HistoricCoinage

Knowing absolutely nothing about the numismatic background to this, but knowing a bit of history ... I tend to agree with Gary. There wouldn't have been much need for coinage back then, apart from major projects (certainly not for day-to-day transactions). What they needed I would have thought would have been met by existing Saxon silver, plus whatever French silver they brought with them. I'd have to disagree with these statements quoted. The "silver is silver" statement would have applied up until some time in the 9th/10th centuries but certainly not this late in the grand scheme of things and that there "wouldn't have been much need for coinage back then" is correct to some extent, but the huge increase in cut quarters and halves clearly demonstrates otherwise. It is true that the English issues would have been melted down once the mercenaries took them back home as, with many complex European economies, foreign coins were exchanged for a fee and is a way that kings exploited the use of coinage for substantial economic gain. But this then raises the question as to why these mercenaries would have taken them back home in the first place if they knew they would have to pay substantial fees, it is far more likely that they would have taken them home as commodities or silver ingots which would have been much more profitable to exchange upon arrival home, casting doubt on any lack of coinage circulating in England - assuming that there was preferential treatment for indigenous coins and silver over foreign coins, a debate still ongoing. As for using a 'French' coin, Normandy was a distinct region within what was not a homogeneous region of 'France' but in a landmass existing within a broken-up Frankia/Carolingian Empire. Such coins from this region or 'France' would not have been able to circulate in England and this is clearly evident by the paucity of finds from England. Going back to the original question, it must be remembered that coins of Edward the Confessor would still have been circulating during Harold II's reign and even into William I's reign, as is evidenced by hoards such as the Abergavenny Hoard and the Chancton Farm Hoard, Sussex, and so there is the possibility/(certainty) that enough coin was circulating, whether that be remnants of other late Saxon types or even Harold II's Pax type. However, I am doubtful that the 'without sceptre' type is a posthumous issue struck for William as the distribution of mints is limited to somewhat provincial mints (with the exception of Bristol and Norwich) and so I would have expected a posthumous type to have originated out of the central place where the dies were designed & created, i.e. London. Yet this is not the case. This is only my thoughts briefly jotted down as I don't currently have time to go to the literature, but I find your hypothesis interesting, yet not plausible at first thought.

The top one does indeed look to be an Indian gold fanam. As for the second one, it's a Northumbrian styca but I'd need better images to fully ID it.

Just post me the £50 note and I'll take a look for you, Accumulator. But yes, it's a nice note.

Nothing wrong with a bit of wishful thinking.

The m. is just an indicator that it's a mobile site, so Nicholas is most likely on a mobile phone or tablet. Link's fine, it's a scene from the first Anchorman film.

Orkney only became part of Scotland in 1472 due to a failed dowry payment, before that it was Norwegian. Shetland is part of a similar case.

Bristol, class 9b.

As for individual finds, the PAS and the UKDFD are good places to look for general finds. For specific time periods see the CCI or EMC, as just two examples.

Depends which hoard. They've declared this one and so the Treasure Committee should produce and release a full report. With regard to other hoards, many are included in books relating to the period (e.g. Mark Blackburn's Viking Coinage and Currency in the British Isles). Perhaps the Fitzwilliam's checklist might be of interest to you.

A hoard of medieval silver coins discovered in Scotland http://bbc.in/1bnCQae

It's what I referred to earlier, the 'quick sell' listing form that eBay offers suggests categories for the listing and so the seller clearly hasn't read it and just taken eBay's suggestion as gospel.

It's an example of why you don't rely on eBay's 'quick sell' listing form...

Henry Penny cabinet.

Thankfully, otherwise I'd expect the case to come fully furnished with some lovely Saxon pennies.

When I view the page it doesn't say that 105 have been sold at that price. It merely says that 105 have been sold with that listing, at whatever price he had them listed as earlier.

£425 and £600 respectively.

It's not a flaw. I've just spoken to some techies at eBay and they say that this is the seller's chosen price. They've even tried to revise the listings with their admin account and the exorbitant price has been set by the seller, presumably they've run out of stock but didn't want to end the listing and then pay fees to relist again later, or some other reason.

Bargain!

But what if melted abroad, like this guy shows?

I might get myself some of those coin zippy-bags... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Edward-111-3rd-Medieval-Hammered-half-Penny-/231135805639?pt=UK_Coins_BritishHammered_RL&hash=item35d0c480c7

It's likely to be collectors of copper & bronze, I'd imagine, rather than just farthing collectors.

I agree with Stuart. It's an 1819 halfcrown forgery.

It's a shame his "excellent collation" doesn't include to collation of decent information.

You're in luck then, Richard. "Genuine offers from serious collectors always welcomed"