Want, want, WANT!

[TomGoodheart]

OK. Just putting this out here. I'm looking for a 1643-44 Charles I shilling, privy mark (P) (Spink 2800, Sharp G1/1, Tower mint under Parliament.

I'd like one in decent condition. Usually they are knackered, clipped, uneven or otherwise lacking.

This for example is the sort of condition you usually find them in:

I'd like one ideally like this or better:

And as I'm making wishes, provenance would be nice too!

Oh, and my Chas I shillings are still available, if anyone is interested!

[TomGoodheart]

And here's a fine work one for comparison:

[Peter]

And here's a fine work one for comparison:

Wow

[Paulus]

And here's a fine work one for comparison:

Is that for real???

[TomGoodheart]

Is that for real???

Yup, but some bloke called British (who apparently owns a museum) has it.

Museum Reg GHB.582 HSBC.1361 Location G68_12_33 AN356726001

I'm guessing it's the best of the known examples and a bit nicer than the Fitzwilliam coin (below).

Although if anyone happens to have one like the Fitzwilliam coin, I would be prepared to compromise and give it a home.

Edited September 9, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Peckris]

And here's a fine work one for comparison:

Awesome - on the cusp between hammered and milled. Gorgeous. Pity they're not all like that.

[Debbie]

So is it hammered or is it milled?

[TomGoodheart]

So is it hammered or is it milled?

Oh, it's hammered. But struck from a specially prepared flan and probably very carefully, or by one of the most experienced mint workers to get that quality.

Many of the Charles series can be found in this, what's known as 'fine work', condition. They appear to have been struck early on, when the dies were fresh and sometimes from dies with an earlier privy mark. I guess they were trial pieces or made as examples to be given to important individuals. Obviously the combination of condition and scarcity (they were never struck in number) mean they are pricy. But as a benchmark for what details to look for they are very useful.

I actually prefer my coins to be a little less perfect. But I would like a coin that has a reasonable size flan so most of the legend isn't lost and with a decent portrait.

[Peckris]

So is it hammered or is it milled?

Well, we don't know for sure how the finework pieces of that time were actually made - it was probably hammered, but it is identical in finish and almost identcal in design to S2859 which is the second milled issue shilling of Charles I.

[Debbie]

Interesting. I know what you mean though Richard, it almost looks too perfect and as a novice I would have assumed it to be fake....

[Peckris]

Interesting. I know what you mean though Richard, it almost looks too perfect and as a novice I would have assumed it to be fake....

Or a replica, about to make its debut on eBay..

[Rob]

I would happily buy said fake.

The similarity with the milled Briot issue is explained by the fact he did both.

[Rob]

Is that for real???

Yup, but some bloke called British (who apparently owns a museum) has it.

Museum Reg GHB.582 HSBC.1361 Location G68_12_33 AN356726001

I'm guessing it's the best of the known examples and a bit nicer than the Fitzwilliam coin (below).

Although if anyone happens to have one like the Fitzwilliam coin, I would be prepared to compromise and give it a home.

It would be interesting to know where the BM coin came from. It must have been there a long time because the Fitzwilliam has the Montagu piece and he would have acquired the BM one no question had it been available. The Fitwilliam's is ex Henderson, Dimsdale, Durrant, Cuff, Bergne, Brice and Montagu, so goes back to the early 1800s. I don't know who bought it at the Montagu sale, but a good bet would be J S Henderson, who had a habit of buying very nice coins and whose collection was left to the Fitz along with most of his library.

[Peckris]

I would happily buy said fake.

The similarity with the milled Briot issue is explained by the fact he did both.

Ok, what do you think of this theory.. We know that milled technology goes back to Elizabeth I but was initially rejected - violently - by Mint workers who thought it would put them out of a job. Also, it was apparently noticeably slower at producing coins in the early days. What if "finework" coins where quality counted for more than speed as only a very few specimens would be produced, were milled rather than hammered? This seems even more likely with Briot's issues, as his milling presses were introduced to the Mint in this reign.

What I'm saying is, that BM example looks too high quality to be hammered, and it looks in all respects identical to the milled issue. Although regarded as a hammered coin because the currency strikes were indeed still hammered, the finework specimens could have been milled, yes?

[Rob]

I would happily buy said fake.

The similarity with the milled Briot issue is explained by the fact he did both.

Ok, what do you think of this theory.. We know that milled technology goes back to Elizabeth I but was initially rejected - violently - by Mint workers who thought it would put them out of a job. Also, it was apparently noticeably slower at producing coins in the early days. What if "finework" coins where quality counted for more than speed as only a very few specimens would be produced, were milled rather than hammered? This seems even more likely with Briot's issues, as his milling presses were introduced to the Mint in this reign.

What I'm saying is, that BM example looks too high quality to be hammered, and it looks in all respects identical to the milled issue. Although regarded as a hammered coin because the currency strikes were indeed still hammered, the finework specimens could have been milled, yes?

Don't know at the moment, but if so you would expect the flan to be of even thickness throughout. Gut feeling is still no because the flans are still not perfectly round and were produced at times other than when Briot was making his milled coinage (e.g. James I). There is also a degree of excess metal which is not normally seen on either Briot or Mestrelle coinage. I think it quite likely that the flans were cut out using a circular punch as was the case certainly in the case of Saxon pennies.

[Coinery]

I would happily buy said fake.

The similarity with the milled Briot issue is explained by the fact he did both.

Ok, what do you think of this theory.. We know that milled technology goes back to Elizabeth I but was initially rejected - violently - by Mint workers who thought it would put them out of a job. Also, it was apparently noticeably slower at producing coins in the early days. What if "finework" coins where quality counted for more than speed as only a very few specimens would be produced, were milled rather than hammered? This seems even more likely with Briot's issues, as his milling presses were introduced to the Mint in this reign.

What I'm saying is, that BM example looks too high quality to be hammered, and it looks in all respects identical to the milled issue. Although regarded as a hammered coin because the currency strikes were indeed still hammered, the finework specimens could have been milled, yes?

Don't know at the moment, but if so you would expect the flan to be of even thickness throughout. Gut feeling is still no because the flans are still not perfectly round and were produced at times other than when Briot was making his milled coinage (e.g. James I). There is also a degree of excess metal which is not normally seen on either Briot or Mestrelle coinage. I think it quite likely that the flans were cut out using a circular punch as was the case certainly in the case of Saxon pennies.

Or were they possibly struck on oversize flans and then trimmed afterwards? Are there ever any subtle signs of double-strike on the fine-work coins, as this would surely add weight to one theory or the other?

Also, what if they weren't fine-work coins at all? What if the first few hundred coins struck on new dies were just pawed over by mint officials looking for the very best examples to send to the king or whoever? One would think the top official's reputation would be governed by such examples of quality workmanship, even if they were not truly representative of the coins hitting the market place.

All speculative on my part, of course!

[TomGoodheart]

Or were they possibly struck on oversize flans and then trimmed afterwards? Are there ever any subtle signs of double-strike on the fine-work coins, as this would surely add weight to one theory or the other?

Also, what if they weren't fine-work coins at all? What if the first few hundred coins struck on new dies were just pawed over by mint officials looking for the very best examples to send to the king or whoever? One would think the top official's reputation would be governed by such examples of quality workmanship, even if they were not truly representative of the coins hitting the market place.

All speculative on my part, of course!

Well, I haven't seen any with double striking. But then, there are few enough examples around so there may be some, or it may be less than perfect ones were disposed of. Even those that 'escaped' and have signs of having circulated are generally well struck despite the wear.

I can see Peck's point, the coins could for example have been specially made using a screw press rather than being hammered. But it would be difficult to be certain, without documentary evidence to back up the idea.

As to the 'best examples' of regular coins, I don't think so. They look like they were struck from special dies, for example the coin here.

Currency issue coins do occur with the bell mint mark, however I've never seen one with the reverse garniture breaking the legend like this. Other fine work pieces such as the C3/5 shilling have yet to be found as a currency piece. And lastly, all bar one fine work shilling are struck with the first mint mark for a new design, suggesting they are trials, or similar. If the best early coins were picked out I'd expect to see later mint marks too.

Edited September 10, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Coinery]

Or were they possibly struck on oversize flans and then trimmed afterwards? Are there ever any subtle signs of double-strike on the fine-work coins, as this would surely add weight to one theory or the other?

Also, what if they weren't fine-work coins at all? What if the first few hundred coins struck on new dies were just pawed over by mint officials looking for the very best examples to send to the king or whoever? One would think the top official's reputation would be governed by such examples of quality workmanship, even if they were not truly representative of the coins hitting the market place.

All speculative on my part, of course!

Well, I haven't seen any with double striking. But then, there are few enough examples around so there may be some, or it may be less than perfect ones were disposed of. Even those that 'escaped' and have signs of having circulated are generally well struck despite the wear.

I can see Peck's point, the coins could for example have been specially made using a screw press rather than being hammered. But it would be difficult to be certain, without documentary evidence to back up the idea.

As to the 'best examples' of regular coins, I don't think so. They look like they were struck from special dies, for example the coin here.

Currency issue coins do occur with the bell mint mark, however I've never seen one with the reverse garniture breaking the legend like this. Other fine work pieces such as the C3/5 shilling have yet to be found as a currency piece. And lastly, all bar one fine work shilling are struck with the first mint mark for a new design, suggesting they are trials, or similar. If the best early coins were picked out I'd expect to see later mint marks too.

Pretty compelling evidence I'd say.

[azda]

And here's a fine work one for comparison:

Ok, only a curious question about the fine work one, but what would you expect to pay for one of those if it came up for sale? Looking for ballpark as i know how it can escelate into 10 times the figure etc, so a reality price

[TomGoodheart]

Ok, only a curious question about the fine work one, but what would you expect to pay for one of those if it came up for sale? Looking for ballpark as i know how it can escelate into 10 times the figure etc, so a reality price

Around £2500.

It's complicated by the fact that some types seem to have been struck as fine work pieces quite often, whereas others very few examples exist!

For the 'commoner' pieces, such as Sharp D2/1 (Spink 2789) (some of which circulated as currency) between £800 and £2500. Most fine work pieces (according to my records and Rob may have more up-to-date info) go for around £2500.

But a fine work issue of early shillings such as S2781/2782 (Sharp A1/1 or A2/1) of which only one or two examples are known, more like £5000.

A fine work mm (P) shilling, since there are so few (to my knowledge), somewhere between £2500 and £5000, depending on condition.

Or were they possibly struck on oversize flans and then trimmed afterwards? Are there ever any subtle signs of double-strike on the fine-work coins, as this would surely add weight to one theory or the other?

Just to show you should never speak too soon, I have just received correspondence about this very thing! A coin that was struck from fine work dies, but not to fine work standard (minor double striking and flan damage are apparent) and most interestingly, underweight. The latter suggesting it was struck carefully on a flan which had been hammered until it was larger than normal and then trimmed to ensure it was perfectly circular.

The correspondence also suggests fine work flans were machine cut to be both the correct size and weight (unlike Briot issues which were cut using circular cutters and so round, but due to differing flan thickness sometimes needed adjusting).

Edited September 21, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[TomGoodheart]

A new 'want', just in case anyone spots one .. not actually a shilling this time! But a shilling coin weight.

Pretty sure this isn't an official issue, but I don't have Withers to check. It's Withers 1064 apparently.

This one is from Antony Wilson's site, but I'd be interested to see a better example (not necessarily to buy, but to know the weight of it) if such a thing exists.

Any info would be appreciated!

[Rob]

A new 'want', just in case anyone spots one .. not actually a shilling this time! But a shilling coin weight.

Pretty sure this isn't an official issue, but I don't have Withers to check. It's Withers 1064 apparently.

This one is from Antony Wilson's site, but I'd be interested to see a better example (not necessarily to buy, but to know the weight of it) if such a thing exists.

Any info would be appreciated!

A shilling should be 92 grains, so if the coin weight is kosher, 92 grains would be right. If not official and contemporary, you would think it might be slightly under to extract an income from the 'excess' silver.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Rob

[TomGoodheart]

A shilling should be 92 grains, so if the coin weight is kosher, 92 grains would be right. If not official and contemporary, you would think it might be slightly under to extract an income from the 'excess' silver.

Wouldn't you want your coinweight heavy, so you can tell people 'oh, I'm sorry, your coin is a bit under so I'm only giving you 11d for it'? Or have I misunderstood how it works?

This weight (according to the listing) is 5.67g (87.5gr) so quite a bit under the 5.96g 'ideal'. And below what in practice I've found is a more common weight for a shilling (about 5.8g).

[Rob]

A shilling should be 92 grains, so if the coin weight is kosher, 92 grains would be right. If not official and contemporary, you would think it might be slightly under to extract an income from the 'excess' silver.

Wouldn't you want your coinweight heavy, so you can tell people 'oh, I'm sorry, your coin is a bit under so I'm only giving you 11d for it'? Or have I misunderstood how it works?

This weight (according to the listing) is 5.67g (87.5gr) so quite a bit under the 5.96g 'ideal'. And below what in practice I've found is a more common weight for a shilling (about 5.8g).

Correct. Faulty thinking on my part. CR should refer to Charles(?), so a contemporary shilling would be 92 grains. The weight reduced to 5.67g (87.5gr) in the recoinagage of 1816 and stayed there afterwards. Maybe the weight post-dates 1816?

[Generic Lad]

A new 'want', just in case anyone spots one .. not actually a shilling this time! But a shilling coin weight.

Pretty sure this isn't an official issue, but I don't have Withers to check. It's Withers 1064 apparently.

This one is from Antony Wilson's site, but I'd be interested to see a better example (not necessarily to buy, but to know the weight of it) if such a thing exists.

Any info would be appreciated!

I was going to say that it looked very familiar and that I think I know where you can get one... until I read the bottom and saw that it was the exact same one I found