graded MS62 but the cataloguer is at a loss to explain the number. The coin is clearly Choice and without wear, peering at it under magnification. The surfaces are original and elegantly toned a medium gray color. While crudely cut, the portrait is extraordinary, suggestive of the strife of its day; the king's bodice shows some fascinating little details, vague emblems of majesty. The shield is equally interesting and well struck. So too the legends, although they are only partial, some letters being off-flan because of its shape. The rarely seen mintmark is crisp in detail. At first glance this coin looks like nothing, a crude cobbling of elements. The more you study it, though, the more you realize it's a simply superb example of this emergency coinage, made at one of England's most horrific moments, outbreak of its disastrous Civil War, which when it ended in 1660 brought back a monarchy totally different in power and attitude from that which prevailed in 1643, when this coin was made, almost even then "in memory" of once-mighty kingship. NGC graded MS-62. Estimated Value $600 - 800. The Cheshire Collection. Realized $1,208 MS-62 ... and ugly!

As Rob and Peter have implied, it's quite possible for a hammered coin to be EF. Strictly speaking EF means a coin that exhibits very little sign of circulation, with only minimal marks or faint wear, which are only evident upon very close scrutiny. (Spink) or ... virtually perfect but will have, however, very slight wear on high points of the design ... (Dowle & Finn) The problem as you'll know is that hammered coins were very rarely struck on a perfect flan. Consequently there are often weaknesses which make the coin less attractive or may be taken for wear, but are actually there from the outset as opposed to being due to wear. Milled coins come out the press as perfect as they can be but even then, die wear causes minor variation. How much more so with hammered. This coin for example is pretty much 'as struck'; but you'll see there are areas that aren't as crisp as could be, particularly on the reverse. Plus there's a scratch! It's spent much of its life in a museum (Hunterian) cabinet so it should have suffered very little wear since it was acquired. EF? Could be, because it's difficult to distinguish softness of strike from wear from a pic. And that's why I think with hammered I'm not sure there's much point trying to micro-grade that gVF/nEF border. I'm sure you'll agree it's a blooming nice coin. As for me, I'm happy to leave it at that! Of course, everyone is interested in price. So I think the Spink F - VF range is 'good enough'. If your coin is towards the better or worse end, it provides a guide. But in the end, what you think is an acceptable price for a coin will always be related to the condition of other similar coins you've seen and what they have gone for. That's why I'm constantly learning and revising my expectations as more material comes to light. But it's a personal thing. What I might be prepared to pay for a coin might be much more or less than anyone else, irrespective of actual grade. As Rob says, if the only examples that exist are much of a muchness, what does the grade matter if you want one? It will come down to availability and eye appeal. That's why I'm not interested in what grading companies say. Particularly the US ones. I simply don't believe they have seen enough hammered coins to say what the 'finest example' might be and so I suspect they slant their grading based on what they have seen before, which really they shouldn't if they are supposed to be working to a system based on how much physical wear a coin has been subject to.

They all look Brasso'd to me. And Brittannia's face looks ... really odd, IMHO. But, hey .. what do I know.

???? What the heck? And look at the other items too!

1) Whatever you do, don't clean it. 2) If you have or can take photos to post here we can give you a better idea about it. Small pics can be uploaded from your computer or larger ones as links from photohosting sites like flikr or photobucket. If it's real, it's quite scarce because as far as I know, they were only produced for a couple of years. Can you tell us where you got it?

It's amazing the number of regional versions of our language..... Your wife is fluent in Englsih, GeoffT uses Englisn and Azda is fluent in ******. Brilliant. Yes, all very confusing. I've had to resort to putting this whole page through Google Translate. It's fortunately very good though and so I now know that Az's name is Joke, he is married to a turkey and has a small bear named Wooly. Oddly, I'm still confused.

The only coins I've ever done this to were a 19th century French cent found on the beach and a penny picked up in change that I thought had verd but seemed to have been painted green (!) While the oil cleaned both, the French coin came up quite pink. I imagine that the mild acidity of the oil gradually disolves away the dirt, but also imagine that if it can eat into verdegris, it will effect the surface of the coin. There's no way as far as I know to make the treatment specific to one part and not another. Patina, lustre, whatever are all surface effects. I can't see that anything that will touch verd (as opposed to simply washing it loose) won't also effect that outer layer of oxidation on a coin, which is of course what gives it its appearance. Over the years I've tried a few different ways to change the appearance of coins, from cleaning to trying to accelerate the oxidation process to take the overly shiny edge off a 'museum cleaned' silver coin. None have been 100% succesful I'm afraid. The few spots of verdegris (on valuble silver coins) I have accepted I'm just going to have to leave alone.

But surely, with a bit of brasso, they could all have full lustre. No?

Thanks! It's Spink 2803 (Sharp H2/2) Despite the double striking of the legend it does look quite crisp, so here's hoping.

Sadly Dad had an enthusiasm for 50p pieces with the hands on, so I only got face value! The few pieces of silver I sold to Chris a while back. As to the purchase, when we got back from the jewellers, Wifey threw a wobbly about me selling off the family , er .. gold. So .. I've just ordered the coin. I'll be paying for it with my next five years' birthday and Christmas prezzies! Hopefully it's still available .. and when it arrives I'm as pleased as I hope to be! Dealer's pic:

Glad you got your answer dave. Oh, and I've deleted your duplicate thread in case you wondered!

LOL I did read an article about bins of Georgian silver. I think there's a bit of concern in the antiques trade about quality items being lost. As for my gold cross, I was offered £120 and £128 by two jewellers. Since I can get £160 from the people Chingford mentioned and apparently £169 from a Birmingham firm that deal online, that's disappointing. I'd really have preferred it to go to someone who'd wear the thing, but 30% more is more towards the coin I want ... So I'm still considering my options.

Prices seem ridiculous to me. But hey .. if they are happy to offer. I don't really go for jewellery so don't have much, just a cross pendant Dad had and a ring I had made years ago. If I can raise money for a coin I want far more .. why not? Of course, I have reservations about the fact that they are also pieces of jewellery and if melted, that's lost. I suspect a lot of antiques and coins will go this way. I'll try a jeweller first and see if I can sell for them to sell on rather than melt. But I sure am tempted ..

One I have sold silver to, and pays cash is http://www.gold-traders.co.uk very reliable and fair, Michael Gouby found a shop in Hatton Garden that paid a little better, nearer the current market prices, he is away until the 19th so I can't get details. The best tend to give you a guaranteed price before you send the items, any that do not offer a valuation should have dot CON in their URL. Thanks for that. I like the idea of a guarantee. I found Hatton Garden Metals that seem to have a decent reputation. Their price is close to that link you provided. Of course, I'd still need to find a little bit more the other 50% and keep my fingers crossed the coin's still there!! hey, ho.

So I was after raising a few pennies to buy a coin I can't afford and thought of selling a bit of the shiny stuff. Anyone any experience of recently selling gold (jewellery in this case) either in a shop / jewellers or online? Recommendations? Warnings? Offers?

Looks Indian to me too. Possibly a copper coin called a paisa? Maybe mid-1700s to 1800s? I pulled up this link: V Coins Maybe take a look through to see if there's anything similar to your example?

I suggest waiting to see what people here say. Buying individual coins on ebay and having them posted to Portugal will be expensive. I myself have a fair number of pennies and I don't even collect them! None of the decimal years are rare as far as I know and any dates members here can't find, Chris (the forum and Predecimal owner) might be able to find for you.

Splendid! The only other coin I've seen with this error has had what people on ebay call good honest wear. In other words, it's a complete mess! (see here:) Yours looks much better and the overstriking error makes it even more interesting. Your earlier photo isn't very high definition but I'd hazard a guess that it is a die duplicate of this detector find as the obverse looks a close match too . Have you any plans to add to your Charles I shilling collection?

OK. Think back a couple of centuries or so. Coin collecting was a fairly specialised field. A gentleman's pursuit for the most part. Occasionally people would publish details of their collections and people would compare what they had with what others had collected. For convenience people grouped similar style coins together. Numerous people did this, the most famous being J J North who classified most of the English hammered series. He classed these coins as 2223 and that basically meant any coin with the oval garnished shield with the C and R at the sides. As a group, we call this a type. Within a type there may be several varieties. Over time other people have called the same (or similar) groupings of coins by different names or numbers. Grant Francis called these type 3, because he felt they were the third really distinguishably different bust/reverse style. Spink group them all together as 2789 "Group D, fourth bust, type 3.1, with falling lace collar" etc... Michael Sharp however, who has a special interest in the shillings of Charles I, subdivided group D into six different varieties in his 1978 paper. Roy Osborne saw even more distinct styles. People use different classifications depending on their interests. Here in the UK Spink numbers are common ways of identifying at least the type of a coin. In the US many people use Krause who publish a series of books about coins from all around the world. Shilling collectors like me tend to use Michael Sharp's numbering because it's more specific than Spink, but not so complex it becomes unwieldy! Returning to your coin, S2789 only has one reverse throughout the series (though the style of things like mint mark or the shape of the harp varies). There are six obverses, three with jewelled crowns, three with plain: All of these coins are Spink 2789! In Sharp's nomenclature however they are (left to right) D1/1 - D6/1 (D is the type, the first number the variety and the second number (the one after the / ) tells you which reverse style the coin has. Yours is an example of the second; where the back arch of the crown starts to break the inner circle. As you can hopefully see, on the first bust, only the jewels of the front arch break the inner circle whereas in the third bust both arches of the crown extend well beyond the circle. Hope that makes sense and sorry if that's TMI! Once you get enthusiasts talking it can be hard to shut us up!

Is the alignment so variable? Yes. The thing is we are talking about hammered coins. Now, nowadays coins are mass produced by machine using technology that means that dies can be reproduced almost identically. That simply wasn't the case with hammered coins. Each had to be produced by hand and the only way to make more was to have more dies. However die making was also very labour intensive. Consequently the tricky bits were done by master engravers while the legend lettering punched onto the master die by someone less experienced. Analysis of coins in a series show that not only was the King's bust engraved separately from the mark of value, privy mark (the so-called 'mint mark') and legend, but often that the hair (including crown), face and collar/shoulders were engraved on separate 'master puncheons' which would then be combined to strike the eventual die that would be used to create the coin! In practice this led not only to different alignments between the legend and the bust, but also variations in the legend itself including missed letters or doubling of letters. Overmarks, where the updated mint mark is struck over the old one to avoid having to make new dies for the next year's issue are not uncommon. In fact this method of production left scope for even greater variation or error. I have seen photos of a coin with the mark of value punched upside down and another with the Scottish lion inverted. There is at least one example of a coin with the C and R missing from the sides of the shield. Even one where the coiner accidentally used a half crown reverse die with a shilling obverse! In fact there are people who particularly collect such curiosities! In fact, if you compare two hammered coins and find them to have the same features such as alignment and shape of letters, legend and alignmnet and in particular any flaws in lettering or design it is very likely that they came from the same dies. This exception to the normal variation in appearance has helped collectors to estimate how many dies existed (and thence to suggest how many coins may have survived and are likely to be found) in several instances! As an example, here are four coins. All are examples of (current editions) S 2789 (prior to 2006, 2785), Sharp D4/1. You will see there is a fair bit of variation between them!

I've been away on holiday, but it looks like you have your answer. The Spink number change caused quite a bit of confusion although the newer listings do identify several varieties that the older editions didn't. Your coin is also a Sharp D2/1 under the numbering system devised by Michael Sharp and which quite a few collectors of Charles I shillings now use. The harp mint mark is the usual one for the early coins of this series. I'm still looking for this coin with a portcullis mark which only appears on the later D series coins (with plain, unjewelled crowns)! Oh, and welcome!

And 11544:

Two more modern replica Charles I shillings added there today. Nos 11541 and 11542. The former is a current ebay listing.

... "date hard to distinguish" ... um. Yeah. coin Hang on .. I think I can just make it out ...... it's .. it's .. a coin?