YeOldeCollector

Many thanks. The Aethelred was hard to obtain but I really do like it. So much history behind it.

Aethelred I of Wessex. Lunette penny, type a with unbroken lunettes. The moneyer being Ethelred. There are only ten coins of this monarch recorded on the Early Medieval Corpus. A very scarce coin in good condition. Aethelred I was King of Wessex from 865 until 871, where he was killed in Battle against the invading Danes.

Well said. I'm often saying this with regards to their English hammered coins.

It would have been easier to continue cutting the coins. They would only have had to create one set of dies, whereas if they introduced smaller round change then more dies would have been required. Saving time, money and effort. I agree, it would be splendid to stumble across a halfpenny or farthing of that coinage but I highly doubt that any would have been minted at all.

I acquired this coin this week. It is an Expanding Cross penny of Edward the Confessor, minted by Leofred at London. It is a standard silver penny but has been lightly gilded. It also has a piercing and a dark stain across the obverse. I bought it as a 'pendant coin' but I believe it to be an example of a contemporaneous brooch penny, as this would explain the silver stain that runs across the obverse, where the pin would have been. The piercing could, perhaps, have been the location of the main stud that held the pin in place. I already own an example of such a brooch of exactly the same issue and mint. See below. Here is a post of mine from July 4th 2009 that can be viewed here: http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?showtopic=24236

But, to them, it wasn't disfiguring. It was merely a method of creating coins. A penny was just a measure of bullion and so it did not matter whether the mint cut them into halves or quarters. The cutting was meant to be done by the mint alone as they wanted to control the whole coinage system and therefore have a say in how many pennies, halfpennies and farthings were circulating. However, this did not work out and many merchants and traders cut coins themselves to make small change. It was not until about 1222 when it was decided that halfpennies and farthings should be minted on round flans, just like their contemporary pennies. Eight dies were produced in London to issue halfpennies and farthings but not a single die has ever been found and none of the said coins have either. It can only be assumed that the moneyers thought the prospect of issuing round small change was absolutely absurd and so did not carry out the minting. Alas, we have to wait until Edward I to see such small change. Any one who went to the moneyer with bullion silver either in the form of old coins to exchange for new types in the form of the recoinages or a standard weight of silver. So, if you went to the mint during John's reign with a penny of Richard I then you would be entitled to a new penny of King John subject to it falling into the correct weight category. If your coin was more than one-eighth less than the correct weight then it would only be accepted as a bullion part payment. Obviously the mint would not just accept single pennies as it would not be an efficient system, but merchants would arrive at the mint with bags full of clipped bits of silver, coins from around Europe and English coins in the quest of acquiring new, genuine currency for circulation. The moneyer would charge a slight fee though, hence why they became very powerful men and wealthy landowners.

A penny of Henry III. Henri on London. Class IIIc. This dates to around 1249. At first I thought that it had been broken by a spade or a plough. However, on closer inspection, it has not been dented at all and so could not have been caused by trauma. I then thought that it had been bent and then folded out to straighten, but it is too flat and has no distortion. Therefore, I believe that this penny has had an attempt to cut it been made. Pennies were struck whole at the mint and cut into fractions, (halves and quarters), and distributed from the mint. I doubt that it had been 'cut' at the mint, because I find it hard to believe that the attempt would have been so crude as to not completely sever the halves. The cut is also not exactly on the lines, but does run entirely parallel to it. All in all, a very interesting coin and at a bargain price as it looked to just be damaged.

Many thanks, Pat. It was an absolute steal because the seller listed it in "Coins > Coins > British > Elizabeth II (1953-c.1971) > Penny".

Be sure to enlarge, I've tried a new method of displaying the images. This coin really does have an absolutely stunning portrait, in hand it is exemplary!

The coins were minted posthumously during the reign of his son, Edward VI, by the Duke of Somerset who basically ran the country until 1549, when Edward took lead. Somerset and his advisers were determined to create as much of this debased money as possible and so attempted to get as much coinage out of the dies before a transition to Edward would be ultimately forced. Henry had originally debased it because he spent most of the country's money on wars, skirmishes and entertainment. This meant that he reduced the silver content of his coins by ensuring they had a copper core, this is where his nickname 'Coppernose' comes from because the nose was the highest point on his coins and so wear exhibited here the most showing his nose to be copper. As for size, it is about 2.5cm/1in in diameter, quite a hefty coin as the hammered series goes. A groat is a fourpence and so was fairly low down in terms of the denominations minted but fairly high up in terms of what was actually circulating. The denominations at the time were Sovereigns, Half Sovereigns, Crowns, Halfcrowns, Testoons, Groats, Halfgroats, Pennies and Halfpennies.

My most recent arrival. Henry VIII Posthumous groat.

Oh right, yes, they are very easy to get your hands on but I'm not one to pay Royal Mint prices and so I only pick them out of circulation. Much more fun.

Bloomin' elusive!

It usually is! Although I have 2010s of the 1p, 2p, 5p and 10p so perhaps the mint has different policies this year.

Not as good. The relief is a bit odd when in the hand but I still really like it. As £2 coin designs go it is above par. It certainly beats the likes of this:

I was to happy to receive one of these in my change at the pub last night.

Nope, sorry. This is the Mary of Philip and Mary. These two: He was King Philip of Spain and the marriage was the union of two of the most powerful nations in the world, it was a purely political union.

Nope. Mary Queen of Scots was this Mary's cousin and many years younger. This Mary was the half-sister of both Queen Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Coinage did change somewhat under her reign, but not because of her origins. I would argue that most of it changed due to her marriage. Her marriage led to two portraits being featured on a coin and a foreigner, so to speak, being named and sometimes portrayed.

Certainly not a looker but a very rare coin indeed. A genuine silver portrait penny of Queen Mary.

I think I recognise this. It looks like a coin of Ferdinand of Naples, from the 15th/16th century. It has the same sort of portrait: http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin/...?idProduct=3761 I hope this helps somewhat.

Each year I notice more and more errors, as if they are more careless when checking. I'm not too familiar with milled errors, but the E of Elizabeth has almost been completely smoothed and is the same on the corresponding area on the reverse.

Look what I got in my change in Waitrose today! The first 2010 coin I've seen and it shows how the quality of the Mint is deteriorating. Even so, not bad for a penny.

I like this one!

On the reverse, yep! I thought you said you couldn't get the hang of Medieval coin legends? I am mightily impressed, George!