Evasion and Contemporary Counterfeits

[DrLarry]

I found the counterfeit half crown ...below ....I often find I collect then sometimes find it difficult to place certain coins in y collection so they get assigned by some other system (random in my strange head) ...still  I knew I would find its hiding place eventually .  It weighs 10.59 grams a lead dull surface lustre no edge inscription .  I must have been a hard thing for merchants and others to keep up with changing currency ...I suppose clever counterfeiters took advantage of changes in currency and released coin  by Royal mint  very soon after before the people become familiar with it .  This one is obviously a cast copy 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by DrLarry

[DrLarry]

Did counterfeiters do the same with coin weights?  I assume these are standards issued by the mint ...anyone know anything of the history of coin weights ?

[DrLarry]

Anyone have any knowledge of the fake copper Queen Anne farthings made in the 18th C ?  there seems to be an interesting debate about whether the Anne Augusta ones were contemporary or not?  I think I have one pattern that is original and another which looks pretty dodgy.  There is a fascinating account about the copper coinage , especially the farthing, and the stories around at the time of their immense value...  a good read this morning  

[Peckris 2]

11 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I found the counterfeit half crown ...below ....I often find I collect then sometimes find it difficult to place certain coins in y collection so they get assigned by some other system (random in my strange head) ...still  I knew I would find its hiding place eventually .  It weighs 10.59 grams a lead dull surface lustre no edge inscription .  I must have been a hard thing for merchants and others to keep up with changing currency ...I suppose clever counterfeiters took advantage of changes in currency and released coin  by Royal mint  very soon after before the people become familiar with it .  This one is obviously a cast copy

Yes, WIII's reign saw something of a 'great recoinage' - the milled wasn't new, but I believe hammered coins were withdrawn during his reign? (I may be wrong about that...)

[jelida]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, WIII's reign saw something of a 'great recoinage' - the milled wasn't new, but I believe hammered coins were withdrawn during his reign? (I may be wrong about that...)

The hammered were checked for weight/value and if acceptable were centrally punched and allowed to continue in circulation.

Jerry

[DrLarry]

11 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, WIII's reign saw something of a 'great recoinage' - the milled wasn't new, but I believe hammered coins were withdrawn during his reign? (I may be wrong about that...)

I am surprised there is so much around 3 centuries on then? 

[DrLarry]

9 hours ago, jelida said:

The hammered were checked for weight/value and if acceptable were centrally punched and allowed to continue in circulation.

Jerry

I have never seen any with these checks ...although I saw a charles II shilling with a Key countermark.  I see a lot of copper stamped with marks that look official nd otherwise .  Thanks .   Again I am still surprised there is so much hammered silver around 

[jelida]

6 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I have never seen any with these checks ...although I saw a charles II shilling with a Key countermark.  I see a lot of copper stamped with marks that look official nd otherwise .  Thanks .   Again I am still surprised there is so much hammered silver around 

The punch simply created a small central perforation, round or square. There is even a book about them.

https://www.galata.co.uk/the-punched-hammered-coinage-of-1696

Jerry

[TomGoodheart]

Here you go. Silver coinage was basically worth its value because of the weight of precious metal it contained. So older coinage still circulated. The recoinage permitted some coins to continue to be used for a while providing they were on full flans. The official piercing to show they'd been checked was done in a way that didn't remove any metal. This is an officially pierced shilling of Charles I. Not the neatest of examples, but they're quite hard to find, so I'm happy enough with this one.

 

[DrLarry]

18 hours ago, jelida said:

The punch simply created a small central perforation, round or square. There is even a book about them.

https://www.galata.co.uk/the-punched-hammered-coinage-of-1696

Jerry

thanks for that Jerry   

[DrLarry]

11 hours ago, TomGoodheart said:

Here you go. Silver coinage was basically worth its value because of the weight of precious metal it contained. So older coinage still circulated. The recoinage permitted some coins to continue to be used for a while providing they were on full flans. The official piercing to show they'd been checked was done in a way that didn't remove any metal. This is an officially pierced shilling of Charles I. Not the neatest of examples, but they're quite hard to find, so I'm happy enough with this one.

 

forgive my stupidity but what stops a person clipping the coin after the stamp ?  could you not clip your own then shove a hole through the middle?  it doesn't look very "official" that hole ! fascinating bit of the story thanks a lot .   

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

forgive my stupidity but what stops a person clipping the coin after the stamp ?  could you not clip your own then shove a hole through the middle?  it doesn't look very "official" that hole ! fascinating bit of the story thanks a lot .   

I presume they weren't intended to circulate for very long? I guess the Mint didn't care much if they were clipped, though the question arises "why bother punching them at all, why not simply recall hammered in order to use the silver for milled coins"? Perhaps the answer is that they could punch several hammered coins in  the time it took to mint one milled coin, so it was an efficient temporary measure on the road to recalling the hammered coins.

[TomGoodheart]

As I understand it they struggled with production, despite the extra mints. They simply didn't have enough new coin at first so had to allow some hammered to continue in circulation. As for why not clip after, firstly because no coin that wasn't full was acceptable as legal tender (so you risked having it refused) but more importantly because clipped coin (well sixpences and as far as can be seen, shillings) were exchanged by the authority at full face value providing they were not clipped further than to the inner circle. Effectively this meant that if you were going to clip a coin (which was still illegal ) you'd be better clipping first, keeping the extra silver, then handing the central bit in to be melted in return for new coin to full face value!

Basically the whole process appears to have been a nightmare and full  of problems for the authorities, but I presume the hammered pieces were getting to the stage that foreign traders were refusing to accept them in payment and a reliable modern coinage became essential, despite the cost to the treasury.

[jelida]

1 hour ago, TomGoodheart said:

As I understand it they struggled with production, despite the extra mints. They simply didn't have enough new coin at first so had to allow some hammered to continue in circulation. As for why not clip after, firstly because no coin that wasn't full was acceptable as legal tender (so you risked having it refused) but more importantly because clipped coin (well sixpences and as far as can be seen, shillings) were exchanged by the authority at full face value providing they were not clipped further than to the inner circle. Effectively this meant that if you were going to clip a coin (which was still illegal ) you'd be better clipping first, keeping the extra silver, then handing the central bit in to be melted in return for new coin to full face value!

Basically the whole process appears to have been a nightmare and full  of problems for the authorities, but I presume the hammered pieces were getting to the stage that foreign traders were refusing to accept them in payment and a reliable modern coinage became essential, despite the cost to the treasury.

Here's one I found metal detecting last year, a Charles II halfcrown  clipped right down to the inner circles and a bit over 8g!

Jerry

 

[DrLarry]

6 hours ago, TomGoodheart said:

As I understand it they struggled with production, despite the extra mints. They simply didn't have enough new coin at first so had to allow some hammered to continue in circulation. As for why not clip after, firstly because no coin that wasn't full was acceptable as legal tender (so you risked having it refused) but more importantly because clipped coin (well sixpences and as far as can be seen, shillings) were exchanged by the authority at full face value providing they were not clipped further than to the inner circle. Effectively this meant that if you were going to clip a coin (which was still illegal ) you'd be better clipping first, keeping the extra silver, then handing the central bit in to be melted in return for new coin to full face value!

Basically the whole process appears to have been a nightmare and full  of problems for the authorities, but I presume the hammered pieces were getting to the stage that foreign traders were refusing to accept them in payment and a reliable modern coinage became essential, despite the cost to the treasury.

I think I have read that at the time there was no agreed standard in continental europe for the value of precious metals so if you had a mind too you could undercut for economic and political reasons the currency of another country.  The value for silver was often times greater on the continent and it meant that silver was being taken to the mainland .  

[Ukstu]

My pierced one. Not sure if it's been pierced for the 1696 recoinage or if it was a touch piece. Always intrigued me. 

[DrLarry]

8 hours ago, Ukstu said:

My pierced one. Not sure if it's been pierced for the 1696 recoinage or if it was a touch piece. Always intrigued me. 

it is a beautifully made HOLE the sharpness of those edges it does not look as if it went into circulation which I am sure would have worn or broken off the exit ....nice example of a shilling is it a YORK ?  what has it pierced through ? I can see an E or B but nothing else 

[Ukstu]

29 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

it is a beautifully made HOLE the sharpness of those edges it does not look as if it went into circulation which I am sure would have worn or broken off the exit ....nice example of a shilling is it a YORK ?  what has it pierced through ? I can see an E or B but nothing else 

It's gone through the bit with the mint signature "EBOR" which is short for EBORACI (York)