Rob

A couple of enquiries has sorted it or so it appears. Lord Stewartby's book talks of Henry VII's expedition to Boulogne in 1492 when approximately 2 million halfgroats were struck and used to pay the soldiers. Being underweight, it is assumed they were trying to offload these in France, but the scheme apparently rebounded as they were declared not to be legal tender in England on their return and had to be exchanged for coin of full weight at face value. So presumably the ploy cost Henry dearly. The find of these coins in Ireland may well be coincidental and due to a soldier returning home, or alternatively an enterprising individual trying to present them at face value in Ireland where the value of silver approximately equalled that in the Irish coinage. That still leaves the question of which coins are behind the proclamation of 1491 which would have preceded the lis marked issue if struck in 1492 and why the order should need to be repeated in 1497 and 1499, though it might refer to Dublin mint coins which were progressively reduced from 45 grains to the groat at the beginning of Edward IV's reign to around 30 grains by the 1490s. If anyone has a copy of the book I would appreciate a scan of the relevant section which is on page 342(?). Also any indication of the article or document from whence the info was gleaned. Thanks in advance if you can help.

Agreed, but looking at the above, I don't think they were clipped. All the halfgroats tend to be on small flans, whether full weight or not. It is the 3:2 ratio of the pound in Ireland to the English pound that makes me think the coins are actually at the intended weight. Groats and fractions were struck in Ireland at this time with mints at Dublin, Drogheda and Waterford operating at around the time of Henry VII's accession. It didn't help that Lambert Simnel, who was crowned Edward VI in Ireland had coins struck reading EDWARDVS in Dublin. The master of the mint at Waterford was a Lancastrian and so we effectively had a continuation of the War of the Roses being played out. With this backdrop, it would make sense to suspend coinage until the situation was resolved. Accordingly, there is justifiable reasoning to consider the lightweight Lis marked Henry VII halfgroats as part of the solution to this problem. If you have English 2d coins of 2/3 the weight of those current in that country, they would pass as full value (2d) in Ireland. They would also be unambiguuously Henry's coins. Political, propoganda, probably although without documentary evidence you can't be certain. But having produced them to a lower weight, it would also help explain why there was a lot of effort expended trying to stop their reintroduction into England given they only contained 1.33p.

There is a further consideration which I've just woken up to (dozy b****r). What if they were coined specifically for use in Ireland? I haven't found any records suggesting this, but given the propensity for anything sent to Ireland to be either underweight or debased, this is a distinct possibility. In 1487, the English pound had a de facto value in Ireland of £1.50. Now, this is roughly the ratio of the weights of the lis marked coins in relation to the other marks. I think we could be onto something here. In 1897 a hoard consisting solely of Henry VII 2nd coinage halfgroats bearing the lis mark was found in Wicklow (BNJ vol.10 p.313-4). All were considerably clipped, but showed no signs of having circulated, i.e. they were fresh from the dies. Clipping was a serious problem in Ireland at this time to the extent that an Act was passed on 15th April 1491 prohibiting the payment or receipt of any clipped or counterfeit currency and later on the import of coin from Ireland above the value of 3s4d was forbidden. This was reiterated in 1497 and 1499. There is a possibility that coining in Ireland was suspended for an unknown length of time during the reign of Henry VII. What if the Lis marked coins were earmarked specifically for Ireland to overcome the problems emanating from this country? The coins in the Ashmolean bearing the lis mark are slightly small, but not 35% small and so the sheet from which the flans were cut must have been thinnner. Below is a selection of Tower lis halfgroats followed by the York Royal Mint attributed coins from the sylloge. At the bottom of the second page are some struck under Abp. Savage. Coin 151 is the lis on rose example, plugged, but only weighing 0.94g. Above this are a few typical lis marked second coinage halfgroats. I don't know if any of the illustrated coins were part of the Wicklow hoard. Although the lis marked coins are small, they are typically no smaller than the flan size of most Canterbury or York episcopal coins. Challis (BNJ vol.XL p.97) and Dolley (SNC.1971 p.370-374) both consider the question of Ireland's Tudor coinage, but only in isolation. I think we may well have an English dimension to the coinage in addition to those items struck in Ireland. If all the lis marked coins were clipped down to roughly 2/3 size, then we could comfortably say that they started at full weight, but the size of flan is not dissimilar to those struck elsewhere. Consequently I think it quite likely that they were struck intentionally for Ireland to a reduced weight in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate on the ground, despite the lack of documentary evidence. All good fun.

Thanks Stuart. That is in line with my Abp. Savage 2d which weighs 1.53g and agrees with the data below. Herein lies the conundrum. Using SCBI 23 as the initial reference, the typical weights of the Lis marked Tower halfgroats and the York Royal Mint halfgroats (which carry the lis mark) are way lower than they should be. According to the indentures of 1485, 1492 and 1503, the weight of a groat was set at 112 and a half to the Tower Pound with the halfgroat, penny etc in proportion. This standard was carried through into the reign of Henry VIII. At 5400 grains to the lb. Tower based on the standard grain weight of 0.064798911g, the official weight of a halfgroat was 1.555g, which agrees pretty well with the observed values for Tower coinage and the episcopal issues. The single example of a Tower 1st period halfgroat is insufficient to say this is normal, but in the context of the other lis marked halfgroats may be important. The weights of the Tower Lis marked and York Royal Mint work out at about 2/3 of the decreed standard. I've just ploughed through SCBI 23 and calculated the average for each issue together with the range of weights in the Ashmolean collection which is listed below. The number of coins in the sample is in brackets after the description, the average weight of the sample in the first column and the weight range in the second. As there are a few hundred coins in the list, the numbers are likely to be statistically significant. Groats 1st Period, Open Crown Tower ½ lis & rose / ½ sun rose (3) 2.64g 2.48 – 2.85g ½ lis & rose (6) 3.00g 2.78 – 3.25g ½ lis & rose / lis on rose (1) 3.01g ½ lis & rose / lis on sun & rose (1) 3.05g Lis on rose, varieties & mules (25) 2.95g 2.61 – 3.15g Lis (1) 2.97g Cross fitchee (10) 2.81g 2.36 – 3.27g Rose (19) 2.92g 2.46 – 3.23g 2nd Period, Arched Crown Tower No mark (22) 2.93g 2.59 – 3.23g Cinquefoil / - (1) 2.76g Cinquefoil (30) 2.98g 2.55 – 3.21g Cinque Trans & Mules (8) 2.88g 2.59 – 3.12g Scallop (43) 2.89g 2.44 – 3.24g Scallop mules (4) 2.80g 2.70 – 2.91g Pansy (45) 2.87g 2.41 – 3.31g Pansy-LH mules (5) 2.87g 2.57 – 3.13g LH (4) 2.89g 2.77 – 3.17g LH – Lis issuant mules (3) 3.11g 2.98 – 3.21g Lis issuant from rose (9) 2.95g 2.60 – 3.23g Anchor – Lis iss mule (1) 2.46g Anchor (33) 2.89g 2.45 – 3.25g -/ Anchor (3) 2.73g 2.02 – 3.18g GH (36) 2.92g 2.50 – 3.25g CC – GH mule (1) 2.82g Cross crosslet (22) 2.95g 2.67 – 3.17g Halfgroats 1st Period, Open Crown Tower Lis on Rose (1) 0.94g Canterbury Tun M rev (3) 1.38g 1.25 – 1.54g 2nd Period, Arched Crown Tower Scallop (1) 1.29g Lis (28) 1.00g 0.81 – 1.28g Canterbury All types (108) 1.38g 1.08 – 1.59g York Royal Mint All types (13) 1.03g 0.89 – 1.15g York Archiepiscopal Mint All types (41) 1.39g 1.07 – 1.64g Penny 1st Period Tower Small cross (1) 0.68g 2nd Period, Arched Crown Tower Sovereign Penny (21) 0.70g 0.56 – 0.86g York All marks (11) 0.71g 0.59 – 0.79g Durham S on breast (4) 0.68g 0.61 – 0.78g Sovereign Type (35) 0.68g 0.55 – 0.85g Canterbury Tun (2) 0.71g 0.57 – 0.84g York Archiepiscopal Mint Sovereign type (32) 0.71g 0.58 – 0.83g Halfpenny 1st Period Tower All marks 0.39g 0.34 – 0.43g 2nd Period, Arched Crown Tower All marks (27) 0.39g 0.30 – 0.54g Canterbury All types (5) 0.31g 0.22 – 0.39g York Archiepiscopal Mint Single type (1) 0.34g Where the sample size is large enough to say it is representative such as in the case of groats with the common marks - pansy, cinquefoil etc, the average weight is just under 3.00g which with an allowance for wear and possibly clipping is reasonably close to full. The average weight of the Canterbury and York episcopal issues is identical, and the pennies are within 0.03g average for all issues. The consistency of the correctly weighted issues suggests that mint controls were in place, raising the question as to why the Lis marked halfgroats are not full weight. Speculatively we should ask ourselves whether they are genuine? Were they struck under a single individual's control? Did someone in high places have their fingers in the till and are there any contemporary records of a trial in relation to fraud at the mint? Why, when the mint records are remarkably complete and detailed for the period are the pyx trial records missing? Was this part of the reason for the employment of Alexander of Brugsal to reform the coinage? A small deficiency in weight is acceptable due to wear and possible clipping. 35% underweight is no coincidence. Thoughts gentlemen (and ladies) please.

Does anyone have a Henry VII York Royal Mint halfgroat, and if so how much does it weigh? Spink 2212 and 2213 refer. Thanks.

1928 crown

I just realised what your second paragraph meant, Rob. I thought you were having a go at someone else for using emoticons, when you had just used one yourself! Let's try: a) c) Seems to work for me? Edit: See what you mean now! Probably relies on the assumption that most written things on the web are drivel, and so have no point to make.

You can pick up close to EF Romans from £30-40 apiece. High grade examples of many types are surprisingly cheap with relatively few costing three, four or five figures. It probably isn't worth the risk of buying unknown items from ebay when you can go to a coin fair and peruse the trays. a) you get a better idea of what is out there and you are buying from people who are knowledgable and are usually willing to discuss. Many items on ebay are sold by people who haven't a clue, as the eBay laughs thread will show. Every other coin is rare, and most of those that aren't are overgraded anyway. Stupid emoticons won't allow you to make a point b. It's little wonder that textspeak rules if a smiley takes precedence over a logical sequence. Doh.

If you are just starting out and know next to nothing, ebay has a large selection of copies waiting for people like you to snap up. Tread very carefully when buying decent looking coins from there. Roman copies are abundant as are later items. This is something that various members point out on a regular basis, though with next to no one collecting Roman, or at least specialising in them, these copies are likely to slip under the forum radar. Have a look at the forgery network for copies listed and wildwinds for a pretty comprehensive lsiting of Roman coins.

5/5, but the underlying digit was so far adrift it was in danger of dating the coin to the previous millennium. It isn't a 6 because that looks like the 9 without the blob on the end of the tail. This one isn't at the end of a downwards curve.

Other than as a blocked die variety you mean? What I mean is that no stop varieties are usually associated with no date vaieties. i.e there's b***** all detail in the first place. Blocked dies are the usual reason. You might, but it depends on whether the variety was incorporated as a result of someone informing them. Every year I put in a few suggestions, some are used and others not. You have to give the reason so the claim can be verified by a second opinion otherwise you can imagine what the result would be if all the claimed errors/varieties were included (The Elizabeth II brass 3d dated 1952 from another thread springs to mind). Whether they would keep details of the informant is another matter.

Rare coin this no stop variety in such high grade. Usually it is found paired with the no date reverse. As to whether the 1700 no stop is a blocked die - I don't know having never seen any other examples, but given the number of no stops varieties that are only seen in low grade I suspect it may possibly not exist.

The army has had a permanent garrison on the island since the Falklands War in 1982. When the resident group relieved by another and return home it is quite likely that the odd piece of Falkland currency returns with them.

The slight toning discolouration on the last picture makes me think it should have one. The flaw at this point doesn't help and may have contributed to the lack of raised feature. I guess that if there isn't one in any relief and there is no circular mark defining the limits of a stop then it would have to be classed as the no stop variety, but still wonder whether it was missing from the die or not.

Blame a member of HM armed forces for that one methinks.

Speculation, but maybe a shortage of dies at a crucial time when a particular consignment of silver needed to be coined and no D4-6 die was available (or perhaps had even been made at that point). The overmark on the reverse should date the issue early in portcullis, so we are probably talking 2nd or 3rd week in July 1633 given the absolute rarity of the obverse die. I've not looked for other dies, but a thought just struck me that the portcullis mark was cut with particularly straight sided detail, so no indication of a worn punch. This might be useful for determining individual die chronology.

The rarest is probably the Negro's Head which was only struck between November 1626 to April 1627 in small quantities. Next rarest is the Heart mark (Jun 1630- Jun 31). But because the coins were individually made a number of dies were re-used (or their use extended) by later adding a different mint mark, and some of these 'overmarks' are also rare. And a few coins seem to have been made with the wrong, or an unusual, mark not normally found for that particular variety. For example this is not a terribly rare coin, issued during the Harp mark. But somehow two examples survive with the Portcullis mark; so a regular coin made very rare if you can find another with this mark! And it's made even more complicated (or challenging, depending on your point of view) by the fact that there are some coins that are easy enough to find in poor to Fine condition, but to get a better than average example is both time consuming and probably expensive. In other words it's not just the mint mark that determines scarcity, but condition and irregular features not normally found with that issue. I was looking at one of the two portculis coins on Monday night. DH and me were both in agreement about the reverse which we think is over harp, but decided the jury is out on the obverse. I'm inclined to think it is also over harp (which would make sense) as there is a slightly inclined line from left to right starting at the top of the portcullis. There are also small lumps which could be the two ends of a harp or a double struck portcullis. The one thing that is missing is a trace of diagonal harp strings within the grid of the portcullis, which would of course confirm the undermark.

Probably because no study is ever finished. However complete a collection is, another find is always just around the corner. It is quite logical to work on it as long as possible with all the reference material to hand.

Picture?

And banknotes by prefix numbers etc.

That's the trouble when you want/spot the best I guess! You've just got to be there on the day when your competitor is sat on the hard-shoulder of the M4 waiting for the AA, then it's party time. The 1561 sixpence I wanted would have sold at it's opening bid of £140 if the other guy was otherwise indisposed! The one I was most interested in was the Henry VIII half crown with the rose/lis over rose marks. That coin isn't the best available, but having done all the spadework I was willing to buy it up to the hammer price. The problem with the lis over rose mark is that it doesn't occur on the groats, so you are stuck with either a crown of the double rose (which I also need for the HA and HI marked coins), the corresponding halfcrown or the Worcester groat. The last named will cost 2 or 3 times that of a Henry VIII gold piece and have all the aesthetic qualities of a lump of roadkill. I don't particularly want to play 'Guess what it is'.

I also thought it possible that the coin had been mounted or held by a clasp at some point. Look at the flattened beading above the bust and the horizontal mark on the cross end at 6 o'clock.

I had a frustrating day. Four things went to my max in the room before the internet bids were entertained and two went way beyond. 0 from 6 is not good.

Just a box-standard, most common of all the Elizabeth sixpences (lot 396)! Also, I can't stop returning to look at the threepence (399), still haven't decided about that one, even now! The sixpence isn't really a better grade, it's just a little more 'balanced,' I'm just not certain about that obverse tone, so I'm trusting in poor white balance on this occasion. You will doubtless be pleased to know that although it was on my initial provisional list, it has now been discarded. Hah, yes, definitely so...not sure I want a handbag duel with you, just yet, you have to let me grow big and strong first! Thanks for the consideration, though, Rob! All went smoothly, I managed to get 3 bids away successfully on lot 396, I just didn't want to go to the next increment which, with fees & post, would've had me at £335 - the very top end for a regular sixpence, as far as my pocket (and understanding) is concerned at least! AND lot 399, are you sure you discarded it? Off the scale again for me, I never even started! Great tool, though, will be using it again! With the good images you've got half a chance! Thanks for all the tips, Viva la Saleroom! Flat quarter in the shield. It isn't impossible to get a decent eglantine anyway as the mark is hardly rare. Need to concentrate on getting the eglantine over marks first, then I can see what denominations I don't have with the mark and elsewhere and concentrate on these.

Just a box-standard, most common of all the Elizabeth sixpences (lot 396)! Also, I can't stop returning to look at the threepence (399), still haven't decided about that one, even now! The sixpence isn't really a better grade, it's just a little more 'balanced,' I'm just not certain about that obverse tone, so I'm trusting in poor white balance on this occasion. You will doubtless be pleased to know that although it was on my initial provisional list, it has now been discarded.