Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Recommended Posts

A bit of fun for all the UK coin detective sleuths in our midst :-). No prizes involved for this one though.

 

OK. Here's the scan of a fairly beat up mediaeval penny I have.

 

Question is...during which reign was it minted. I'll make it easier by saying that it is either Edward I or Edward II. All the clues you need are visible on the coin........

 

So which one is it....? (along with the reasons for your conclusions).

 

909479.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an easy one.

 

Definately Edward I, legend on your coin is EDWAR and not EDWARR, all Edward II coins (with the exception of Class 11C say EDWARR), The A in EDWAR on Class 11C coins however, is very different from yours.

 

Your coin on the other hand is a Class 10D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an easy one.

 

Definately Edward I, legend on your coin is EDWAR and not EDWARR, all Edward II coins (with the exception of Class 11C say EDWARR), The A in EDWAR on Class 11C coins however, is very different from yours.

 

Your coin on the other hand is a Class 10D.

 

..hmmm. Perhaps a little harder than you thought.....either that or my reference book is seriously at fault. Always a possibility. :-)

 

In it, class 10D, E, F are Edward I.

Class 11 -15 are Edward II.

All of classes 10D through to 15 bear the legend `EDWAR ANGL DNS HYB'

That is why it is difficult to tell some Edward I coinage from that of Edward II. You have to look at other indicators to tell them apart.

 

According to my books only class 10B has the legend EDWARR...and that belongs to Edward I

 

class 10C has the legend EDWA R....(space between A and R) again Edward I.

 

This coin is definitely one of the 10D - 15 classes. That is, legends the same for both monarchs. :-)

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites
..hmmm. Perhaps a little harder than you thought.....either that or my reference book is seriously at fault. Always a possibility.  :-)

 

In it, class 10D, E, F are Edward I.

Class 11 -15 are Edward II.

All of classes 10D through to 15 bear the legend `EDWAR ANGL DNS HYB'

That is why it is difficult to tell some Edward I coinage from that of Edward II. You have to look at other indicators to tell them apart.

 

According to my books only class 10B has the legend EDWARR...and that belongs to Edward I

 

class 10C has the legend EDWA R....(space between A and R) again Edward I.

 

This coin is definitely one of the 10D - 15 classes. That is, legends the same for both monarchs. :-)

 

Ian

 

 

Coincraft have seriously messed it up then. Have you a copy of the 2000 edition on hand? If so look at the line drawings for the Edward II issues, all state EDWARR for Eddy II (pg. 341).

 

Going on you info i can narrow it down to Classes 10D-11B

 

The central fleur from where i'm sitting looks like a fleur rather then three wedges of 12, or a double axe of 13/14. Class 15 looks nothing like your coin based on the pictures i have at hand.

 

I'm certain it's not 10F based upon description alone.

 

The E in EDW does have an angular back though which leads me to think it's a possible Class 11B. But the face looks a bit wrong going on the picture i have. So i'm going to say it's either 10D, 11A or 11B.

 

11A seems more favourable on hair grounds. Although i'm still dying to say it's a 10D because lets face it they are always Edward I, ALWAYS. :ninja:

 

It's definately one of those three though. I favour 11A.

 

I have no photos of class 10E or F, although based upon the descriptions given for those sound wrong. I have never seen any photos of Class 10E or F coins so i can't comment there really. Coincraft is by far the most useful for these. Seaby and North are both completely useless, as in their plate pages or under their pictures they just label coins of this period as 'Classes 10D-F' which frankly is a fat lot of good. It's like saying 'halfpenny or farthing' under a picture of a copper coin from the 1700s; i.e really useful!

 

The fact that Coincraft haven't posted pictures of 10E/F only goes to confirm my belief that no one actually can distinguish between Classes 10D-F. The price is the same on the whole for those subclasses anyhow and the date of active striking also the same so is the distinguishing of those really all that necessary?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Coincraft have seriously messed it up then. Have you a copy of the 2000 edition on hand? If so look at the line drawings for the Edward II issues, all state EDWARR for Eddy II (pg. 341).

 

Going on you info i can narrow it down to Classes 10D-11B

 

The central fleur from where i'm sitting looks like a fleur rather then three wedges of 12, or a double axe of 13/14. Class 15 looks nothing like your coin based on the pictures i have at hand.

 

I'm certain it's not 10F based upon description alone.

 

The E in EDW does have an angular back though which leads me to think it's a possible Class 11B. But the face looks a bit wrong going on the picture i have. So i'm going to say it's either 10D, 11A or 11B.

 

11A seems more favourable on hair grounds. Although i'm still dying to say it's a 10D because lets face it they are always Edward I, ALWAYS.  :ninja:

 

It's definately one of those three though. I favour 11A.

 

I have no photos of class 10E or F, although based upon the descriptions given for those sound wrong. I have never seen any photos of Class 10E or F coins so i can't comment there really. Coincraft is by far the most useful for these. Seaby and North are both completely useless, as in their plate pages or under their pictures they just label coins of this period as 'Classes 10D-F' which frankly is a fat lot of good. It's like saying 'halfpenny or farthing' under a picture of a copper coin from the 1700s; i.e really useful!

 

The fact that Coincraft haven't posted pictures of 10E/F only goes to confirm my belief that no one actually can distinguish between Classes 10D-F. The price is the same on the whole for those subclasses anyhow and the date of active striking also the same so is the distinguishing of those really all that necessary?

 

 

I can see exactly where you are coming from. Sadly, even though both of us are strong supporters of Coincraft they can let the reader down with the occasional silly mistake here and there. Coincraft's proof readers obviously didn't check that their line drawings were in keeping with the text running right next to it. ;-) If you look at the text bottom right of page 341 (ie right underneath the actual line drawings........) it actually states quite clearly that the obverse legend for class 11A reads EDWAR ANGL DNS HYB. The only subsequent changes noted to the legends for the classes thereafter are in relation to the serifs or shape of the letters. No change to the legend itself.

 

Now, if you look at the section on Edward I on page 335 you'll get a better `a to b' understanding of how best to differentiate between the two monarchs.

 

BTW you are right about Seaby being next to useless at least on this occasion. They duck out by referring the reader to North for data. As an aside, their image of class 11A does show the legend as being EDWAR, so what scant info they do provide is at least accurate. However, that's a fat lot of use if you need info with which to determine a coin!

 

As to my coin....well you are certainly on the right track. The data on P335 will hopefully assist in eliminating at least one of the three you selected as contenders.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although i hadn't mentionned it before two things lead me to think Edward II with that. 1) the pearls, 2) the central cross.

 

The right pearl appears detached from the crown, i can't really make out the left pearl (looks worn from the picture, so i can't tell if it's broken), which is indicative of class 11A.

 

The central cross on the crown is also slightly off centre which appears to be more of an Edward II occurence. (If you look at the Class 13 coin on page 342 you'll see what i mean).

 

I'm strongly inclined to say 11A.

 

As luck would have it i've been looking at alot of Edward coins recently, and last week i finally managed to identify one coin i've had for about a year! It goes without saying that it was bothering me somewhat.

 

I knew it was a Class 4, but i couldn't narrow it down any further, then like magic i spotted the dot on the line diagram, and on the photo of the coin of that class in the Coincraft and low an behold my coin had one too! (Tough to see unless you know it's there! How we can miss the obvious things!). So finally i managed to attribute it to Class 4D!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it. Definitely Edward II. The pearls on the crown are detached (more noticeably with coin in hand, but the scan does show this) and therefore can only be class 11 (unless im mistaken). The scan isn't really up to showing the serifs all that well unless you know what you are looking at, but there are definitely serifs on the N's (one more than the other), i'm not so certain about the `E' having an angled back, but the E isn't all that clearly defined in the first place. I think the presence of the serifs on the N however makes me more inclined to say 11B rather than 11A.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

There lies alot of ground for confusion between subclasses like 11A/B when strike and wear are taken into account it can really exacerbate things. As you have the coin in hand you've got a better view of the features than i have in the picture.

 

I will however, disagree with you on one point, in your first post you stated it was 'fairly beat up', i'd have to differ as i think the strike's okay and Edward II's are not seen often in such nice condition. Most Edward II coins i see are very worn or suffer from nasty clashing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go for the 11A too, broken pearl etc. But the Class 12 style S and the very curved sided N in DNS has thrown me! I haven't come across that before. The initial cross also looks later in style, but then I will just admit - I haven't a clue!

Guess? Ed II class 11A modified by an apprentice moneyer!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys are serious coin geeks.  :ninja:

 

 

Maybe, (i'd plead the fifth but that doesn't work in Right Pondia) but when you get into a series like the pennies of EdI and EdII (probably the most readily available English hammered pennies) you sometimes have to look at the minutiae in order to tell who's who and what's what. Usually the information is all there sufficient to allow an attribution.

 

Knowing what you are supposed to be looking for in the first place is (as always) the first half of the battle. Recognizing it when you see however is the other (and more difficult) half. :-) It's not always as easy as a quick look in a reference book....and unless you have an exceptionally good memory, nigh on impossible without the books being open in front of you. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd go for the 11A too, broken pearl etc. But the Class 12 style S and the very curved sided N in DNS has thrown me! I haven't come across that before. The initial cross also looks later in style, but then I will just admit - I haven't a clue!

Guess? Ed II class 11A modified by an apprentice moneyer!?!

 

That may very well be the case :ninja: . Truth is, when you get to looking at hammered coins this closely, they all show their own individual personalities and the things that make them `different' from their brothers n' sisters....even ones struck using the same dies. Some slot quite nicely into a specific class while others are sent to try (or fry) the brain.

 

I'm still wavering between `11A or 11B' but if pushed i'd lean towards saying it was `B'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That may very well be the case  :ninja: .  Truth is, when you get to looking at hammered coins this closely, they all show their own individual personalities and the things that make them `different' from their brothers n' sisters....even ones struck using the same dies. Some slot quite nicely into a specific class while others are sent to try (or fry) the brain.

 

I'm still wavering between `11A or 11B' but if pushed i'd lean towards saying it was `B'.

 

 

Would it be possible that it's a previously undiscovered variety?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will however, disagree with you on one point, in your first post you stated it was 'fairly beat up', i'd have to differ as i think the strike's okay and Edward II's are not seen often in such nice condition. Most Edward II coins i see are very worn or suffer from nasty clashing.

 

:ninja:

 

I only managed to buy this one because it was at the lower end of the market at the time (about eight years or so ago) andit slotted into my budget parameters (low). The market has indeed got a bit tighter for these since then, and although it might be a better `looker' than some that are on the maRKET, it is still no higher a grade now than it was then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be possible that it's a previously undiscovered variety?

 

There's always a remote possibility, but I honestly don't think so in this case. I think it might be 11B due the N's having serifs on them and the left side of the E in Edward looking as if it comes to a `v' in the middle thus giving the E an angular appearance. If I read correctly, these are characteristics of class 11B. In truth, my problem is that I haven't seen enough coins in this class to make any kind of call one way or the other.

 

To me it is an achievement to be able to differentiate between EI and EII, let alone differentiating the sub classes. That's us amateurs for you though. Easily amused :ninja:

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites
That may very well be the case  :lol: .  Truth is, when you get to looking at hammered coins this closely, they all show their own individual personalities and the things that make them `different' from their brothers n' sisters....even ones struck using the same dies. Some slot quite nicely into a specific class while others are sent to try (or fry) the brain.

 

I'm still wavering between `11A or 11B' but if pushed i'd lean towards saying it was `B'.

 

In this case being a geek is definitely a good thing . It is amazing how much coins can and cannot tell us about themselves and those who made them. :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites
So! Are we saying 11B despite the 'broken pearl?

 

If you go by what Coincraft says, both class 11A and 11B have beaded pearls to the crown.... the one on the left being broken from the crown.

 

The only differences being that for B the face is slightly smaller; there are large serifs to the N's and the E has an angular back. Although the scan does not show it too well, the N's do have serifs. The problem is that I don't have a bona fide verified 11A to check this one against nor have I seen enough of these classes to be 100%. It does however seem to match all the descriptors for B though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Ian i have been contemplating actually collecting these things by class for some time now (i realise the pitfalls that could entail as the entire discussion above has shown... sometimes it's nigh on impossible to tell). However, to get a decent example of every class would go a long way to helping with attributing between subclasses such as this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The most enjoying (and frustrating) aspect of this hobby for me is identifying English hammered coins. Edward I pennies are my favourite as they're probably the easiest to deal with, Edward III scares the heck out of me.

 

I've found getting to grips with the legends on hammereds very frustrating. I really have to work at it. Some things in life you find you can take to like a duck takes to water. Intuitive style. For me, studying `hammereds' is about as far removed from `intuitive' as I can possibly imagine. Fortunately, much of the frustration, can be alleviated by reference to the standard texts on the subject....which i'd be completely lost without.

 

So far, i've never come across an Edward III penny that needed attributing. Mind you, i'd be happy to worry about that particular quagmire if the situation arose. Not many of them around. :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know Ian i have been contemplating actually collecting these things by class for some time now (i realise the pitfalls that could entail as the entire discussion above has shown... sometimes it's nigh on impossible to tell). However, to get a decent example of every class would go a long way to helping with attributing between subclasses such as this.

 

It would certainly be a challenge and an education at the same time. There are probably more types / sub categories `out there' just waiting to be discovered or classified appropriately too. Getting hold of the subject matter first hand and in sufficient quantity to determine the differences and nuances is always going to be the hardest part. if you do decide to, i'll provide some paracetamol to help with the headaches you are likely to come across :ninja:

 

I've got a big enough job on my hands just collecting `portrait' hammereds from around France (in the main) and Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought for some time, that, especially during Edwards I & II, the dies must have been replaced on a regular basis. There is nowhere that I know that can estimate the life of a die and relate it to the estimated mint figures. If new dies were just copies of the previous one ( without deliberate style change) it's possible that minor differences would occur. This could explain the difficulties we find ourselves in when trying to attribute a particular specimen!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've thought for some time, that, especially during Edwards I & II, the dies must have been replaced on a regular basis. There is nowhere that I know that can estimate the life of a die and relate it to the estimated mint figures. If new dies were just copies of the previous one ( without deliberate style change) it's possible that minor differences would occur. This could explain the difficulties we find ourselves in when trying to attribute a particular specimen!

 

Hi Geordie. What you say about die variation is true and makes it an absolute certainty that minor differences exist even within the recognised sub classifications. Most coins still slot fairly readily within the accepted classes but i 'd be surprised if there aren't more sub classes just waiting to be found / documented.

 

I used to have similar problems when I collected old german talers and french testons / francs of the 1570's onwards. The catalogues, Davenport in the main for talers and Ciani for testons / francs, always seemed to depict coins that just didn't quite fit in with the ones I had in front of me. The standard texts of course are only ever an introduction to the subject. Rarely if ever the full story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...