DNW today

[Diaconis]

24 minutes ago, Rob said:

As these coins are money of necessity, I still think that standards were subservient to demand. The only consistent thing is that the silver standard of Royalist issues was maintained throughout the war (except the Garter issue), but that is the practical reality of the raw material mostly being touched plate, so no refining required. Some refining was done, but only if the quality of silver taken in couldn't be guaranteed.

1

Rob,

What's your view on the anomalous and base York half-crowns?.

If standards were subservient to demand then this would support the argument of debasement for an emergency issue (and a secretive one at that given that some contain arsenic as a 'whitener' thereby intending to deceive). Also strange that they seem unknown to Folkes and Snelling yet are common today.

[Rob]

2 minutes ago, Diaconis said:

Rob,

What's your view on the anomalous and base York half-crowns?.

If standards were subservient to demand then this would support the argument of debasement for an emergency issue (and a secretive one at that given that some contain arsenic as a 'whitener' thereby intending to deceive). Also strange that they seem unknown to Folkes and Snelling yet are common today.

The jury is out on those as you know and I haven't formulated a concrete position so far, though I'm leaning towards a later production. 

What don't I like? All the Rs in the legend have a spur on the tail, this not seen on any genuine York piece. If done at about the same time, you would expect to see this punch elsewhere, and it would have to be earlier than the other pieces.The shape of other letters is also different to the three known types. The style of the reins is different to any of the others. The pieces are only ever known on coins with rough surfaces, which would not be expected from freshly prepared dies. The style of the horseman is much cruder than that seen on types 1A to 1F, which are the only pieces it can derive from. Besly types 2 & 3 are so clearly in Briot/Rawlins style that they have no bearing on the issue.

There are three distinct types of rein style on Group 1 coins, paired 1A & 1C, 1B & 1E and 1D & 1F, which might imply the work of three separate engravers, humans being creatures of habit. It matches none of these. The terminal 4 pellets on the reverse is I believe an engraver's mark and suggests you would expect the die to be made from similar punches to say the halfcrown 1A or shilling 1E reverses, but they aren't. There is no corroborative evidence to match them to anything.

All this doesn't eliminate them as contemporary, but it gives no support either. The closest detail that might match is the sword hilt as seen on type 1F which is thicker at one end compared to the other, but you wouldn't rest your case on that one thing.

[Coinery]

52 minutes ago, Diaconis said:

If standards were subservient to demand...

I think Rob may have been referring to die-making standards, as this had been the general tenet of my enquiry, though I’m sure you’ll have an answer regardless 😊

@Rob in view of the die never belonging to a crown I concede to the idea then that the large inner circle is nothing other than poor marking out, whatever the reason for that.

[Coinery]

Any image handy of those base Yorks?

[Rob]

This is one that Lloyd had on his site.

[Diaconis]

Heres the one sold at the DNW sale

[Rob]

I saved that one too, but the file size is a problematic 3.83Mb............... Only 10x too big

 

[Diaconis]

14 minutes ago, Rob said:

I saved that one too, but the file size is a problematic 3.83Mb............... Only 10x too big

 

it did take some cropping

[Coinery]

As a first observation, can I ask the obvious? What are the score marks across the fields?

 

[Rob]

9 minutes ago, Coinery said:

As a first observation, can I ask the obvious? What are the score marks across the fields?

 

As Besly says, probably 'aged' at the time they were made.

Here is John Hulett's coin. Same scratched surfaces but in a different place. Maybe they struck a couple, did some 'polishing' with a rough file, struck a few more etc. There is an awful lot of reasons to reject these as genuine.

 

Can't add a pic. Sod it.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Rob
Trying to overcome software :(

[Coinery]

The scores are all wrong though aren’t they, they’re incuse on the flan, and not even present at all on this one?

 

[Coinery]

How many are known?

[Rob]

51 minutes ago, Coinery said:

How many are known?

No idea. I have about a dozen on my list, but don't specifically record them as a must do thing.

[Coinery]

8 minutes ago, Rob said:

No idea. I have about a dozen on my list, but don't specifically record them as a must do thing.

I’m guessing then that they are all currently being bought and sold as genuine?

[Diaconis]

4 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I’m guessing then that they are all currently being bought and sold as genuine?

Are they not as 'genuine' as Tanner's copies of Simon's patterns?

[Rob]

Their uncertain status is readily accepted, so the market is essentially no different to say the electrotypes of the trophy pieces. i.e a few hundred quid for an antique copy/imitation.

[Coinery]

12 minutes ago, Diaconis said:

Are they not as 'genuine' as Tanner's copies of Simon's patterns?

Mine’s an enquiry into whether these HCs are being bought and sold as genuine, I don’t have any fixed ideas about them, as yet? But they do seem wrong, even with limited insight. What’s your position on them?

[Coinery]

3 minutes ago, Rob said:

Their uncertain status is readily accepted, so the market is essentially no different to say the electrotypes of the trophy pieces. i.e a few hundred quid for an antique copy/imitation.

Well that’s reassuring at least. When did they get called out? Were they present in any old collections?

[Diaconis]

1 minute ago, Coinery said:

Mine’s an enquiry into whether these HCs are being bought and sold as genuine, I don’t have any fixed ideas about them, as yet? But they do seem wrong, even with limited insight. What’s your position on them?

Besley suggests they may have been made for collectors. I can’t see anyone buying them as York mint issues as they are of dubious origin as stated earlier. There are examples in the BM and Hunterian. They do have a place in the York issue series. Spink lists them as typ.4.

[Rob]

10 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Well that’s reassuring at least. When did they get called out? Were they present in any old collections?

The earliest I have in the database is Lockett 2365, which has a provenance of Murdoch, Webb, Neck and Murchison. That takes it back to the 1860s, but the Hunterian example will take it back further to the end of the 18th century. Snelling doesn't mention anything about debased issues, but the provincial coins are still a bit of a mystery at this time, with some W/SA coins attributed to York on stylistic grounds alongside the unambiguous EBOR signed pieces.

[Coinery]

Just taking both your points, would a collector in the late 1700s be interested in imitation pieces, as Besley suggests? Unless they were intended to fool back then? Seems a very advanced forgery for the time?

Edited March 23, 2019 by Coinery

[Diaconis]

1 minute ago, Coinery said:

Just taking your last two points, would a collector in the late 1700s be interested in imitation pieces? Unless they were intended to fool back then? Seems a very advanced forgery for the time?

I agree with you there. I can't see the gap being filled for the 'collector' as an imitation and as you say unless intended to deceive, as new variety being discovered. Would be of interest to see the prices paid for them at that time and if it reflected this.

[Rob]

4 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Just taking your last two points, would a collector in the late 1700s be interested in imitation pieces? Unless they were intended to fool back then? Seems a very advanced forgery for the time?

I think so little research had been done at that time, that a decently rendered copy would pass without a second glance. It isn't until someone does the research that these things come to light. There is probably also a certain reluctance to accuse someone in the flesh of copying things, even if they are known to be bad. e.g. Everyone knew Taylor was producing his coins from Soho dies, and the numismatic aristocracy looked down on them, but unless someone is acting illegally there is nothing to be done - so people generally keep quiet.

I'm not exactly overrun with late 18th century catalogues, but the Tyssen sale in 1802 had nothing resembling the description. There was one lot describing the coin as being in imitation of a York half crown with the lion grasping the shield (lot 2073) which sold for a guinea. It was probably either a later Chester, or a corresponding W/SA piece.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were made at around the same time as the 'Colchester' pieces. You have to bear in mind that some of these issues were extremely rare 200 years ago. e.g. the Pocklington Hoard was the original source for the vast majority of York Besly type 3 halfcrowns now extant.

[Diaconis]

Off on a slight tangent here but this discussion reminds me of the fascinating but unattributed pattern half-crown of 1651 (ESC 68 (445D) that found the temerity to show its face for the first time in over 300 years in the Jess Peters Fixed Price List of August 1971. Never before mentioned in any reference book nor auction catalogue prior to that date, and though it took a little longer to surface than the base Yorks, of similar dubious origin I suspect.