Edward I penny?

Sylvestius

Right you guys i need a second opinion on this (not mine so i don't have reverse shots), can anyone identify it to a class?


Looking at my references i think it's Edward I (rather than Edward II), and it looks to be of classes 10C-10F... (based upon the legend of EDWARANGLDNShYB) although pinning it down further is tough.




Most Edward II's appear to have EDWARR in the legend rather than EDWAR.


I'm favouring 10F (from Coincraft's description but i don't have a picture of a 10F to compare to!)

MacCrimmon

<< <i>Right you guys i need a second opinion on this (not mine so i don't have reverse shots), can anyone identify it to a class?


Looking at my references i think it's Edward I (rather than Edward II), and it looks to be of classes 10C-10F... (based upon the legend of EDWARANGLDNShYB) although pinning it down further is tough.




Most Edward II's appear to have EDWARR in the legend rather than EDWAR.


I'm favouring 10F (from Coincraft's description but i don't have a picture of a 10F to compare to!) >>




Sorry, but I can't help. Although your request does bring up a major aggravation regarding British numismatics, namely, the lack of attribution guides with clearly detailed photographic plates which could be employed to definitively identify die characteristics such as your piece.

Albeit a penny such as yours would have many die emission variations and idiosyncracies, something much better could be accomplished in the Milled arena.

What I'd like to see is an updated Peck (extended through the Elizabeth bronze pre-decimal issues) along the lines of Noyes' plated reference on Early American Coppers.

Aethelred

Do you have a reverse pic?

ajaan

<< <i>not mine so i don't have reverse shots >>

Sylvestius

Something like that would be useful indeed. Line drawing exist in say the Coincraft for hammered material showing lettering position and crown details that might be illegible on a photo of a piece itself. Although as i'm sure you can appreciate marrying up what you see on a sketch and the photos of most classes that are provided is sometimes a bit like comparing pineapples and limes.

Coincraft attempted to illustrate alot of the classes (much better than North), although many photos are a bit useless in some cases. The North catalogue irks me because in the appendix where the photo plates are Edward I issues are listed almost in an abridged fashion.

Coincraft listed the coins thusly;

Class 1A (description + picture)

Class 1B (description + picture)


[miss a few]

Class 10A (description + picture)

Class 10B (description but no picture)

[Hence, most have pictures but where they presumably couldn't source one they didn't put a picture].


North's plate list however, shows a page full of coins (all numbered) with an adjacent page with a key to those numbers. Most classes thankfully are divided into their subclasses, however, numbered coin plates 31-34 are listed as Class 10AB (lit. classes 10a or 10b), whilst all those numbered 35-40 are listed as class 10CF (either classes 10c-10f), which for a work that is supposedly the definative work on English hammered makes me wonder if there's any point distinguishing between the subclasses in the 10C-F range. Why are they not listed under their individual subclass? Can North not distinguish between them? If an expert like North presumably can't then why both with those subclasses at all? Although to further complicate things Classes 10A-B are not distinguished between in the plates page in the North, but yet Coincraft shows both and they're distinctly different enough to warrant being in different subclasses.

Anyhow classes 10C, E and F are not photographed in either Coincraft, North or Seaby even though they are supposedly common.

Sylvestius

<< <i>Do you have a reverse pic? >>



No sorry not at the moment but i have requested the reverse legend (for the mint), hopefully a picture will be provided, i shall ask.

I do have another one to identify for him but i'm awaiting better pictures on that one. The other one is roughly mintyed in the same period as this one being one of the longer legend variants, i.e EDWAR (as opposed to EDWR of the early Edward I stuff).

I'll keep you posted on that one though.