Crosses Scratched in the Fields of Hammered?

[TomGoodheart]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Hard to say since the reverse is busier and so marks don't stand out as much, but my feeling is they are much more common on the obverse and usually are in front of the bust. I have seen scratches over the bust on occasions, but mostly it's a cross or couple of parallel lines in the field which suggests to me people wanted them to show. If you just wanted to test a coin unobtrusively you could scratch a flake off the rim or somewhere it wouldn't be so obvious.

A small selection of examples on shillings of Charles I:

Of course coins do get dig marks and there used (in the days of flips that you stapled closed) to be modern scratches from mishandling when opening the flip or envelope, but most of these marks are quite different from the characteristically deliberate ones we see here IMHO.

[pies]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

That a very precise cross the lines are dead straight so not a casual act

[Coinery]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

[Coinery]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

[Rob]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period.

Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification.

[Peckris]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period.

Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification.

Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation.

[Rob]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period.

Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification.

Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation.

The trouble is that Lloyd Bennett has a pierced Aberystwyth shilling with the hole through the centre as stipulated in the decree which only weighs 5.75g. This was the first coin I looked at. The next four halfcrowns had a maximum weight of 14.71g, so the underwight theory probably doesn't hold much water. I didn't find any full weight centre-holed coins. It is just too easy to find coins that break any postulated theories. We are all p***ing in the wind.

One thing that would help a theory re-the recoinage would be the total absence of any crossed coins from contemporary hoards that could be positively dated to before the recoinage. I don't think this is the sort of thing that gets reported though because it would need to encompass all hoards.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Rob

[argentumandcoins]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period.

Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification.

Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation.

The trouble is that Lloyd Bennett has a pierced Aberystwyth shilling with the hole through the centre as stipulated in the decree which only weighs 5.75g. This was the first coin I looked at. The next four halfcrowns had a maximum weight of 14.71g, so the underwight theory probably doesn't hold much water. I didn't find any full weight centre-holed coins. It is just too easy to find coins that break any postulated theories. We are all p***ing in the wind.

One thing that would help a theory re-the recoinage would be the total absence of any crossed coins from contemporary hoards that could be positively dated to before the recoinage. I don't think this is the sort of thing that gets reported though because it would need to encompass all hoards.

I suppose a starting point would be the last 3 Tennants sales where a civil war hoard was offered.

From 5 shillings and 6 halfcrowns bought by me/father there is not a single marked coin. If somebody has the time to trawl their archived catalogues there will be pictures of all lots. Although a relatively small hoard it would give a good indication?

[Coinery]

Here's one on ebay Stuart here Do they always appear on the obverse?

Most of the time, but there are exceptions, and if a cross must be assumed to be deliberate which would help the accounting theory.

My only difficulty with the accounting theory is I can't see what accounting purpose it would serve, unlike the marking of a pile of BoE notes that are bound together!

I suppose that if done for accounting purposes you would expect to see multiple crosses too. The earliest I have seen a cross is on Edward VI fine coinage, which immediately post-dates the debased period and could be a hangover from this period.

Could it be that crossed coins were those that failed the recoinage test in 1696? I've just made a quick check on those coins with a cross that I have weights for and the closest any came to full weight was a James I 3rd bust shilling at 5.87g with the next at 5.75g. The lightest was 5.39g. I also have an Elizabeth I shilling with a star mark at 5.92g. We also have to bear in mind that some marks could be graffiti and completely unrelated to the underlying reason for the majority of marks. At the recoinage, those coins of full weight were punched through the centre to signify they were of full weight (and therefore value) and could be used for transactions for a limited time. In the event of discovering a pierced coin was underweight, the person who tendered the coin was liable to make up the difference in value. Do we have any other weights for crossed coins which would back up this theory? i.e. does anyone have crossed coins that are full weight and if so how many? Marking the field makes the cross obvious, so one would assume that it was done as a means of identification.

Yes, I speculated (above) that it may have been something to do with the Recoinage. I think it is the most convincing explanation.

If the marks were recoinage-related, wouldn't we have clear evidence in historical documents, particularly as one would presume the marked coins continued to circulate, if only for a short period? It would have to have been broadly publicised (declaration?) to the general public, who would be using the coins, wouldn't it?

[TomGoodheart]

I don't buy the recoinage idea, otherwise wouldn't it be expected that more coins would be marked in this way that we actually find?

Coins that were decent weight were holed so that they could legally continue in circulation and yet examples so pierced are really quite scarce.

All other coin was due to be melted down and yet we seem to find marked coin far more frequently than pierced ones. Surely any that failed the test would have been taken in immediately? We know that coin was taken at 5/8 an ounce, in other words people weren't given money for individual coins, what they had was weighed and they were given the bullion value (less a percentage that paid for the process) in return.

There were already questions about the fact that weighing the poor quality coin took more time and therefore expense, than had been allowed in governmnet calculations realting to how much the bullion price should be adjusted to pay for the process. I can't see that there would be any official sanction for individually marking coins that were due to be melted down almost immediately.

Personally I wonder if it isn't more a folk superstition thing? If you look at this article it says that European charms often require silver coins to be used, which are engraved with marks such as an "X" or are bent. These actions personalize the coin, making it uniquely special for the owner.

I'd be interested to know if gold coins are found so marked? If it's just silver (which are generally considered lucky) it might support the idea that it was to do with making a personal charm of some sort?

[Peckris]

I don't buy the recoinage idea, otherwise wouldn't it be expected that more coins would be marked in this way that we actually find?

Coins that were decent weight were holed so that they could legally continue in circulation and yet examples so pierced are really quite scarce.

All other coin was due to be melted down and yet we seem to find marked coin far more frequently than pierced ones. Surely any that failed the test would have been taken in immediately? We know that coin was taken at 5/8 an ounce, in other words people weren't given money for individual coins, what they had was weighed and they were given the bullion value (less a percentage that paid for the process) in return.

There were already questions about the fact that weighing the poor quality coin took more time and therefore expense, than had been allowed in governmnet calculations realting to how much the bullion price should be adjusted to pay for the process. I can't see that there would be any official sanction for individually marking coins that were due to be melted down almost immediately.

Personally I wonder if it isn't more a folk superstition thing? If you look at this article it says that European charms often require silver coins to be used, which are engraved with marks such as an "X" or are bent. These actions personalize the coin, making it uniquely special for the owner.

I'd be interested to know if gold coins are found so marked? If it's just silver (which are generally considered lucky) it might support the idea that it was to do with making a personal charm of some sort?

Interestingly, I'd forgotten that my 1672 crown is marked in a similar way. I've had to enhance the brightness and contrast artificially so it shows up, but you should be able to see them above the portrait. So it's clearly not just a hammered phenomenon. However, the date may give a clue as to when this might have been a practice?

[Coinery]

When I first asked this question, I thought there would be a single, well-documented, and conclusive answer to this phenomenon! Apparently not, making me desire the historical rationale even more so! It's got to have been recorded in some old tome somewhere!

[seuk]

...a nice cross on the reverse of a Danish 1855 Rigsdaler (halfcrown sized silver coin)

[seuk]

And a selection of various test marks found on George III period counterfeits. Cross marks are NOT common.

[Peckris]

I wonder how far back the use of 'X' as a kiss goes? Quite seriously, that may be all it signifies - a love token.

[Coinery]

And the crosses on these two images (currently for sale on ebay, so some free advertising...my justification), which Debbie brought to our attention a while back, are very different again, namely, punched rather than the usual scratches. Interestingly, this coin is marked on the reverse too, I don't recall seeing that before?

I also think Seuk's pictures would add weight to the proposal that the crosses are not connected with testing for authenticity.

Any connection with the plague?

[Debbie]

I wonder how far back the use of 'X' as a kiss goes? Quite seriously, that may be all it signifies - a love token.

1763 accoring to Wikpedia. Are there any coins with 000's (hugs) on?

[Peckris]

I wonder how far back the use of 'X' as a kiss goes? Quite seriously, that may be all it signifies - a love token.

1763 accoring to Wikpedia. Are there any coins with 000's (hugs) on?

1763 rules that theory out then. 000

[Coinery]

Firstly, what a shame the bust isn't struck-up on this one, you could cut your fingers on the legends! 261363485603 (link anyone?)

Secondly, this coin has a cross scratched into the field, BUT it also has something else that offers a strong and obvious possibily into why these coins are marked in this way?

Another interesting point, which hadn't occurred to me before, is that I haven't noticed the cross on 6d's.

[Nick]

Firstly, what a shame the bust isn't struck-up on this one, you could cut your fingers on the legends! 261363485603 (link anyone?)

Secondly, this coin has a cross scratched into the field, BUT it also has something else that offers a strong and obvious possibily into why these coins are marked in this way?

Another interesting point, which hadn't occurred to me before, is that I haven't noticed the cross on 6d's.

Link

[HistoricCoinage]

Firstly, what a shame the bust isn't struck-up on this one, you could cut your fingers on the legends! 261363485603 (link anyone?)

Secondly, this coin has a cross scratched into the field, BUT it also has something else that offers a strong and obvious possibily into why these coins are marked in this way?

Another interesting point, which hadn't occurred to me before, is that I haven't noticed the cross on 6d's.

Is there the red wax often associated with impressions on this example, or is the single red patch on each side associated with an old repair?

[HistoricCoinage]

I also note that the obverse legend doesn't line up. The E and L at the start of Elizabeth. Something I've seen fairly often.

[Coinery]

I perhaps shouldn't have been so vague, I was meaning the two further scratches forming XII!

I wonder whether the X we often see on shillings was put there by some folk to use as a clear identifier when storing or spending their money?

[HistoricCoinage]

I was meaning the two further scratches forming XII!

Right before my eyes!!

[Coinery]

I was meaning the two further scratches forming XII!

Right before my eyes!!