Charles I Tower `fine work` issues.

[coin watch]

Hi everyone.

I am new to this site and this is my first post.

I am a keen collector of the English hammered coinage of Charles I, but as I am far from being an expert in this area of collecting can anyone tell me what the term `fine work` actually means. It is a term associated with a few tower mint issued halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences. What I do know is that these coins where made from carefully prepared dies, probably machine made, but I am not sure of reason behind such a well struck rounded hammered coin, were they patterns? and why do they command such a high premium?

I have yet to come across a detailed study of this subject so hence my question.

[TomGoodheart]

Fine work pieces are, as far as I know, still subject to debate. They are separate from patterns, which are example pieces produced to show how the future coin might look.

Michael Sharp (British Numismatic Journal xlvii pp 102-113) suggests fine work pieces are more akin to proofs since they are clearly superior strikings. This idea is supported by the fact that almost all fine work pieces bear the first mint mark for a new portrait or reverse style. Thus it appears that when a new style is first issued a number of fine work pieces are struck. Patterns by contrast normally bear the previous mint mark to the issue.

Whether they were for presentation or for reference is not known. The high premium is because they are only known in relatively small numbers and generally they are of very fine quality by comparison to the equivalent 'currency' pieces.

I have a scan of Sharp's paper - pm me your email address and I'll send you the relevant page if you like. And welcome to the forum!

[Rob]

The above seems to fall down when applied to the previous reign where for example you get fine work shillings with mm. Tun which is neither at the beginning nor the end of a design type. I don't know if this is significant to the postulated reasoning for their production.

[TomGoodheart]

Sadly I suspect we'll never really know. There are insufficient records from the mint - even for things you'd think would be recorded such as the proportions of the various denominations of silver coins struck.

I personally like the idea that fine work coins may have been presentation pieces, but unless someone has unearthed contemporary accounts of this I don't think there is any proof (no pun intended!). From the wear on some examples a few appear to have circulated as regular coins.

Of course, the brilliant thing about such pieces is that they show us details often missing from 'currency' coins and I guess provide a benchmark to aspire to (if that's not a tautology).

(And the brilliant thing about this forum is there's always something to learn! I didn't know about the earlier tun shillings, so thanks Rob!)

Edited November 1, 2006 by TomGoodheart