1551 MM Y silver coins

[pokal02]

Quite a few dealers/auction houses still claim these to have been minted at Southwark, rather than Tower.  Has this ever been settled or has new evidence come to light?

[copper123]

There was a recoinage about that time so could be poss - a good book on hammered silver should tell you

[Rob]

Y or y was the mark of Sir John Yorke who was at Southwark. It seems pretty conclusive given other marks tie in to specific people at this time. Bow - Sir Martin Bowes, t - William Tyllsworth, TC - Thomas Chamberlayne, WS William Sharrington, while Edmund Peckham (Treasurer) is assigned the ostrich head and G(all coins overmarked) for George Gale at York where coins were never struck, though dies were prepared.

[pokal02]

Lord Stewartby 's book says Southwark was closed in July 1551 and new coinage was not authorised till Oct 1551. 

is the concensus that

A) he was mistaken

B) the Southwark mint was briefly reopened in late 1551

C) Yorke brought his Southwark dies to the Tower?

[Coinery]

Wouldn’t we have to take the Julian Calendar into account, which starts a new year on 25th March?

[pokal02]

It would only mean that some of the '1551' coins could have been issued in Jan-Mar 1552.   It would still be the case that if the Southwark mint was closed in July 1551, the fine silver would all have to be Tower if the Oct 1551 date is also right.  The 1551 'tun' crowns are rarer than the 'y's, suggesting the change over (whether of mint or just mint mark) must have been Jan/Feb 1552. 

[Rob]

57 minutes ago, pokal02 said:

Lord Stewartby 's book says Southwark was closed in July 1551 and new coinage was not authorised till Oct 1551. 

is the concensus that

A) he was mistaken

the Southwark mint was briefly reopened in late 1551

C) Yorke brought his Southwark dies to the Tower?

The jury is out. It's possible that Southwark didn't fully close. Stewartby only covered the period up to the end of the base coinage, and so the July closure might refer only to the cessation of striking debased coins. I say this because Edward's Chronicle on the 24th September 1551 says amongst other things, 'Also that York's mint and Throckmorton's mint in the Tower, should go and work the fine standard'. To me that implies that Southwark was still considered operational - at least by Edward, but doesn't eliminate the possibility that Yorke moved across the river and set up shop alongside Throckmorton or in Tower mint 2, which we know existed from the debased coins. Given y coins are only for 1551 and subsequently superseded by Tun at the end of the year, it may be that Throckmorton was initially indisposed and Yorke operated at the Tower before Throckmorton took over, but the wording in the Chronicle suggests to me that both mints could have been involved.

C can be eliminated because the dies for the fine were new.

A y/Tun mule would more likely place things at the Tower, but I'm not aware of anything for any denomination.

Further edited to say that stocks of fine silver were more likely to have been held at the Tower.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Rob

[pokal02]

Thanks Rob.   One of many questions that may never be fully proven  - I'm inclined to agree that (b) is the likeliest (if I amend to 'was re-opened/never fully closed). . 

[Rob]

The wiki page on Sir John Yorke might hint at why the mark changed from y to tun. 'In 1552 York was pardoned 'for all treasons and offences concerning making and issuing of the king's money', on the condition that he settle his mint accounts for over £9500 'due to the king'. So presumably 1551 was not such a good time for Yorke. Any such impropriety would surely result in loss of privileges, such as making the coinage.

[Coinery]

3 hours ago, pokal02 said:

It would only mean that some of the '1551' coins could have been issued in Jan-Mar 1552.   It would still be the case that if the Southwark mint was closed in July 1551, the fine silver would all have to be Tower if the Oct 1551 date is also right.  The 1551 'tun' crowns are rarer than the 'y's, suggesting the change over (whether of mint or just mint mark) must have been Jan/Feb 1552. 

Ah, yes, I see what you mean.

It’s turned into a very interesting read

 

[Rob]

On 1/23/2024 at 12:19 PM, pokal02 said:

It would only mean that some of the '1551' coins could have been issued in Jan-Mar 1552.   It would still be the case that if the Southwark mint was closed in July 1551, the fine silver would all have to be Tower if the Oct 1551 date is also right.  The 1551 'tun' crowns are rarer than the 'y's, suggesting the change over (whether of mint or just mint mark) must have been Jan/Feb 1552. 

I think it could have been even later than Jan/Feb. Lingford lists 9 obverse dies for 1551 of which only obv. Z was tun and the other 8 were Yorke's. Furthermore, obv.Z was only known paired with Lingford reverses 12 & 13. One/Two dies would be a small number for 2-3 month's worth of coining, as given they didn't start until October 1551, it leaves less than 6 months for the 9 obverse dies in total. Speculatively, I assume that reverses 1-11 (mm.y) were the initial Yorke dies identified by Lingford when he did his study, and that 16, 17, 19 & 20 came as a result of later discoveries. Similarly, 14 & 15 were immediately identified for post 1551 coins, with rev. 18 (mm.Tun) again being a later find. That's 15 y reverse dies for 1551 compared to 2 tuns. If the evidence could be found, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Throckmorton didn't start work until March.

Lockdales 75 lot 290 was an obverse G paired with what appears to be an unrecorded die (it's a bit worn to be certain), so that would mean a 16th reverse - which pretty much backs up the rule of thumb that you had twice the number of reverse dies as obverses.

60% of all 1551 crowns use obv. A which presumably was a result of the urgency to get the fine coins into circulation asap.

Edited January 25, 2024 by Rob