Please can anyone give ideas why?

SwK

The question that is puzelling me is the shilings struck in 1554 and 1555 with the date below the busts of philp & mary, all that are known to exist today are all poor in quality.

why should this be?

does anyone know of any forgeries? anything that is written about these coins? the type of silver? can u have different types of silver?

all ideas welcome




regards

RobP

<< <i>The question that is puzelling me is the shilings struck in 1554 and 1555 with the date below the busts of philp & mary, all that are known to exist today are all poor in quality.

why should this be?

does anyone know of any forgeries? anything that is written about these coins? the type of silver? can u have different types of silver?

all ideas welcome




regards
>>


Hi Jeff,
Someone ought to reply to this as the content should be of interest to all collectors.

Forgeries of this coin were produced by Edward Emery in the 1840's. They are of fine style, but those illustrated have detail differences compared to your coin. The posture of Phillip appears to be slightly different, Mary's collar doesn't reach the inner circle and on the reverse there are small differences in the shield detail. Hugh Pagan wrote an article in BNJ vol. 40 (1971) on Mr Emery's Mint (p.139-170) and there are illustrations showing a whole range of counterfeits produced at this time, some of which you wouldn't look twice at. This and other references to forgeries are given in Ken Peters' excellent bibliography on Counterfeit Coins of England which lists references covering counterfeits from the beginnings of English coinage to the present day. (I have copies available if anyone is interested).
The coin in Pagan's article has no mark of value, though Morrieson's sale had an example (lot 308) in considerably better grade but showing some wear. This coin did have a mark of value, but the obverse portraits followed the style given in the previous sentence. It was passed in the sale which suggests that someone identified it beforehand.

Very little has been written about them. Henry Symonds wrote an article in the 1911 BNJ about the coinage based on the public records which included a proclamation by Mary that the shillings were to be of the correct fineness i.e 11 parts silver to 1 part alloy. So on that basis, all should be .925 silver. Helen Farquhar also wrote about Tudor monarch portraits in the 1907 BNJ, but again no light was shed on the date below busts shillings.

For the record, your coin is ex-Ryan 1015 (Glendining 22/1/1952) where it was illustrated and described as Fine for this very rare coin. It sold for £14/-/- and was bought by Baldwin. I haven't looked very hard for where else it might have appeared though.

SwK

Hi Rob

Another proposal that the obverse die could have been Irish and the dies were transferred to the Brittain in a worn state. The mint used the dies and made a mix with the British titles and known local reverse die.

?????

j

www.petitioncrown.com

RobP

<< <i>Hi Rob

Another proposal that the obverse die could have been Irish and the dies were transferred to the Brittain in a worn state. The mint used the dies and made a mix with the British titles and known local reverse die.

?????

j

www.petitioncrown.com >>


I don't think so because the Irish shilling is only recorded as 1555 unless someone else can contradict it. The shape of Mary's dress is different too going by the picture in Spink's Irish section (2003)

coinkat

I regret not buying one I saw about 8-9 years ago. This coin never looks attractive- I am not able to explain why

edited to add- yes I have seen counterfeits

Hussulo

These coins always have a lack of detail and yours is a particularly nice example. My guess was, it could be one or more of the following:

* Week strike. Not stuck more than once.
* Worn dies.
* Uneven planchet prior to striking.
* Not heating the planchet (Annealing) before striking.
* Poor quality control.

SwK

we can agree the punches for the irish and british are the same?

j
www.petitioncrown.com

Bjorn

What was the fineness on these coins? I remember the late Henry VIII coins were heavily debased, although it was partially corrected sometime in Edward VI's reign. I remember hearing the Mary restored the earlier fineness, but perhaps these coins were struck before she did so? Alternatively, perhaps a particular die cutter at the mint was responsible for a die with poor relief?

RobP

<< <i>What was the fineness on these coins? I remember the late Henry VIII coins were heavily debased, although it was partially corrected sometime in Edward VI's reign. I remember hearing the Mary restored the earlier fineness, but perhaps these coins were struck before she did so? Alternatively, perhaps a particular die cutter at the mint was responsible for a die with poor relief? >>


.925 silver. See earlier post.