Rob

Dies were sometimes cut on a piece of diestock that was a larger diameter capable of accommodating the design for a bigger denomination. We know that die faces were ground down once deemed sufficiently degraded and a new die engraved on the end of the bar. That new die may or may not have been the same denomination as previous. In the case of the Oxford 1645 reverse 7 above, the two diagonal flaws on the bottom line below the declaration along with the cluster of dots in the centre are quite likely to be the remains of its previous incarnation where the detail wasn't fully ground away. As to why they got the diameter wrong, I think it is a case of die worn out/broken, so quickly recut a new one and get production going again. The quality of the detail on many of the known dies has all the hallmarks of hurried work. You do get the occasional one where more care has clearly been taken, but the overriding reason they were making Royalist issues was for the immediate payment of troops who would almost certainly be there for a limited time only, so speed was of the essence. You only have to look at a significant proportion of yesterday's coins to see the crude polishing lines on many dies that tell you they we made in hurried circumstances. So, in summary, I would think the reason the size was wrong is down to the fact that they would be more interested in getting production going than looking for precision in the design. It is particularly obvious on some Shrewsbury shillings, where the 3 line declaration clearly shows a shilling was the intended denomination, but the die is hopelessly oversized. See scan below where the obverse is full, but the reverse is significantly short. I wrote an article on the Chester halfcrowns to this effect and also the identification of a faulty rocker press in the final Circular of January 2014 where I could show that the CHST below obverse die was recut to make the Declaration issue obverse. The important observation was that the die was recut with the new detail significantly offset from the position of the previous to the extent that the only rational explanation was a die face suitable for a larger diameter. Coincidentally it also gave an immediate explanation for why the Declaration reverse die broke from the offset or very soon after.

And while we are in the business of education, the obverse of the Oxford 1645 F-7 halfcrown is effectively full flan. Compare that with the reverse above and you can see that the reverse was engraved to a larger diameter than the obverse. The diameter of the obverse is 37.5mm at its widest point, confirming that the reverse must have been engraved on a piece of diestock of sufficient diameter to accommodate a physically larger denomination such as a triple unite, crown, half-pound or pound. Understanding that answers a whole lot of questions.

I suppose it could be rotated, but the 5 following appears to be a composite figure, so assumed the 4 was too given all the 42s and 43s are not from a single punch. The small 4 used on some dies from 44-46 looks to be a single punch. If you compare the A11 with the F7, you can see the 5 is completely different, despite, I believe, being by the same engraver.

Well done. That's a decent enough coin, and reasonably priced. Certainly compared to lot 68.

Many characters are composites of small straight and curved punches, so reversing a 4 is easy.

Couldn't afford to bid on anything before lot 100 in case I got carried away and won something for a few K leaving me bereft of funds. Charles I Boar's head mark is not the easiest to find. The largest BH population is the W/SA 6d reverse 1 with nine; two of which are in the BM, one in the ANS and another two which are highly undesirable leaving 4 to choose from, but I've already got a tower both sides sixpence. There is a B-6 shilling in the BM, but I've never seen another and in any case I need a B obverse shilling for the bird mark, leaving just the two halfcrowns above to choose from. Hobson's Choice really given I don't know where the Ryan coin is.

A bit of a bloodbath at times in the Brian Dawson halfcrown sale with the three nice Shrewsburys all making 16K hammer. With the cheapest hammering at 5K and the other two 6K, they weren't exactly a bargain. The ex Bridgewater House galloping horse Exeter hammered at £40K, but the currency 1645 galloping horse only made 24K hammer, despite being unique. Lot 52 was a surprise at 4600 hammer against an estimate of 1000-1200 and lot 60, a 1645 Oxford with reversed 4 in the date an even bigger surprise at 4800 hammer against an estimate of 500-700. The nice Worcester C13 hammered at 17K and the 'Cannonball' made 13K. Somebody lost the plot on the CHST below at 8500 and the beautiful pattern on the cover, lot 119, hammered at 34K. The ever so nice Chas.II second coinage lot 125 made 30K hammer and in the milled section the 1726 made 9500. On the plus side, I did get the one I wanted and could afford - the W/SA Boar's Head reverse I-40, ex Walters (1932) 529, Lockett 4226 & Asherson 114. Despite some obverse graffiti and a few scratches, it is still the higher grade of the two known, the other being Morrieson 564 and Ryan 1316.

A few hundred pounds and you can cover most bases.

Henry VII coins use trefoils, saltires and rosettes for stops where these are applied. You need more literature.

It was experimental. The testoons also show a wide range of dies. A testoon reverse was also paired with a groat obv.

The other greyhound reverse die is the Motcomb coin (below) with the im at 9 o'clock. As far as I am aware, both these two are unique for the reverse die. At the time of the Montagu sale my coin was considered unique, but a handful have appeared since then, including those in SCBI 23. The above was considered rare enough to be illustrated in Montagu (wax on rev) and although subsequent coins have come to light, GH groats in either pure or muled form are still extremely rare.

Guaranteed to be a lot of dies. Potter & Winstanley note 16 obverse dies for no mark, lis and Greyhound's Head, but give up when it comes to Cross Crosslet. For what it is worth, they list 7 dies each for no mark and Lis, plus another 2 for Greyhound's Head. Crosslet is much more common. As far as the reverses go, you can reasonably expect a minimum of twice the number of obverse dies. Greyhound's Head being the rarest and hence the simplest case, the sylloge has an example of dies 15/16 (nearly identical) plus 3 GH reverses from 2 dies including muled marks. Add to that my GH rev. (below) plus another not in the Ashmolean gives a total of 4 GH rev. dies I know for certain. You are unlikely to be looking at more than another one or two reverses, if they do indeed exist. A back of the fag packet calculation assuming 1:2 obv:rev gives a total of 50 or so rare mark dies for both sides, plus a guesstimate of say 100 crosslets would give a total of 150ish tentative dies for all marks. If someone wants to do the survey, then we can plumb in the numbers and obtain a more precise estimate of the number of dies.

Not 115 individual dies, but coins. Some dies are shared, and no, I'm not going to work out the exact number. In any case I know the list is not exhaustive.

Not strictly mine, but an octagonal marked Potosi 4R that I sold a few years ago and recently bought back in. Rare coin.

Plenty of dies exist for the tentative issue, and a shedload more for the 3 band crown. The height of the bust varies. There are 27 tentatives in SCBI 23 (Henry VII coins in the Ashmolean), and a total of 115 profile groats of both types.

Looking for a Guatemala, Chile and the two Spanish mints.

and the reverse

Lima 8 Reales

I've got one of those too. Maybe not 45000, but probably 10000 in a 6' high pile of boxes.

I expect at least one die would have been made for each denomination for the coming year. After all, it is only the reverse that's new. After that, it is just a question of testing it.

Well done Sherlock.

What figures were used at the time to compile inflation? January sales clear the decks for the new year's stock - when restocking you would think it a good time to introduce the latest models/designs which are things that normally command a premium. i.e. is the upturn in inflation in March/April a function of business cycles based on the above with lower than average prices being replaced by higher than average prices? I can't see the inflation being related to the tax year for many items.

It is E/R in terms of relief. The R is much lower relief.

Of which probably the best example is the 1817 GEOE shilling. There isn't a person on the planet who would replace the correct R with an E.