The most common English hammered coins are...

The silver 1d.'s of King Edward I (1272-1307),especially those of the London mint.I have got ones issued at Durham
& Newcastle-on-Tyne as well,but these are quite a bit scarcer.I'm sure that this will interest Sylvester as much as it interests me.English coins are very popular,even out here in New Zealand.

Aidan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't forget Henry III (1216-1272) Long Cross Pennies (1247-1272) are equally as abundant and go for pretty much the same price. Better examples can be had for generally $50 a piece.

Other English coins that are abundant (although expensive in comparison) are Æthelred II (978-1016), Canute (1016-35), Edward the Confessor (1042-66), King John (1199-1216) pennies and Edward III (1327-77) & Henry VI (1422-60 & 1470-1) groats.

 

Sylvester,I have never been offered any King Henry III silver 1d.'s,but I have been sold a few King Edward I silver 1d.'s.I'll tell you why the King Edward I silver 1d.'s interest me.Firstly,King Edward I was known by the nickname 'Longshanks',because he was an unusually tall man for his time.Secondly,because King Edward I was also known as the 'Hammer of the Scots'.Have you seen the movie 'Braveheart',which stars Mel Gibson? This was based on events during the attempted conquest of Scotland by King Edward I after the death of Queen Margaret of Scotland in 1290.

I may be proud of my Scots heritage,but I am very pro-English in sentiment.I hope Ian doesn't bag me for saying this.

Aidan.

 

He will!

Yes I’ve seen Braveheart, but I have mixed feeling about the film myself. It wasn’t that popular in Scotland though by all accounts. Many would have preferred Sean Connery to Mel.

I have reservations for different reasons; firstly the film was good at giving an overall feel of the events and secondly it helped get people more interested in history. However the film took liberties that made me cringe.

Such as;

Why was Isabella of France (Prince Edward’s wife) portrayed as a fully-grown woman? She would have been no older than 14 at the time. Why was Edward I seemingly dying at the end of the film? As he was around several years after Wallace met his demise.

The Battle of Stirling Bridge; where was the bridge?

The Scots won because they managed to trick the English into crossing the bridge and the picked them off as they came off the other side, as they were more vulnerable as the width of their ranks were diminished.

If it had been a pitched battle as depicted in the film then it’s quite likely the English would have won. Whilst ever Edward I was king the English army was a force to be reckoned with, under his son Edward II well that’s a different story, hence Bannockburn.

The other question is that of the future Edward II, in the film he was quite clearly portrayed as homosexual. This is a matter that is still under debate, it is true however that he frequently let the men around him, ‘his favourites’ dominate him. This was taken as the fundamental evidence by contemporaries that Edward was indeed committing homosexual practices. When in actual fact he might have merely have just been a weak willed person, who was insecure and keen not to lose his friends.



Now Henry III, he was the son of King John, and Edward I’s father. It has to be said Henry III didn’t do much, well apart from patronising the arts and overseeing building works, other than that he was a pretty lousy king. The biggest problem with Henry was he was like the later Edward II, he was happy to take foreigners on. After his marriage his wife supporter’s got positions left right and centre, you get the feeling Henry was under the thumb.

His reign also saw the first ever English parliament in 1265 which was a meeting of the barons led by Simon De Montfort in an effort to suppress the Royal Prerogative (note the Barons had encountered similar problems with King John, hence the Magna Carta), and to try and oust all the foreigners that had come over with the Queen. Henry was in a very bad position.

And then along came his son Prince Edward ‘Longshanks’, he managed to get some barons on his side and he gathered together an army and a battle was fought between his army and that of Simon De Montfort’s at Evesham. De Montfort was killed and Edward won back the dignity of the crown. He then ensured that the peace was kept for the remainder of his father’s reign. So whilst Henry was still officially the king, Edward was now the one running the country, Henry didn’t seem to mind because it let him get on with the more important aspects of kingship; hunting, building monasteries, churches, cathedrals and trying to introduce a gold coinage etc.

 

The sad lot of English kings is that none of them can ever win;

Henry I (1100-1135) Condemed because he was inflexible, overly dominant and no one dared to argue with him or you might find yourself being thrown off the top of a castle keep (as happened to one individual). He mutilated some of his female relations by gouging out their eyes whilst they were his hostages. He had many moneyers castrated for daring to produce underweight coinage, and he was kind enough to do it at Christmas. (This technically could have consituted breaking the king's peace, something which Stephen got bad rap for when he arrested people he'd summoned to court, but because it was Henry no one dared to say anything).

Stephen (1135-54) Seen as too, too soft. At first everyone thought he was a breath of fresh air after Henry's oppressive regime. Unfortunately in the succession dispute he because ridiculed by his enemies for being a push over. People dared to raise up against him because once Stephen had defeated them, he'd give them a slap on the wrist and demand they not do it again. You got third, fouth and fifth chances with Stephen. He drove his allies mad by being so lenient. Suddenly Henry I's period was seen as a golden age!

Skipping forward a century you can see nothing has changed. Henry III is condemed for being too weak a king, unkingly. Yet they argued Royal Prerogative should be reduced? Suggesting he was too strong? The king was too weak, but his powers were too strong, he was weak willed and advisers could push him into making decisions with all this power he had.

Edward was what the barons wanted a strong warrior like king who knew his own mind (they wanted another Henry I) and this is what they got.

By 1304 though most of the barons were ticked off with Edward having the final say on everything and being inflexible. Thus they drew up a list of grievances and complaints and waited, they knew Edward I would never give concessions and thus they sat and twiddled their thumbs hoping he was gonna die sometime soon. When he finally did all the complaints and suggestions of alterations got thrown in Edward II's face before he'd even been crowned. They were glad to have a more lenient king.

Of course by the end of Edward II's reign the nobility was hacked of that Edward II was being ruled by his favourites and was too weak willed and unkingly. Suddenly Edward I was a marvellous king and they'd give anything to have him back! Edward III proved a success for the first 30 years of his reign.

You find English history does this; Strong king, weak king, strong king, weak. Also goes Bad, good, bad, good.

The real problem comes when you get two srong kings in a row, aka Edward III, followed by Richard II.

After Edward III's reign they were hoping for something a bit more subtle and lenient, what they actually got was someone stubborn who though of himself as God's representative on earth and therefore infallible. Strong got followed by stronger. Which explains why they all saw Richard as despot. Now if he had followed Edward II and not Edward III, he probably would have been seen as a good king!

 

Commoners

 

was just looking at the closeups I took of the above coins and really noticed the frowns on all of the portraits..well OK longshanks has a bit of a smirk if you look carefully.
Thanks to Aidan,Ian and Sylvester

 

Henry VI certainly had little to be happy about! He was overthrown by Edward IV in 1461 and he fled for his life. His wife won him back the throne in 1470 and the following year he was deposed again by Edward IV, imprisoned in the tower and prompty murdered. The skeleton of Henry VI has been exhumed and studied to see if the cause of death could be worked out, the skull was fractured.

Some say two people were supposedly present, both of them were brothers of Edward IV. One was George the Duke of Clarence (who was later murdered himself by being drowned in a barrel of Malmsey wine on the orders of his brother Edward IV), the other was Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Who if Shakespeare is to be believed not only personally delivered the fatal blow to Henry VI, and was the one holding his brother in the barrel, but also smothered his two young nephews Edward V and prince Richard (the heirs of his brother Edward).

But it's best not to believe the bard that was trying to make his way in Tudor England i suppose, wouldn't do to question the new dynasty would it?

 

I'm sorry for being off topic here, just have a quick two questions though. Where did you get the containers for your coins? I have been looking all over the place for archive safe containers.

Is there a place online that I can purchase them?


Thank You, Ray

 

Ray,They are from H.E. Harris,made for US coin sizes.For instance,the pennies are in dime holders and the Henry VI groat is a Sacagewea/SBA size.They run me $4.95 for 6 at my coin dealer.I'm sure you can get them direct from Harris tho.I think they are part of Whiman now.the web page is combined.
http://www.whitmanbooks.com/default.aspx?page=80&subcatoid=17

scroll down the page,you'll see 'em

 

Holder's

Thank you so much, I have been going around too most of the stores for what feels like forever now in Toronto and kept getting the story that they did not get anything for Non-Canadian coins, kinda stupid I thought.

So I was stuck searching the Net and E-Bay and was having difficulty finding something that was just right. The best I was able to find were Membrane Boxes, but they are a bit expensive when all I was looking for was an acrylic holder or a holder that was Archive/Museum safe for long term storage, protection and display.

 

History And Monarchs

I find British, English history very intersting. I think England was also unigue in that it had Monarchs that were for the most part not so powerful that the nobles could not put some checks on them, first in a sort of informal way then a bit more formal with the Magna Carta.

England also is unique in that it was cut off or saw itself as seperate from mainland Europe and that had an effect on how it developed and The Monarchy, it has also been my impression that England was in an all most constant state of trying to counter anything that France/Gaul was doing and after Henry VIII it was Catholicism and the Reformation.

A good book you might be interested in is History Of England By The Late W. E. Lunt it reads a bit like a textbook at times, yet I found it to be helpful but I'm still really a novice when it comes to English History and coinage.

 

Edward I penny hey? Here's one i picked up today (i don't actually collect these, but if one catches my eye i generally bring it back with me).

 

Sylvester,
I can see that it's a CIVITAS LONDON mintmark but what is the full inscription on the obverse?..I see the ED.
By the way,I think we all really appreciate your history lessons..Makes you wonder which was the more dangerous job,king of England or Roman emperor.....Thanks!
P.S. could you go to "coin chat" topic "help with a coin" from aacoin and tell me what you think? It's your area of expertise...maybe an aethelstan

 

OK..my eyes aren't that great but I'm staring at your photo and I think I see EDW R ANGL
DNS? and I cant make out the rest except another possible G at 11 O'clock..close? OK,time for bed.

 

It should read; EDW R ANGL DNS HYB (Edwardvs Rex Anglorvm Dominvs Hyberniae) [or spellings to that effect] which translates to King Edward of the English and Lord of Ireland.

Different classes word it differently. Class 10 for instance; EDWAR R ANG DNS HYB


Although i haven't checked it yet!

 

Sylvester,I had a look at my King Edward I silver 1d.'s.I have got the following pieces;

Canterbury.

Durham (King's Receiver).

London.

& Newcastle-on-Tyne.

I have also got a very early 1/2d. of King Henry III (1216-72).It is a Short Cross 1d. which has been cut in half.It was identified as a Class VI with the moneyer's name given as 'ROGER ON CANT'
or 'Roger of Canterbury'.I bought it in a Wellington Coin Club auction a few years ago for around NZ$20 or so.

Aidan.

 

I used to get the Wellington Coin Club auction catalogue sent to me. Actually bought a couple of pieces too. I believe they have stopped doing the postal auction though for some reason. Probably it was more hassle than the value of the exercise to the club....or maybe `ebay' . I don't know for sure though.

 

Ian,the Wellington Coin Club auctions ended in September last year,as the Auctioneer,who was also a former President of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand was undergoing treatment for cancer.He died the day before my birthday.The Wellington Coin Club voted early this year to merge with the R.N.S.N.Z..I used to buy a few pieces through the W.C.C. auction.
In fact that is where I got my St Helena 1 Quid note with the incorrect spelling,& a same-numbered set of Provincial Bank of Ireland specimen notes from Ulster.

Aidan.

 

That's a sad loss indeed!

A guy I sometimes have some dealings with is a guy called Martin Purdy. Know of him?