Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Unidentified Variety
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kal last won the day on May 6 2017

kal had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Neutral

1 Follower

About kal

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,945 profile views
  1. I recently became aware that the A.N.S., Internet Archive and the Newman Numismatic Portal have teamed up and made available digital scans of early Sotheby Sale Catalogues. (Pre-Tyssen to 1922, including Dimsdale, Montagu, Murdoch, etc.) The scans of the catalogues, including those with plates, are very good and many have the added bonus of being named and priced; not the same, of course, as having the originals but a great resource for those conducting research. Link to page: https://archive.org
  2. kal

    Recent Hammered Acquisitions

    Hi Frank, There's useful info in Spink's circular for March 1976, p90-91 by H.R. Jessop. In his paper "Flans for Newark Siege Coins", for example, he examined 35 nine-pences for 1646, eight were cut from a gilt plate and four of these had rim markings. Do you have access to this article? If not, contact me personally.
  3. kal

    Recent Hammered Acquisitions

    On 2018-04-05 at 11:41 AM, hibernianscribe said: Yes, absolutely, and this piece was gilded before the plate was cut as the edges do show - there is no doubt about this. However, I am excited about the gilt since I am surmising whether this was a piece from the "two guilt wine bowles" that are documented as being part of the "Plate delivered to Mr Edward Standishe, Alderman, by consent to be sold for the townes use and to supply their p'sent want of money...." (quoted from the minutes of a meeting of the (Newark) Corporation held on May 15, 1646 and detailed in, "The Obsidional Money of the Great Rebellion", 1907, Philip Nelson, M.D.) Obviously it is very possible that other gilt plates might have been used as well but this reference is specific right down to the fact that two gold-plated wine bowls were cut up to literally, make money. This is why I find this series so interesting - there is a tangible link with particular people caught up in a bloody struggle. Frank Hi Frank, I can't make out from the photo of your Newark siege piece any sign of plate markings, which often accompany these 1646 gilt ninepences. I found three other examples with the same obverse die, that are illustrated in sale catalogues. HIRD, LOT 265- GLENS 1974 NOBLE, LOT 690- GLENS1975 WHEELER, LOT 407- SOTHEBY 1930 Thellusson in the Sotheby sale of 1931, lot 248 describes a Newark nine pence also cut from a gilt plate but lacks an image.
  4. Just a heads up. As "Unknown silver hammered coin - siege sixpence?" sold for 460 pounds, I've added illustrations of siege coin replicas from WorthPoint that I downloaded a few years ago. I've combined them and as seen from the "two two" shilling example, are not to scale. Although similar to the Ashmore replicas produced in the 1970's, they don't appear to be copied from any genuine pieces and probably not intended to deceive.
  5. Hi Rob, I remember the discussion on the Scarborough issues and take this opportunity to thank you for forwarding the details and illustrations from the Hugh Howard and Lord Middleton sale catalogues. With regards to the "siege sixpence" it is familiar stylistically, being similar to the product of a firm named Worthspoint who made a wide range of imitations of Scarborough siege pieces a few years ago. The value punches are obviously wrong and the main device showing the castle entrance and the keep's stone work, lack accuracy when compared to the 'accepted pieces'. A paper I am writing on the plate money assigned to Scarborough siege coins is nearing completion and hopefully the discussion will continue.
  6. Noting a distinctive Ormonde crown described as v.f. and rare wt. 29.13 in upcoming sale has the same die combination as Lingfords lots 220 &221.Both are described as contemporary forgeries with copper centre. Again, in March, 1976, Glendining lot 207 showed same dies but this time described as a later copy - see attached illustration. Therefore, in my opinion, this coin is suspect.
  7. Rob, I have the Mann's Sale. Your half groat is part of Lot 246, which consists of three items: a groat and two halves (ED IV). It is described as M.M. O both sides, saltire stops, upper arches not fleured, fine and rare - ref: HKsP255 No.5 var., (maybe P275?). All three are from the Walter's Collection, Lot 449 and sold to Spink for 2 pounds, 18 shillings.
  8. I agree the forger may have had access to a genuine example,possibly in the BM.The illustration I used for comparison is an engraving "reproduced in facsimile by the electrotype process" from a paper on Carlisle siege pieces in the B M and should be accurate although it does not show the die crack. Carlisle pieces were not cut directly from domestic plate, and usually produced round or nearly so, from melted down refined silver. The Magnus example is a more clear example.
  9. This reverse drawing, an early copy taken from the BM example of the two-line type may have been used as a template by the forger for his concoction. There are many similarities, example, rim beading and edge flaws, etc., but it also accentuates his mistakes, for example, spacing and form of the date numerals.
  10. Yes, it is puzzling, producing a set of dies seems hardly worth the effort. What is also remarkable about this collection is that Gaskell was able to obtain two extremely rare Scarborough pieces. The two shillings example, ex Pembroke, Martin, Hastings, Brice and Montagu, is a very light and thin specimen at only 70 grains. The castle and denomination punchs looks right and the piece is presently in the Museum of Victoria, AUS. The other, a sixpence, one of only five documented, was illustrated by both Snelling and Folkes and is now in the BM. It appears to have a cut made by shears, top right.
  11. In this case I believe this "half crown" is an outright forgery. The denomination is unknown and should have raised suspicions both in the collector and more so the auction house. The reverse, I agree is especially deceiving, the work of a talented counterfeiter - possibly Emery? That two other false pieces are illustrated in this collection, both "Inchiquin crowns" exposed by Aquilla Smith in 1860, raises the possibility that Gaskell may have been targeted. Surprisingly, similar examples (Inchiquin crown) turned up in the Lingford Crown Sale, Lots 224 and 225, as late as 1950.
  12. Although Thorburn in his book, "Coins of Great Britain", 1884, lists a Carlisle halfcrown of this type, this is the first illustration I have seen. It is from the Holbrook Gaskell (1846-1919) sale by Glendining 1921. This is a quality collection of mostly English hammered. It includes three Triple Unites, an extensive run of civil war siege pieces including two Scarborough of the" Broken Castle" issue. The reverse of this piece purports to be of the two line type where the die was used on both the three shilling and one shilling issues. The typical die crack is present but curiously no pellet in the centre of the "O" or before the date. Also, there is no small dot below the overhead "S". It is surprising that no reference to its authenticity was raised by the cataloguer!
  13. Prompted by Michael-Roos recent post - Nelson's article in the Connoisseur Magazine where the Beeston two-shilling piece is illustrated. In the BNJ II Nelson describes this item in detail but adds "I cannot agree that this piece emanated from Beeston Castle, since the resemblance between it and the pieces usually attributed to that place is not sufficiently close to justify the supposition." Originally sold in the Henry Webb sale 1895, lot 206, described as "of the highest rarity and interest, enhanced by noting the impression is stamped in the bowl of a spoon of the period, as shown by the hallmark (Leopard's Head)". Sold to Spink for 30 pounds and now resides in the ANS having passed through Murdoch, Brand and Lochett collections. With regards to a new Scarborough denomination, in the Hunterian collection of civil war siege coins is a "two-shilling and fourpence" weighing 12.73 grams (where the first penny numeral is double struck). I believe this is the same coin described in the Thoresby Museum Catalogue dated 1713. Lot 367: "This is plate money in the strictest notion, being part of a silver plate, with the rim upon it, an inch and a half long under the figure of a castle (I suppose that of Scarborough) IIs IIId being its weight." Donated by Sharp. This item sold as lot 199 to John White in the Whiston Bristow sale 5-7 March 1764. This description goes some way in suggesting that the Hunter specimen is from the John Sharp cabinet and gifted some time after 1691, possibly when the Archbishop visited the Thoresby Museum in August 1696."
  14. kal

    Nice Elizabeth I Shilling

    Hi Conor44, A fairly good example, about very fine, with weakness on the obverse legend at about 3 o'clock, which most likely corresponds with a weak area at 11 o'clock on the reverse. The flan is a little irregular, which is normal for the hammered series so may not be clipped. The weight should be around 6 grams or 93 grains for the shilling. Elizabeth silver shillings of this issue are fairly common and not worth a fortune. My copy of Spink values this coin at fine 110 to VF 450. Of course, that's a dealer estimate
  15. kal

    Kilkenny money 1642

    Correction to previous post - should be Bauer and not Bower. Adding to the problem of identification, I noted that the Gibbs' image of the obverse legend appears to read "CAROLVS D G MAG HIB" but should read "MAG BRI or BRIT". So unless there is a problem with the exposure of the image on his photograph, the coins can't be the same, as mine has the correct legend.