Rob

I do have a selection of bronze pennies in the collection, but only about a dozen. I am still looking for a couple of bronze patterns plus a KN. Most of my pennies wouldn't appeal to a majority of members here being either hammered or Maundy. Thanks Pete.

You don't understand that I don't understand. However, a picture tells more than words, so now it makes sense. I lost the will to live long before I got to page 86.

Precisely. I rest my case.

This was the Adams coin. Crappy image, but all I have. 1845 5 over 3.doc

It happens all the time. A lot of auction houses turn up the contrast on their images.

The colours in DNW pictures are always a bit washed out. The halfcrown I posted a month ago is completely different to the image on the DNW site. Compare the listing with my image which is a fairly accurate reflection of how it is in hand. i.e. The toning is much darker than their image https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=329731

Agreed

Davies says it uses the ME punch, which presumably excludes the legend or else there would be no variation in the position of letters to discriminate between dies within a type.

I'll go for 'tell me two random numbers'.

I think the dark points on the reverse could be where a thin coating has worn off. If the spots were areas where cleaning was ineffective they would be in the recesses, not the high points. The general blandness of the surfaces would support a coating too.

Could be silver plated on a genuine coin to improve an undesirable example.

It's difficult to say because the number of small bit punches used for the repair confuses the situation. I think on balance I would incline to say not an underlying 3 because the angle of the diagonal is wrong. If you look at a regular 1843 halfcrown, the angled upper section has a shallower gradient and the top bar of the 3 on the above is too short. I would speculate that I would not expect to see more than one or possibly two dies with this overdate because the 1844 dated coins are so prolific, that any reworking for reuse of existing 1843 dies is mostly likely to have happened in 1844. However, anything is possible. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=292713 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=234494

This is documented and is ESC 392 (47B) in the latest revision by Maurice Bull. I have an example in stock too. The edge was applied using the Castaing edging machine, where the blank was rolled on its edge.

I decided it wasn't going to fly either. I was just exploring possible alternatives to the 'siege' of Hartlebury in 1646, which I can't see as an option.

According to Davies, obv.1 has a prominent eyebrow and obv.2 a shallow one. The latter is the 1926 modified effigy punch and the coin has a thick obverse rim.

Which sort of confirms the idea that there wasn't a mint at Hartlebury in 1646. When Exeter was captured in April 1646 they itemised everything (see BNJ 1992), including the various tools required to make coins from start to finish. Localised garrisons of 100-200 men do not lend sufficient credence for a mint. e.g. If 'B' is Bridgnorth, the known 30 approx. dies for all denominations would have been far too many for a garrison of 120 men. It fell on 26th April, so with all coins for the 6 known denominations dated 1646 that gave a 30 day period to make and use all 30 dies - that's one die pair per 8 men. Sorry, but that's just b******s and I don't buy it. If there was a large number of 1645 dated 'B' coins comprising the vast majority known of this mint, then it would be a credible location.

Yes. Whilst Hartlebury can't be definitely eliminated as the place indicated by HC. We can certainly eliminate it as the place referred to if the coins were struck in 1646 for the reason given previously. Royalist troop concentrations were few and far between in 1646, with Exeter and Aberystwyth surrendering in the middle of April and Newark a month later, it left only Oxford of the attested mints producing coin into the summer. The only other significant 1646 issue is the 'B' mint coins, which I think had to be either somewhere in NW Wales or around Raglan in Monmouthshire, any of which could potentially be produced up to late June or early July.

Thanks. One useful snippet of information. George Winter was created a baronet in April 1642 and sided with the King in the Civil War. As you might have guessed, I am looking at the HC and trying to find a meaning for it. It has to be a place name. Cheshire has Halton Castle and Holt Castle, Flintshire has Hawarden Castle, Worcestershire has (another) Holt Castle, but that was the property of a Parliament supporter, so unlikely as a source, which is how I considered Huddington. There are other HCs, but not near Worcester. It occurred to me that Charles might have stayed at Huddington Court for approximately a week in July 1644. After the Battle of Cropredy Bridge at the end of June 1644, he entered Oxford, then left almost immediately when he headed south towards Abingdon, there made an about turn and headed towards Worcester, going via Evesham. He then stayed in the Droitwich area according to one report, or Evesham if another is to be believed for approx. a week before heading to the west country where the Royalists destroyed Essex's force at Lostwithiel in August. This period of a week would be sufficient to produce the HC halfcrowns if Huddington Court was indeed where he stayed. Huddington is 5 miles from Worcester and Droitwich, and 10 from Evesham - so possible. I also suspect the HC halfcrowns may be the work of Rawlins, who was at Oxford in the spring / early summer of 1644, and I believe went to the W/SA area for the remainder of that year.

I don't think so. Medals tend to have greater detail because they are a commemorative piece with a story to tell. Currency coins are working objects where the main concern is to strike as many coins from a die, in which case too much detail is a hindrance because it fills. You are looking at the solutions to two different problems.

Dies were not usually swapped in pairs. When one die broke it was replaced and production continued. This provides useful chronology for the dies as it allows you to establish the order in which they were used, which in turn may give possible timing information. Stop or no stop, it is unlikely to add anything, particularly as stops fill easily and no stop varieties are frequently not as claimed.

It's difficult to say without seeing in hand, but even if what you have said is true and it is technically a proof, you would still avoid buying it in the knowledge that the majority would not be contentious and so it would be better to wait for a decent one to appear.

I don't save images of Newark pieces as they are too common & difficult to provenance on account of the simple shape and design. Nothing to do with Newark. Does anyone have any knowledge of Huddington Court in Worcestershire beyond what is in Wiki.

No idea re-designs, but pre-war silver plate is decidedly rare due to the quantities melted. No I don't. There is a 9d illustrated on p.26 in Nelson's book, but the picture quality is dire. The coin was in the possession of Liverpool Corporation, so is in the city's museum?

I think for the most part a traveling mint was not the case. Bullion, plate or coin raised in the levies for the purpose of paying the troops would be stored in a safe place - for which read the local castle, and this is where the mint would normally reside. It was certainly the case at Aberystwyth, Worcester and Shrewsbury, though York and Oxford used houses within the city walls. The minimum requirements for a traveling mint would be a supply of hallmarked plate of approximately the correct thickness for a given denomination, shears, scales, a pair of dies and a hammer. Any metal processing, such as alloying would require a furnace and so a more complicated arrangement, not to mention a much more lengthy amount of time required because the metal would have to be rolled to the correct thickness. For this reason, I think coins struck on the hoof would be very much the exception. If attached to a large military contingent, then it would be possible to carry all the tools as part of the logistics, but a temporary mint en route would not necessarily be a practical proposition because the troop movements were usually associated with an opposing force in the vicinity, so risk would come into play. My W/SA sixpence is struck on an irregular flan which is wedge shaped in terms of thickness and has some surface lamination, so could possibly be struck on a piece of cut plate, and there are Newark pieces where the hallmark is still visible, indicating it was again struck on plate. The majority of personal wealth at this time was held in the form of plate, so it was always a major source of silver, either donated by Royalist supporters, or plundered from Parliament's supporters.