Double crown Charles I

[Gaz T]

Just putting this coin in the correct section as it is a lovely hammered coin.

The reverse die is the same as number 200 in the famous Schneider collection

but the obverse has the mint mark in a different place, maybe an over mark.

 

[Rob]

It's crown over bell both sides.

[Ukstu]

You've got some quality gold pieces. ?

[Gaz T]

Is there a reference to the obverse Rob?

 

[Gaz T]

Its strange stu how all the gold I have found has come out in lovely condition, just a George IIII Sovereign I had that maybe be me or the plough had dinked it.

 

[Rob]

7 minutes ago, Gaz T said:

Is there a reference to the obverse Rob?

 

From Schneider's article in the BNJ vol.29 p.101-127; Group D, bust 7a, crown type 9, shield type 4, reverse crown type 6, harp n and a note that crown is frequently struck over bell on either or both sides.

I have a group D with the tun over anchor both sides. As yours but with a slightly different reverse crown and harp.

[Gaz T]

Thanks again Rob, Much appreciated.

[Gaz T]

Hi all,

Sorry for bringing this coin up again. I took some slightly better pictures, rather than scans.

I bought myself a copy of Herbert Schneider Gold coins as I have been told the rev is Schneider 200.

The Obverse was not the same as the 200 coin in the book, but looked very much like the Portcullis mint Legend around the coin.

Looking at the mint mark the coin appears to be Crown over Bell over Portcullis only on the obverse.

Was this Rare for this to happen? and how would this have come about, i.e was the mint mark stamped on the coin in 1633 with portcullis mark and not issued into circulation and so on for 1634-5 then released out of the mint in 1635-6 with crown mint mark.

Conformation on what I'm looking at with the mint mark would be much appreciated.

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Gaz T

[Rob]

The dies were recut on the change of initial mark in order to save producing a completely new die. It was more common to see the gold dies used over one or more marks due to the smaller output of gold, and one must presume the softer nature of gold required less striking force.

By comparing dies it is possible to establish which were recut with the new mark. As up to a total 5 marks are known for both James I and Charles I gold coins, it is clear that the initial mark can become very messy, and you need the comparison to confirm the underlying detail. For the record, 5 mark dies are James I second coinage rose-ryal obverse with Cinquefoil over Trefoil over Tower over Mullet over Coronet and Charles I angel Schneider obverse O-17 with Triangle in Circle over Star over Traingle over Anchor over Tun. Other may exist.

A change of bust design is usually the terminal reason for reusing dies and hence seeing overmarks.

The obverse looks as if it could have a portcullis under the bell.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Rob

[Gaz T]

Thanks Rob.

How do I put a date to this coin, would it be 1633-4 as the portcullis is showing?

I'm not sure but it could be the same on the reverse as well but very faint and something else above the portcullis, Don't think its harp as its the wrong shape.

Any ideas what happened to the beading around the edge of the coin at both mint marks? I don't know but maybe the over mark punch had a line of beading engraved as well.

 

[Rob]

The crown being the later mark defines the period within which it was struck, i.e. sometime between 18 June 1635 and 14 Feb 1636, but likely closer to the former with both dies being used in Bell. I'm assuming the latter is old style as the amount of gold with im. crown is twice that struck in the adjacent marks. o/w production would have to be condensed into an 8 month period. The reverse is less likely to be over portcullis as the reverse dies wore out quicker than the obverses.

[Gaz T]

Thanks again your knowledge is much appreciated.