Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Recommended Posts

As you can appreciate though with hammered coins there has to be some limits of what designates a new class. If every minor difference was taken into account there'd be alot of classes for Edward I.

 

Although i have to agree that in general perhaps a few extra subclasses added in here and there where it's warrented may prove beneficial in the long run. The question you have to ask is though where do you draw that line?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As you can appreciate though with hammered coins there has to be some limits of what designates a new class. If every minor difference was taken into account there'd be alot of classes for Edward I.

 

Although i have to agree that in general perhaps a few extra subclasses added in here and there where it's warrented may prove beneficial in the long run. The question you have to ask is though where do you draw that line?

 

While I don't collect English hammered, your discussion interests me. One could ask similar questions for a host of medieval series where dies were produced by hand. I collect a particular French series spanning a few hundred years. The obverse design varies with time, but the number of types is realtively small. The reverse dies are more varied (I presume that's because it is the die being struck by the hammer and it wears out more quickly) with seemingly innumerable spellings and letter orientations/variations. Compiling a list of every possible variant depends solely on what is published, described, and illustrated. Does it make a difference? If you want to estimate mintages, you would need to know all the possible die combinations and then still make an allowance for what you don't know. Even without the ability to estimate mintages, the greater the variation in dies, the larger the mintage must be. Catalogs of French feudal coins strike a balance between some detail and no detail. The one catalog that tried to capture all the known detail only made it through volume 1 (although I understand that escaping military service may have become the author's priority over cataloging medieval coins).

 

I've opted to buy most of the examples that come my way in an attempt to try to understand the variation. It doesn't help that the coins are scarce to rare, although not necessarily that expensive (around $100 each), so its not a task that happens over night. I don't buy pieces that are too worn to classify. I'll run out of steam one of these days, but for now its an interesting challenge. At some point, I'll publish my collection since everything I learn will disappear without that.

 

For the type collector, my collection is needlessly repetitive. For me, its akin to collecting halves by Overton varieties--only I have to make up my own guide. To each there own, this is after all a hobby to enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that somewhere in the cellars of the British Museum, there must be official contemporary records of all coins, brobably by weight, produced during the reigns of the Edwards. But I doubt we'll ever see them! :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites
As an exercise I've transcribed the obverse to a drawing to see if that helped. From the E I'd say 11B. What do you think?

Edward II

 

Yep.

 

It was the way the left hand side of the `E' comes to a `v' in the middle that made me lean towards 11B rather than 11A. That plus the serifs on the N's.

 

What does Wren have to say in relation to the characteristics for type B?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote " The letters C and E now have distinctly anguluar backs to them. Several sub-varieties are recognised; based upon minor differences in the forms of lettering. ( London, Bury, Canterbury, Durham Episcopal )"

I've included the spelling mistake in the cause of authenticity!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote " The letters C and E now have distinctly anguluar backs to them. Several sub-varieties are recognised; based upon minor differences in the forms of lettering. ( London, Bury, Canterbury, Durham Episcopal )"

I've included the spelling mistake in the cause of authenticity!!

 

Very interesting. More so since it provides a characteristic on the reverse of the coin to help differentiate between A and B. I'll have to look back through Spinks and Coincraft examples to see what the `c's' in CIVITAS look like now. :ninja:

 

Ian

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...