Baltimore (Nov. 2016)

EVillageProwler

Got here a bit late, and only spent about 2.5h walking the floor. Bought two books by Abramson on Sceattas. Saw a few coins that caught my eye, but none were Anglo-Saxon. I did purchase a fantasy half-pound from a dealer I met for the first time. Not sure what its value is, but I didn't pay too much in absolute terms. And, the coin is a cool substitute until I get the real deal in the next few years.

Had dinner with Zohar and others. Now time for bed. Not sure if I will go to the show tomorrow (wife and I will be going to DC for the weekend).

STUART. Charles I. 1625-1649. AR Halfpound (45mm, 59.59 g, 7h). 19th century fantasy of a 1644 ‘Oxford Halfpound’. Charles on horseback left, holding reins and raised sword; in distance, view of Oxford / RELIG : PROT : LEG/ ANG : LIBER : PAR between two beaded lines; three crowns and ·X· above, :1644: and OXON below. For inspiration: SCBC 2498 2948 (Oxford Crown). Good VF, toned. Interesting.

TwoKopeiki

Wow, that's a gorgeous hunk of silver!

TomB

Good to see you at the show EVP. What do you think the over-under is until I shave my side-burns?

brg5658

Beautiful fantasy!

Jackthecat1

A fascinating piece.

EVillageProwler

@TomB said:
Good to see you at the show EVP. What do you think the over-under is until I shave my side-burns?

Good to see you too. I'm terrible with gambling terminology, so I'll respond thus: it depends on why I suggested you mention General Burnside to her.

EVillageProwler

Thanks for the comments about the fantasy piece. It was marketed to me as a contemporary fantasy of a silver Crown. The problem is that I don't consider 19c to be contemporary of 17c.

Still, the piece really is very handsome.

Nap

Nice fantasy piece, captures the feel of the coin fairly well with the edge break, although the surfaces look much nicer than the real ones frequently appear. Is it die struck or cast?

When it comes time to find a real example, unfortunately there are a good number that have been "enhanced"... these big coins have been popular with collectors for some time and many of them seem to have been harshly cleaned, tooled, smoothed, etc.

LochNESS

"Interesting" indeed. It allows one to see, examine, and enjoy much detail that might otherwise be invisible (i.o., worn away) to collectors. After all, not everyone can afford to study such a fine original specimen. At least not when this was struck (before the invention of internet and digital photography).

I agree with you about contemporary vs 19c but IMO not a big factor.

EVillageProwler

@Nap said:
Nice fantasy piece, captures the feel of the coin fairly well with the edge break, although the surfaces look much nicer than the real ones frequently appear. Is it die struck or cast?

When it comes time to find a real example, unfortunately there are a good number that have been "enhanced"... these big coins have been popular with collectors for some time and many of them seem to have been harshly cleaned, tooled, smoothed, etc.

I must admit that I'm neither an expert on counterfeits nor on GB half-pound silver pieces of Charles I. However, having held the coin in hand, it looks a lot like the real deal (from the few I've seen in hand and online). I'll bring it to NYINC and you can eyeball it closely if you wish.

@LochNESS said:

I agree with you about contemporary vs 19c but IMO not a big factor.

I think what bothered me about the "contemporary" issue is that it probably (possibly?) affects value. A contemporary counterfeit of a rare Anglo-Saxon penny is itself also rare and expensive. A Charles I half-pound is not what I'd call rare, but it is expensive. Obviously there'd be no reason to have a non-debased contemporary counterfeit of such a coin. But a seemingly non-debased 19c counterfeit? Can't seem to see the reason for that too, especially when the coin looks like its seen normal circulation.

I think "interesting" may be an understatement. Some questions: (1) how do we know this is from 19c; (2) why was this done (speculate?); (3) is this non-debased; (4) is the wear real, or from a tumbler; (5) how was it made.

BTW, I just dropped it from about 1 inch above my nice wooden desk, and it dented my desk top.

EVP

Zohar

FWIW I was with EVP when he considered it. Hefty piece with lots of character. I liked it.

RobP

Compared to any of the originals this could purport to represent it is all wong. Half-pounds are only dated 1642 & 1643 and the Oxford city view is only found on the 1644 Rawlins crown, which also has the declaration between two floral scrolls and not parallel dotted lines. The use of dotted lines with the declaration is virtually unknown for any denomination.

Who is reputed to have made this? It isn't a Ready piece as these were copies of genuine coins from the BM. It strikes me more as a modern copy than a 19th century object. In fact the inaccuracies seen are more typical of modern Chinese output, e.g. the 1877(sic) Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee crown.

EVillageProwler

Hi RobP,

The comparison of my "coin" to legitimate issues was strictly about its manufacturing aspects. It's important folks here know that I want encourage discussion about this "coin" because I feel we have more questions than answers about it.

It didn't cost me a princely sum, and has very nice eye appeal, so I'm glad to use this purchase to entertain the crowd.

EVP

marcmoish

Call me odd but on this one the cracked planchet adds big time to this one .

BTW, I just dropped it from about 1 inch above my nice wooden desk, and it dented my desk top.
damn you

EVillageProwler

@marcmoish said:
Call me odd but on this one the cracked planchet adds big time to this one .

BTW, I just dropped it from about 1 inch above my nice wooden desk, and it dented my desk top.
damn you

BTW, the coin is fine.

EVillageProwler

According to the 2014 Spink catalog, the Rawlins' crown is SCBC 2948 (not 2498) and contains this comment: Electrotypes and copies of this coin are common. Also, my "coin" has no mint mark.

Whoever made this "coin" certainly did a superb job: the minor planchet crack at 11:30, the excellent relief detail, proper denomination, date (for a Rawlins' crown), no MM, right diameter for a half-pound (which is slightly bigger than a crown).

It has just enough of these right and wrong details to cause one to scratch his head and exclaim that this is a pretty interesting piece...

EVillageProwler

For comparison, I offer two sold items from CNG's archives...

Here is an Oxford Declaration half-pound, SCBC 2945:

STUART. Charles I. 1625-1649. AR Halfpound (46mm, 60.24 g, 8h). Declaration type. Oxford mint; mm: plume. Dated 1642. CAROLVS : D : G : MAGN : BRIT : FRAN : ET : HIB : REX ·, Charles on horseback left, holding reins in left hand and raised sword in right; horse trampling on arms; plume to right / · : · : · EXVRGAT : DEVS : DISSIPENTVR : INIMICI, RELIG : PROT : LEG/·/ANGL : LIBER : PAR in two lines across central field, line above and below; three plumes with bands and • X • (denomination) above, date below. Morrieson, Oxford, dies A-2; Brooker 867 (same dies); North 2404; SCBC 2945. Good VF, toned. Charles struck in high relief. Rare.

And an Oxford Declaration crown, SCBC 2946:

STUART. Charles I. 1625-1649. AR Crown (43mm, 30.14 g, 4h). Declaration type. Oxford mint. Dated 1642. · CAROLVS : D : G : MAG : BRIT · FRAN · ET · HIBER · REX, Charles on horseback left, holding reins with left hand and sword in right; plume to right / : EXVRGAT : DEVS : DISSIPENTVR : INIMICI, RELIG : PROT : LEG/·/ANGL : LIBER : PAR in two lines across central field, line above and below; above, three plumes with bands over · V ·, 1642 below. Brooker 869; North 2405; SCBC 2946. Near EF, toned, minor die break on reverse. Struck on a full round flan. Rare.

LochNESS

Drooling a little ... wish I could offer some answers.

Nap

The fantasy piece looks similar to this upcoming DNW offering:

https://dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=443&lot_id=2193

EVillageProwler

Thanks Nap for getting this back on my radar. I have two very interesting bits to add:

(1) The obverse "die" is doubled, or doubly struck. This is pronounced on the legend, slightly on cityscape, and very lightly on Charles and horse.
(2) The reverse "die" has a die crack from the R (PAR) to the rim through E (DISSPENTVR).

Also, if you reading my lot description, copied from CNG (this "coin" was in a CNG e-auction), they do not say this is a cast counterfeit. Omission, or not -- who knows? Anyway, I'll be bringing this "coin" to NYINC and asking them.

Another thing to keep in mind that this is alleged to be a 19th century product, so you need to ask how good was casting technology back then. I'm not claiming to be expert, or even well-informed, on such issue so it is quite likely that in January someone will unintentionally embarrass me about this. (It's ok, as long as I learn.)

And, comparing my "coin" to the DNW specimen, I will also say that both the obverse and reverse "dies" look awfully similar.

Finally, I want to say that the surface of my coin doesn't appear to have flow lines. The obverse field appears slightly PL-ish, while the reverse field has tiny bits of pockmarks.

EVP

Nap

Possibly an issue of Robert Ready.

http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v13n30a12.html