Tips with hammered coins?

[Sword]

I wanted to buy my first hammered coin and have decided that a Charles I halfcrown would be the best bet. A common type can be picked up at a reasonable price. The history of that period is fascinating. A halfcrown is an impressive large lump of silver too.

The problem is that my knowledge of hammered coins is very limited and I am not certain about what to look for. (But then again, I will probably not get better until I have brought a few). At the end I have brought this Charles I halfcrown from the recent LCA. I like the coin because 1) it's round, 2) well centred, 3) no weak areas, 4) decent enough grade, with rather good details ( LCA graded it as VF) 5) full flan as far as I can tell.

It ended up costing me £260 + juice. 

I am very grateful to receive any comments. Are there any problems with it? Would you grade it VF? Is the price OK? Just be frank! I noticed that there are some letters missing on the legend and think this sort of thing is rather common.  Can any one tell me how that occurred. The mintmark is bell and I assume that the year is therefore 1634-5 (from Spink). The Bell mint mark is  given the number 60 in spink. How was the number 60 assigned? 

Many thanks!

Edited September 5, 2016 by Sword

[Rob]

2 hours ago, Sword said:

I wanted to buy my first hammered coin and have decided that a Charles I halfcrown would be the best bet. A common type can be picked up at a reasonable price. The history of that period is fascinating. A halfcrown is an impressive large lump of silver too.

The problem is that my knowledge of hammered coins is very limited and I am not certain about what to look for. (But then again, I will probably not get better until I have brought a few). At the end I have brought this Charles I halfcrown from the recent LCA. I like the coin because 1) it's round, 2) well centred, 3) no weak areas, 4) decent enough grade, with rather good details ( LCA graded it as VF) 5) full flan as far as I can tell.

It ended up costing me £260 + juice. 

I am very grateful to receive any comments. Are there any problems with it? Would you grade it VF? Is the price OK? Just be frank! I noticed that there are some letters missing on the legend and think this sort of thing is rather common.  Can any one tell me how that occurred. The mintmark is bell and I assume that the year is therefore 1634-5 (from Spink). The Bell mint mark is  given the number 60 in spink. How was the number 60 assigned? 

Many thanks!

That wasn't a bad coin and was on my list to buy if cheap enough. I think you paid a full price for it, but it a nice round coin. It isn't a rare coin. I'd go with VF. I thought there was a trace of a portcullis underneath the bell from a previous incarnation of the die. Traces of a former die are quite common, and in the case of portcullis was used on the previous type of halfcrown issued, being the mark that preceded bell.

Not sure what you mean about missing letters as they are all there, though the S is double struck, but this is common and a function of the number of blows required to fully strike up the coin.

The date is as per Spink and the number 60 comes from the list of mint marks compiled originally by Seaby. This is a question that's asked on a regular basis. The list has been published in Seaby's and subsequently Spink's annual tome ever since the book was published, and is a damning indictment of laziness on the part of many collectors who don't bother reading from cover to cover. p.535-7 in the current volume refers,

[Sword]

Many thanks Rob for your expertise! Much appreciated.

Is it more usual for the legend to read MAG and HIB rather than MA and HI?

 

[Rob]

18 minutes ago, Sword said:

Many thanks Rob for your expertise! Much appreciated.

Is it more usual for the legend to read MAG and HIB rather than MA and HI?

 

MAG, BRIT, FRAN and HIB can be shortened further. It could possibly be a means of differentiating between moneyers(?) You tend not to see these type 3s with multiple pellet stops, whereas the large upturn in mint output during 'plume' ( a 15-fold increase over heart) resulted in the appearance of a lot of dies with up to seven pellets instead of the previous one or two pellet stops, the latter either as colons or wedge and pellet. To me this only makes sense in the context of increased mint output, i.e. you would need more engravers to produce the dies.

There is circumstantial evidence to support this theory in the Royalist provincial coins where I have compiled a list that gives well over 90% correlation between the number of pellets or other marks, time of striking and location based on military activity. All this points towards some form of overall control and personal accountability for dies. In arriving at this conclusion I have made the assumption that old habits die hard, and if some form of control existed before the war, so it would be logical to extend working practices along the same lines to which everyone was accustomed. In that way you can follow the tracks of several individuals around the country.

[Sword]

Thank you so much for sharing that.

[TomGoodheart]

I think you're on the right lines Sword.  With hammered, my view is that grade is not always as important as 'eye appeal', by which I mean for example that a slightly more worn coin that is centrally struck can be more pleasing than one that is crisper but has bits missing or a weak area.  Obviously full flan, nicely toned EF examples are ideal, but generally I've found some compromise is usually needed!

I suspect everyone has their own criteria as to what is essential in a coin and what weaknesses are forgivable, though it takes time to develop an eye for this and views can and do change with time.  In other words, collecting hammered is a much more personal and subjective thing than with later milled coins.

That said, your round / well centred / no weak areas / decent enough grade, with rather good details and / full flan covers the main areas well enough.
 

Now you just need to buy a few more!

I guess the only other thing I would add is that I have found comparison useful in my own collecting.  A few (more modern, as they tend to be more fully illustrated and sometimes in colour) auction catalogues for decent collections can be a useful investment, enabling you to see what discerning collectors selected as an example (or in some cases had to make do with) of a particular coin.  Then you just have to look for similar or better!   Obviously it's easier if you have a particular area that interests you.  

Any idea what you'd like to buy next?

 

[Sword]

Many thanks for the advice Tom. I confess that I have never handled a hammered coin before and so your tips are really appreciated. I totally agree that eye appeal is even more important for hammered. (I really won't enjoy owing a near mint coin that has weak king's feature for instance)

I have been looking at coins from the DNW, LCA and Lockdale websites for quite a while to get an idea of the sort of coins available. 

I think I will need to save up for an Edward VI shilling next. Having said I am aware that a VF problem free example is pricey.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Sword

[azda]

9 hours ago, Sword said:

Many thanks for the advice Tom. I confess that I have never handled a hammered coin before and so your tips are really appreciated. I totally agree that eye appeal is even more important for hammered. (I really won't enjoy owing a near mint coin that has weak king's feature for instance)

I have been looking at coins from the DNW, LCA and Lockdale websites for quite a while to get an idea of the sort of coins available. 

I think I will need to save up for an Edward VI shilling next. Having said I am aware that a VF problem free example is pricey.

VF isn't so pricey, it's finding a VF, most are around GF it's when it goes above that.......The linked coin sold for £700 in 2013 graded as GVF

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=143&l=1517&f=o&s=l

[Sword]

On 07/09/2016 at 9:49 AM, azda said:

VF isn't so pricey, it's finding a VF, most are around GF it's when it goes above that.......The linked coin sold for £700 in 2013 graded as GVF

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=143&l=1517&f=o&s=l

GF examples are indeed very common in auctions. Thanks for the link. Looks like I might want to aim for better than just VF. This particular coin type loses its appeal for me if one of Edward's eyes is not showing well (as in GF examples)

[azda]

2 hours ago, Sword said:

GF examples are indeed very common in auctions. Thanks for the link. Looks like I might want to aim for better than just VF. This particular coin type loses its appeal for me if one of Edward's eyes is not showing well (as in GF examples)

Maybe a deal to be done with @mhcoins http://www.mhcoins.co.uk/coins/hammeredsilver/edward-vi-1547-1553-mm-tun-shilling/

[Sword]

My Charles I halfcrown has been delivered today and the weight is 15.09g. Can anyone tell me what is the acceptable weight range? Thanks.

[TomGoodheart]

That's pretty much spot on Sword.  A quick glance through John Brooker's collection gives a range from around 14.5 - 15.3g.

Actually the legal requirement, tested at the Trials of the Pyx, was 232.25 grains (which = 15.0495 grammes). 

(Another snippet from the Brooker book which can sometimes be picked up cheap on eBay).

 

[Rob]

The above is a reasonable ballpark, but some of the provincial coins can go a gram lower. There are also lightweight issue coins for which the weight is around 13g

[Sword]

Many thanks for your expertise gents.