Please Rationalise These Mintmarks

[Rob]

For appraisal, one Henry VIII 2nd coinage halfgroat struck under Archbishop Warham at Canterbury. Apologies for the grotty state of the coin, but it is in sufficiently good grade to raise some questions

The obverse mark looks distinctly like a pomegranate overstruck with a C(?), however, pomegranate is a 1st coinage mark and not known on the second as far as I am aware. The reverse looks more like a C superimposed on top of something, but what is not very clear other than it is not a pomegranate. Both of these would give rise to a shape roughly similar to what is known as 'Warham's uncertain mark', but which has never been satisfactorily explained. The reverse is a bit grotty in definition, but the obverse is clearly an underlying pomegranate.

The most obvious reason for an overstruck mark would be either a change of engraver, or a change of mint status where the temporalities were suspended or a new archbishop appointed. Warham occupied the position for nearly 30 years before he died in 1532 to be succeeded by Abp. Cranmer in March 1533, which effectively rules out Warham's appointment to the post, but does give a 7 month period where there was no resident archbishop striking coins, and although not clearly identifiable, the uncertain mark may be indicative of this period, as may the halfgroat without WA by the shield (but this may also be an engraver's error). To place these in the sede vacante period from August 1532 to end-March 1533 however is fighting an uphill battle in the case of the mark as seen which has all the signs of a conventional Henry VIII pomegranante underlying the C, as the mark would have been obsolete for over 6 years by this point and I can't see them leaving a die unused or unrecut for this length of time.

The reverse mark is also quite informative as a case could be made for the uncertain mark to be over both long cross fitchee and pomegranate (but missing the foot). Again these are 1st coinage marks.

If this is a true representation of Warham's uncertain mark, then it ought to place the (over)mark at the head of the 2nd coinage chronology, but doesn't explain the change of mark as a means of identifying the differences between 1st and 2nd coinage which are blindingly obvious and the marks superfluous unless there was a pyx trial at the time of changeover. A check of the cathedral records at Canterbury might shine some light on any potential reasons for the introduction of the new mark.

I will try to get some better hi res images of the areas in question. Thoughts ladies and gentlemen, please.

This was going to be sold due to the quality issues seen, but has become too interesting to get rid of and is no longer available.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Rob

[TomGoodheart]

It certainly is a puzzle! Really my only contribution would be elimination. What I can't see is a cross patonce or a 'T'
I agree there does seem to be a pomegranate to the obv.

And really what to me looks a bit like the edge of a cross pattée. All overlaid with a number 1. There. No help at all to you!

[Coinery]

I'd had a couple of better-grade WA HG's over the last couple of years, I'll see if I can dig out some images!

Unfortunately, my image organisation hasn't quite hit searchable standards, yet, so it'll be a bit of a wade! But I do enjoy revisiting the images anyway, so I'll see what's there!

[Rob]

Here's the obverse mark, which is quite clear, but the reverse mark looks nothing like in the hand due to the inability to vary the direction of the illumination.

[Rob]

Further to the above, if anyone has any examples of a 1st coinage Warham halfgroat with a clean(ish) mint mark on the reverse, I would like images of the whole coin plus a close up of the mark please. It can have either a pomegranate or long cross fichee mark