+ DAVE'S : RARE : COINS

VI.VI Mirroring of Types - Archbishop Ceolnoth under the West Saxon kings.

Inscribed Cross coinage of king Æðelberht of Wessex [top, moneyer Æðelred] and archbishop Ceolnoð of Canterbury [Group III. Moneyer Æðelvald, ex JJ North]. My collection.

Very little is known of the life of archbishop Ceolnoð of Canterbury [833-870]. The written records are sparse, his recorded acts are few and his long episcopate produced little of note for the chroniclers to comment on. By far the most illuminating source of information about him is his extensive coinage, which reflects the political attitudes and alliances of the times.

Ceolnoð was apparently dean of the see of Canterbury, prior to his elevation to the archiepiscopate. He was consecrated on July 27th 833 following the death of his predecessor Feologild, whose indenture had been extremely short at a little over two months. At a council held at Kingston, Surrey [now Kingston-Upon-Thames, London] in 838 he submitted to king Ecgberht of Wessex [802-839], effective overlord of the English kingdoms, and his son Æðelvulf [then ruler of Kent], forming a powerful and lasting alliance which secured his incumbancy and protection from the endemic Viking raids, in return for control of the free minster churches. He was the first archbishop of Canterbury for over a hundred years not to place himself under Mercian protection, Mercia having been greatly weakened by a recent coup which removed the ancient dynasty from power, and the loss of the decisive battle of Ellendun in 825. Relations between Vulfred of Canterbury [805-832, a pro-Mercian, and Feologild's predecessor, who died early in 832] and the new West Saxon powers had been somewhat lukewarm. The only other undisputed fact that we know about Ceolnoð is the recorded date of his death, February 4th 870.

His impressive coinage, although not as extensive as that of Vulfred, was at least consistent and unbroken. His ancient minting rights were respected and confirmed, and his types follow in essence those of the Wessex dynasty struck at Canterbury. He minted coins under four successive kings, Ecgberht, Æðelvulf [839-858], Æðelberht [858-866] and Æðelred I [866-871], dying a year before Ælfred the Great [871-899] came to the throne. In fact all future archbishops of Canterbury who minted a coinage in their own name would do so under the protection of the kings of Wessex [and later all England].

Control of the Southern English coinage was the prerogative of the most powerful ruler of those kingdoms south of the Humber. Prior to the final years of the 8th century ◊ffa of Mercia [757-796] had firmly stamped his authority on the mints under his control, and although he had permitted subservient monarchs, and bishops, to produce a currency for their own kingdoms, this had been strictly within his tenets. Cœnvulf [796-821] had crushed rebellions in his domains early in his reign to further safeguard Mercian rights, and these continued for a time after his death. The victory at Ellendun secured for Ecgberht of Wessex control of the major mints of Canterbury and London, and the lesser mints at Rochester and Winchester, but East Anglia now had a strong king in Æðelstan I [825-840] and a ruling house once again, putting that mint beyond his control. Æðelstan had taken care of Beornþulf of Mercia [823-825, who  survived the catastrophic defeat at Ellendun] and had killed him and in turn his successor king Ludica [825-827], while they attempted to bring East Anglia back under Mercian control.

During ◊ffas lifetime king Beorhtric of Wessex [786-802], had been his man and had married one of his daughters. This Mercian dominance continued for him until his death, as sub-king under Cœnvulf. The rightful king, Ecgberht, had been exiled by ◊ffa to the court of Charlemagne. He returned in 802, a stronger man than Beorhtric. He began almost immediately to strike an independant coinage, with which Cœnvulf did not interfere. This coinage was widespread, both portrait and non-portrait issues were produced, having a variety of obverse and reverse motifs, monograms and designs. All mints under his control were utilised, on occasion for specific coinages. Early coins at Canterbury [from c.826, once the Mercian dependant Baldred of Kent had been deposed] featured a diademed bust with, as the reverse monogram, an abbreviation of the Latin name of the city DORIB[ernia] C[ivitas]. Winchester, within his own kingdom, struck a coinage containing a monogram of the word SAXON, and another with the word SAXONIORUM in three lines. Mid-reign he minted a propoganda coinage at London, after it was taken, which named the town. 

In 838 Ecgberhts grip on power was absolute, and following the allegience to his overlord, Ceolnoð began to mint his own coins. His earliest coinage, that of Group I, follows the pattern of a tonsured facing bust [popularised by archbishop Vulfred, and used with minor differences of attire etc.. on all of Ceolnoð's coinage] with a monogram of DORO CIV on the reverse. This coinage follows the DOROB C [for a coin of this type and others of the West Saxon kings please see the Wessex photo album] type of Ecgberht at Canterbury, and Ceolnoð produced it for ten years. The next issue of Ceolnoð, begun after Ecgberhts death and minted c.843-8, has the tonsured bust with a Chi-Rho monogram on the reverse. This mirrors Æðelvulf's Chi-Rho type of Canterbury, N 608. Only these types, both with the legend CIALNOÐ ARCHIEPIS, were issued in Group I. According to North, around  the year 850 the obverse legend changed to the standard CEOLNOÐ ARCHIEPI [although his title is known to vary substantially in individual lettering on the coins] with the onset of Group II.

Ceolnoð's Group II coinage [c.850-852], begun eleven years into the reign of Ecgberhts son Æðelwulf, is based around an ephemeral Canterbury issue featuring on the reverse a cross patee with the legend CANM in the angles. That of Ceolnoð has a cross patee with CI VI T AS in the angles, as a continuation of the reverse legend CI or LIL MONETA DOROVERI. The obverse of Ceolnoð still has the tonsured facing bust, while the regal coins have a monogram of the legend CANT. Ceolnoð's other type in Group II was apparently short-lived and may have pre-dated or run concurrently with the Cross Patee issue, it features a quadrilateral over a cross moline on the reverse. No exact match is found in the Canterbury coins of Æðelwulf but the cross with two or more arms moline features heavily on coins of his produced at the episcopal mints of Canterbury and Rochester. With Group III coins we enter standard mainstream issues for the mirroring of types.

The initial coinage of Group III [c.850-866] has as the reverse motif a cross crosslet with pellets in the angles. Those of Ceolnoð are of good style [group III has a neater tonsured bust of the archbishop, possibly wearing his pallium], those of Æðelvulf [Phase II at Canterbury] tend to have rather a crude right facing bust with thick lettering, although a few are of good style. Not all coins of this issue of Æðelvulf have pellets in the angles of the cross crosslet. This coinage was struck until c.852, when it was replaced by a coinage that was to become standard at Canterbury throughout the remainder of Æðelvulf's reign and the majority of his son Æðelberhts. The Inscribed Cross coins, struck only by Ceolnoð and the aforementioned kings, have identical reverses with a large voided cross that contains the moneyers name and title within it and in the angles. [Comparitively] large numbers of these coins survive and they have been the subject of much study with regard to dating, moneyers, reduced silver content etc ... Towards the end of his reign [c.864] Æðelberht struck a new coinage, mirrored by Ceolnoð - the Floriate Cross issue. These naturally have a large floriated cross as the reverse motif, and had a very limited minting, perhaps as little as a year. They are extremely rare today, and less than ten survive for both Aethelberht [a fragmented example may be seen in the Wessex photo album] and the archbishop. This article features the only known complete example of the Ceolnoð Floriate Cross coinage [please see below].

          Celonoð. Group III. Floriate Cross. Moneyer Biarnred. Alex Boggis collection. Used with kind permission.

Group IV [c.866-70] coins of Ceolnoð are his final coinages, struck towards the close of his life. By this time plans had been laid for a common currency throughout southern England, and the major powers of Wessex and Mercia employed the major mints of Canterbury and London to strike it. It was issued in some numbers in order to pay off invading Viking armies. The Lunette coinage was ostensibly begun by king Æðelred I once the Floriate Cross coins had been phased out [but may have begun at the close of Æðelberht's reign] c.866. Agreement between Æðelred I and Burgred of Mercia [852-874] ensured that the new coins had similar appearances with regard to bust style and an identical reverse motif of the moneyers name in and between two lunettes. This coinage survived Æðelred I and was continued by his brother Ælfred for some time after his ascendancy in 871. From this time onward Wessex and Mercia would strike an identical common coinage at the main mint towns. The Lunette type of Ceolnoð is very rare today [as opposed to the amount of coins known for the kings who struck it, especially Burgred] and relatively few can have been struck in his name. Interestingly the only other Group IV type known for him has the same lunette reverse but with a diademed bust right as on the regal coins. This may signify that he was a prince of the Church, or a bust of the reigning monarch may have been substituted intentionally - or it may simply imply a shortage of available dies at the time, but this bust became standard for most of the reign of his successor archbishop Æðelred of Canterbury. Towards the end of Æðelred's episcopate busts on ecclesiastical coins were discontinued altogether and non-portrait types became the norm. These coins should perhaps be regarded as a sub type of the main Lunette issue.

So to sum up we have an archbishop finally secure in his see, minting coins of the same styles as those of his West Saxon overlords at the Canterbury mint. Of course many other types are known for these kings, some are small regional issues, others main types at different mints, but Ceolnoð although a powerful man, had very limited influence on anything non-ecclesiastical outside his own town, therefore the influence for his coins comes from whatever coinage the king wished to produce at the all important mint under the archbishops control. But bishops of this time who had their minting rights confirmed, London under ◊ffa and Rochester under Ecgberht being prime examples apart from Canterbury, had little say as to the actual coinage produced, save that it named them or a representation of their authority. Moneyers also had to operate within strict guidelines and some worked by turns for kings and bishops in the same issue when the mint was both ecclesiastical and regal at once.

Sources : English Hammered Coinage, Volume I. JJ North. Anglo-Saxon England. Sir Frank Stenton. Wikipedia. EMC/SCBI database. Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England.

With special thanks to Alex Boggis. Please check out his exceptional collection here :

                http://www.ancients.info/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/6383

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 22/04/2008.
• login or register to post comments

VI.V In support of detectorists ....

Metal detectorists - you either love them or hate them !!

The establishment swings hot and cold on the subject, on the one hand the vast majority of coins and antiquities are found by detectorists, on the other many found this way are unrecorded, retained and sold illegally. Then there is the question of professionalism. Is the detectorist liscensed ? Do they follow The Code ? Are they registered with a club or officially recognised organisation ? Are they responsible on private land ? And then what of the dreaded nighthawk ?

The metal detectorist has had a bad press in the past from [jealous ?] archaeologists, but for the most part these days with Finds Liason Officers, reasonably fair Treasure Trove rewards and so on life is bearable !! A small precentage of 'bad eggs' spoil things for everyone. Nighthawks, or detectorists that search private land illegally at night, selling their finds on the black market darken the image of responsible searchers. This will never be irradicated completely, and every pastime has this element of negativity present somewhere. So dont tar them all with the same brush. Give decent detectorists a break !!

I know many detectorists personally or as aquaintances, and with one exception these are friendly honest people. I often buy finds from detectorists, but make certain that these are non reportable items such as single coin finds [which incidentally I ensure are recorded myself, twice], or items that have been surrendered and returned to the finder. I freely admit that without detectorists my coin collection would not exist in its present form. So please if you own or manage land, consider allowing a metal detectorist to search it. Rewards are paid for gold and silver antiquities found [these usually end up in museums], and often an agreement is made to the effect that anything at all found and sold is split equally with the landowner. Plus of course its fascinating to discover and hold in your hand the history of a particular place.

I do detect myself occassionally, although not very successfully !! I have found a Henry VIII Southwark mint groat, this being my best find to date.

This is a short, simple article to say thankyou. I couldnt collect without detectorists finding the coins I buy. So please keep them coming ....

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 13/04/2008.
• login or register to post comments

VI.IV Offa to Coenwulf - A coinage transition ....

            Initial coinage. London mint. Moneyer Wilhun. My collection.

          Initial coinage. East Anglian Portrait issue. Moneyer Lul. My collection.

          For coins of ◊ffa of Mercia, of the same types and moneyers please see below.

In AD796 king ◊ffa of Mercia, the undisputed 'Bretvalda' or ruler of most of England*, died whilst preparing another invasion of Wales, leaving his son Ecgfrith [crowned joint-king in 787] to rule in his stead. Ecgfrith however was not made of the same stuff as his father and after a brief five-month reign he was murdered, probably by assassination. The throne then passed to the next man worthy enough to possess it. Only two things were required of this man - one that he be of noble birth descended from the ancient royal families of the original groups of settlers which had by this time melded into the kingdom of Mercia, and two that he was powerful enough to campaign for the highest honour in the country by any and all means available including violence.  Thus the throne passed undisputed to Cœnvulf [who may or may not have had a hand in Ecgfriths murder], a direct descendant of the vaunted king Penda of Mercia, the unremitting pagan overlord who had ruled Mercia with an iron fist in the Seventh Century. Cœnvulf was a warrior king in the tradition of Penda and ◊ffa, and held the Mercian throne, among others, for twenty five years. He died at Basingwerk while campaigning against the Welsh in 821. He is cheifly remembered, rather harshly as is ◊ffa, as somewhat of a tyrant, weilding power over all the kingdoms south of the Humber. Although he was evidently a resilient and competant monarch. Forthcoming articles on this site will tell his story ... and that of his later coinage.

The 'Heavy Coinage' of ◊ffa.

In 792 king ◊ffa, ostensibly to undermine the currency of Charlemagne with whom he was involved in a trade war, abandoned his long-established and respected coinage of 'Light' silver pennies and introduced a larger heavier penny into circulation. In perhaps the first attempt to instigate a 'common currency penny' throught Southern England these new non-portrait coins, after brief initial trials with other formats, eventually had a standard obverse legend in which the kings name and title appeared in three lines, with different reverse motifs for different moneyers and mints. They were struck at all three known mints of the reign [as indeed was the light coinage] of Canterbury, London and an unknown location, possibly Ipswich, in East Anglia. Foreign coinage, which was illegal throughout England but circulated anyway, as it was smaller and lighter could not now be passed legitimately within the English kingdoms, giving ◊ffa complete control of the currency and the economy.

A closer look at the obverse and reverse of the Heavy Penny.

The name of the king had appeared on the obverse of the coinage since the introduction of the broad-flan penny in the 750's, whether portrait or non-portrait types**. There was no standard design throughout the entire 'Light Coinage' period and moneyers became very creative in their [friendly] rivallry. With the onset of the Heavy Coinage this aesthetic genius was placed under strict controls never again to be so widespread, and in fact in the future would mainly involve sporadic regional issues throughout the mid-Saxon period. Conservative variations on some of the better known reverse designs of the Light Coinage were chosen to appear on the Heavy dies of ◊ffa. These included crosses of different kinds, 'bone' shapes and floral patterns.

The obverse of the Heavy coins always included the standard Mercian symbol of the uncial Μ, prominently displayed above the kings name and title, and usually at least two trefoils of pellets. The uncial M was a mainstay of the Light Coinage and was probably a control legend, while the trefoil, either alone or in groups, was a common feature and perhaps also represented Mercian control, as it also appears in the earlier Sceatta series of coinage. Both of these symbols are also present on much of the coinage struck by monarchs under ◊ffa's rule. A good example being the coins of Ecgberht II of Kent. These extremely rare coins have a very stylised M, but it appears in the same place on his coins as on the Heavy coins of ◊ffa. It is also to be found on the coins of Eadberht Praen of Kent, signifying that although he may have seized the throne unlawfully [he had been forcibly tonsured in exile to prevent his accession] following ◊ffa's death, his coinage♦ was struck with the permission of the reigning Mercian king, be it ◊ffa, Ecgfrith or Cœnvulf¤. By contrast the East Anglian monarch Eadvald, who also took power upon ◊ffa's death, struck his coinage devoid of Mercian symbolism and completely independant of that country.

                               Heavy Coinage of ◊ffa of Mercia. London mint. Moneyer Wilhun. EMC/SCBI.

                        Heavy Coinage of ◊ffa of Mercia. East Anglian mint. Moneyer Lul. EMC/SCBI.

Why did Ecgfrith not strike a coinage ?

Ecgfrith ascended the throne amid a period of turmoil and confusion caused by the power vacuum following the death of his father. As was usual in these times, and in later Medieval times, a coinage did not cease upon a kings death but continued as normal until the new king stamped his own authority onto it. A period of many months or even several years was normal before a new king struck his own coins‡. Ecgfrith was so preoccupied with securing his throne and continuing his fathers aggressive policies, that whose name was on the circulating coinage would have been immaterial to him at that time. Changes would have come later. For this reason I doubt that Ecgfirth had a chance to strike his own coins. And in fact none are known.

The coming of Cœnvulf.

Still in the year 796 Cœnvulf ascended the Mercian throne, and decided at a very early stage to impose his own authority on the currency. It is widely believed that at this time the mints of Canterbury and East Anglia were in the hands of usurpers, and that Cœnvulf could not use them until the native kings had been removed in 798. But I have outlined my theory that Eadberht Praen struck coins with permission, and if that was so then his effective overlord would have had the run of the Canterbury mint and struck his own coins concurrently. Nothing is known of the death of Eadvald of East Anglia, but it is likely that he was removed by Cœnvulf and exiled or killed. The mints of London and Canterbury then could have struck Cœnwulf's coins as soon as new dies were available, in 796/797. Followed closely by East Anglia in the following year. Towards the end of his reign Cœnvulf also opened, or re-opened, a mint at Rochester.

The initial coin types of Cœnvulf.

The earliest Group One issues≈ of Cœnvulf followed already established types. At the premier mint of London his coins were of the Three Line type of ◊ffa, with the minor differences of stylised pelleted lines. The prominent M was retained in position, with the trefoils either side, and the moneyers name appeared in two lines on the reverse. Both of the known moneyers who struck this type worked in the Heavy Coinage of king ◊ffa. Another type had a similar obverse with a large voided cross moline on the reverse, clearly a fore-runner of the Tribrach coinage∏ of Group One struck a year or so later. At Canterbury the new coins set the standard for non-portrait coins from this time onwards. The obverse featured a large uncial M within a central circle, with the kings name and title around. The reverse of these coins had a bone-shaped object with the moneyers name above and below. This type was also struck by one of ◊ffa's moneyers, and is known of ◊ffa and Cuthred of Kent√. The East Anglian coinage began c. 798 with a portrait issue, featuring a large quatrefoil as the reverse motif with one letter of the moneyers name on each leaf. The moneyer for this issue was LUL, who had coined for ◊ffa and other kings also. Many cruder varieties of this type exist and these may have been an emergency issue produced at a different East Anglian mint.

            Cœnvulf transitional reverse between initial coinage and the Tribrach Moline type. Unique coin. Previously unknown reverse. EMC/SCBI.

Sources : Anglo Saxon England. Frank Stenton. English Hammered Coinage, Volume One. JJ North. EMC/SCBI database. Wikipedia.

Notes :

* The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle glosses over this achievement, as indeed it does that of Cœnvulf, and does not include him in its list of kings who held this title. This is not really surprising as the Chronicle was a West Saxon history begun under Ælfred, and its scribes would not have risked the kings anger with entries referring to the accomplishments of its old enemy Mercia.

** There are a couple of very early exceptions to this standard, where the names of moneyers [eg. EOBA] appear on the obverse of portrait coins of ◊ffa and his queen Cynethryth. In these cases the name and title of the monarch are boldly displayed around or within the reverse motif.

♦ Closely resembling and in fact based on the Heavy coinage of ◊ffa, it may have begun before his death and with his permission.

¤ Who in fact captured, blinded and mutilated him in 798, with the backing of the church. Ostensibly for apostacy, it seems that an independant Kentish kingdom, which of course housed the important sees of Canterbury and Rochester, posed a serious threat to Mercian prominence.

‡ Æðelred II of Northumbria had his ten-year reign briefly usurped in 844 by one Rædvulf, who managed to hold onto the throne for about nine months. But coins of Rædvulf are fairly common, signifying an almost immediate change of dies. Conversly the last type of king Stephen [the 'Awbridge' coinage], begun in the year of his death, continued for a period of four years before Henry II finally struck his own coins.

≈ All coins of Group One are non-portrait issues, following the reforms of ◊ffa's new Heavy Coinage. Portrait coins were not struck at London and Canterbury until c.805.

∏ The extensive Tribrach coinage will feature in a forthcoming article on this site.

√ Cuthred of Kent was Cœnvulf's brother and was installed by him as sub-king of Kent in 798. One unique coin of the Bone Type exists for Cuthred.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 13/04/2008.
• login or register to post comments

VI.III Some observations on methods employed to strike Class XV pennies of Henry I.

                      Government officials weighing money at the Exchequer. Early 12th century.

The standard of striking the coinage of the realm fell sharply in Class XV of Henry I. The infamous purge of the moneyers in 1124 caused the weight and silver fineness of pennies to be improved, and the dies for the new coinage were cut with style and precision. At the same time, European minting techniques, which left a lot to be desired, were in vogue and England shunned its tried and tested [and more expensive] method, adopting the new system. If the purge corrected many past errors, why was this permitted ?

Class XV is notoriously badly struck, the worst of all the types of Henry I. Many hundreds of surviving examples testify to this fact. The kings bust is generally a partial strike, mint and moneyer legends have to be deduced using educated guesswork and worst of all the flans of these coins were produced in all manner of shapes and sizes but round !! In fact round coins of this class are decidely rare ... And far from being a learning experience, this parody continues for the final ten years of Henry's reign [much longer in fact than each of the fourteen classes that preceded it] through all of Stephen's reign and for most of that of Henry II. A total of over fifty years [c.1125-c.1180] !! Why was this not halted much sooner ? The Short Cross reform of Henry II brought the currency a degree of respect, but the preceding fiasco was unnecessary, especially considering that boldly struck round coins were possible, and many were produced by Henry's moneyers - but they are a very small minority in Class XV.

Of course some types were poorly struck [although round !!] prior to the reform of 1124, and probably contributed towards it, but why was this issue not addressed and improved within the respected English minting practice, rather than scrapping the system and beginning afresh ?

Was the drop in standards due to the fact that many moneyers were replaced in the purges during Class XIV ? Did it drop because established moneyers who could strike good coins [the controversy that led to the purges was caused chiefly by the production of underweight and debased coins] lost their positions ? And why did this happen at some mints but not others ? Several smaller mints were closed, and the moneyers moved to the cities in some cases. These men would then work under the city moneyers and make coins to their standard. But it is evident that it was often the provisional mints that produced the better work. London minted coins for example are generally very poor strikes, with uneven flans. Thus the re-organisation of the entire minting system and personel in 1124, although superbly administrated, was arguably the worst thing that could have happened to the English currency.

To sum up then we have lax moneyers using a sub-standard system at the surviving mints, better moneyers placed in their charge, orders to produce coins of the correct weight standard and fineness only, and officials who didnt care for aesthetics but simply that enough coin was minted. English coinage was internationally respected, and much imitated, in late Anglo-Saxon to early Norman times, but would not be so again until the closing decade of the 12th century.

Sources : This article is based largely upon conversations with numismatists and personal study of the coinages in question, also various published articles. One in particular deserves mention. Coinage And Currency Under Henry I : A Review, Mark Blackburn 1990.

Any mistakes herein are my own. All unsubstantiated theories herein are also my own.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 11/03/2008.
• login or register to post comments

VI.II Two years and still going strong !!!

Well, my website is two years old this week, and from the positive feedback I regularly recieve evidently still achieving its objective of showcasing my personal coin collection, with as much information as I can provide on the coins themselves. Many people comment on my historical and numismatic researches in the articles I publish here, and as ever constructive criticism is always appreciated. If something can be improved please let me know !! This coinage gives me great pleasure - and I like to try to pass some of that on to others.

I would like to offer my appreciative thanks to everyone who visits my site, those who allow the publication of new coins from their own collections, the various coin experts that sometimes assist with otherwise unobtainable material [!!], the friendly dealers who sometimes wait patiently for months on end while I purchase a particularly rare coin ... the many friends I have made in the ebay hammered coin community both in the coin groups and otherwise, my friends and aquaintances at the British Numismatic Society, metal detectorists [because without you lot finding it I would not be able to collect the coinage that I do], and last but certainly not least anyone else who contacts me regarding early Medieval hammered coinage whether for an ID, a chat or any other reason.

Regular visitors will have noted that some coin albums are now missing from this site. There are no longer albums for 'Norman Kings,' 'Anglo-Saxon Kings of all England' or 'English Viking Coinage,' as I have now decided to focus on pennies of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms c.750-900, including associated ecclesiastical coinage. I shall still occasionally publish on later eras to the reign of Stephen as before. 

Very Best Regards,

Dave.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 08/02/2008.
• login or register to post comments

VI.I Early Medieval fractional coinage.

   popular misconception is that cutting a penny in half to produce two half pennies was succeeded by the more sensible method of minting round halfpennies [and in fact I have seen it in writing that round halfpennies did not appear until introduced by Henry I early in the 12th century !!]. In fact the opposite is true. Round halfpennies were introduced first, long before anyone thought of chopping up coins to produce much-needed small change. This development probably occured in direct response to the changing economy, moving away by degrees from barter to cash payments. There is some documentary evidence for this change in the surviving law codes of the Anglo-Saxon kings. 

Round halfpennies are thought to have been introduced in the 870's, during the reign of Ælfred [they were concieved in Carolingian Frankia a little earlier]. An important recent find is that of a round halfpenny of the Mercian king Ceolvvlf II [this is the earliest yet discovered]. There are a couple of types known from Aelfred's reign, and one consensus is that some or all of them were not produced by Ælfreds moneyers at all, but by the Viking settlers who imitated his coinage. That the settlers minted halfpennies alongside pennies is undisputed. At any rate they first appear in the closing decades of the 9th century. They are certainly well established in the reign of his son Eadweard the Elder. At this time the issues do not seem to have been substantial, all surviving specimens are exceptionally rare and most are housed in museums. Some types seem to follow the pattern of pennies issued from provincial mints, and have the same or a similar motif on the reverse. Others are minted in the same style as the mainstream issues and presumably were issued from a central authority in order to be accepted as currency over a much wider area. It is certain that most were minted on an experimental basis, sometimes concurrently in different areas of the kingdom, and as a whole were not readily accepted for reasons that will soon become clear. In fact round halfpennies were only released intermittently throughout most reigns up to and including that of Eadgar.

Round halfpennies were minted under all of the pre-reform 10th century kings ; Eadweard the Elder, Æðelstan, Eadmvnd, Eadred, Eadþig and Eadgar. The cutting of coins to produce fractionals seems to begin in the reign of Æðelstan [although it may of course have been earlier - possibly even as early as an ambiguous coin of Coenvvlf, which may be a cut halfpenny], and continues unabated right up to the reign of Edward I, ending sometime around the year 1280.

It seems that the populus could not come to terms with the round halfpenny which was supposed to be roughly half the size of a standard penny, especially as flan sizes fluctuated quite a bit in the 10th century and the two denominations often closely resembled each other. There would have been instances where it would have been difficult to tell a penny from a ha'penny !! People were on much firmer ground with pennies that were purposely cut to form halfpennies and farthings. A cut halfpenny was exactly that, half of a penny - with no ambiguity. Beginning with the reign of Aethelstan round halfpennies were produced concurrently with cut halfpennies - presumably to alleviate acceptance issues.

Round halfpenny and cut halfpenny of king Eadgar. Floral type round halfpenny, an excessively rare provincial issue. Reformed Coinage cut halfpenny.

It is often believed that the general population could hack coins in half to produce small change as desired. It is very doubtful that this would have been the case [although there may have been a local official who would cut them when smaller denominations were needed]. Pennies were usually fractionalised at the particular mint of issue, cut perfectly in half, or quartered, often [but by no means always] with the central reverse motif or line used as a cutting guide. Penalties were severe for anyone caught unofficially defacing the currency.

Farthings [literally 'forthings' - one fourth of a coin] dont seem to make an appearance until much later in the Tenth century [perhaps in the reign of Eadgar ?], again as a direct result of the economy shifting, neccessitating smaller denominations of change.

There is a very small possibility that other basic denominations were struck in this era. Some coins struck during Ælfreds reign were once thought to be third-pennies, but this theory is no longer generally accepted. And a well known numismatist, in correspondence with myself, postulated that cut eighths of pennies may have circulated in the reign of Henry III, but this is speculation based on a single coin in his possession. Of course there were larger denominations minted, the gold mancus was worth thirty silver pennies, and the Offering Pieces of Aelfred it is thought were more valuable than standard pennies. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg - and illustrates just how fragmentary our knowledge of the currency of this era really is.

Following the monetary reforms of king Eadgar in 972 cut coinage became much more popular, indeed surviving examples are very rare from before this time. All of the post-reform Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings of England employed cut fractions extensively. They are in fact fairly common [at least the mainstream issues] from Class XV of Henry I onwards. Cut farthings are standard from early in Aethelred II's reign, and large numbers of cut coins are known from this and the following reign, that of Cnut.

Anglo-Saxon round halfpennies end with the reform of Eadgar, and do not make another appearance until Henry I re-introduced them early in his reign, again alongside cut coins, during the minting of pennies of Class VI [c.1106]. They can be precisely dated as some have the official 'edge snick' ordered by Henry to combat the unnacceptability of underweight and conterfeit coins. [Some Anglo-Saxon round halfpennies can be tenatively pinned down to a particular period within a reign by comparison with pennies, through moneyers, mints, reverse motifs and style]. They were not a success and were minted for a [numismatically] short period only. More than a century passed until they were again re-introduced [again unsuccessfully] alongside cut coins, by Henry III in the first half of his reign [1216-1247, king John actually minted them prior to this, but only in Ireland]. Henry also introduced, for the first time in England, round farthings, which were even less of a success.

Cut coins were perhaps open to abuse even more than whole coins, and the illegal practice of edge clipping became so bad that in some reigns three halfpennies were equal to one penny [measured by weight]. But cut coins had widespread appeal as is evidenced by the fact that they were universally accepted throughout England. Not only the standard types issued from the main mints were cut, but also very rare provincial issues too. No class or type of penny seems to have been minted that was not cut to produce smaller denominations. Some exceptionally rare types exist today in, or even only in, cut fractions. This is nowhere more evident than in the coinage of king Stephen.

Sources :

Books : Coinage in Tenth Century England, Blunt, Lyon, Stewart. Coinage and Currency : The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign, Blackburn. Coins of the Anarchy, Boon. The Coinage of Henry I : A Review, Blackburn. English Hammered Coinage, North. Coins of England, Spink. English Coins in the British Museum : Anglo-Saxon ; Two Volumes, Greuber, Keary. British Numismatic Journal ; several editions. Spink Numismatic Circular ; several old editions. Various auction catalogues.

Websites : EMC/SCBI database. Coins of Britain. Wikipedia. ebay.

Please note only the coins featured above the article are from my personal collection.

I would like to thank Rory Naismith for his assistance with certain questions and information pertaining to this article.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 21/01/2008.
• login or register to post comments

VI. Merry Christmas !!

I would like to wish everyone who has visited my site a very Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.

Thankyou all for your continued appreciation and support.

With Kindest Regards,

Dave.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 24/12/2007.
• login or register to post comments

V.IX Faking Ashmore fakes ........

    Trevor Ashmore fake of Eadþig 'Flower' Halfpenny. With 'doctored' flan.

This article will show the most common method employed in faking very rare Anglo-Saxon pennies. But hopefully my identification of the flaws in the coinage and the subsequent tricks used to age the coins will prevent collectors wasting money on these coins - unless to purchase them as replicas.

The coin shown above is a Trevor Ashmore reproduction. Ashmore, working in his garden shed, hand cut his own dies and struck his own unmarked copies of Anglo-Saxon and other coinage. Originally from Nottingham, he founded his own company, which eventually failed, selling these coins mainly to American collectors.

Most of Ashmore's coins are reasonably easy to identify. Catalogues have been released listing those that have been recognised, although some have fooled experts, and even been published in widely respected journals. Ashmore did not fake the more common coins, he specialised in rarities .....

The Ashmore fake above [from my collection] is a copy of an exceptionally rare round halfpenny of king Eadþig of England, struck from regional dies. Less than ten of these 'Flower' halfpennies exist as the issue was short-lived. Round halfpennies [as opposed to pennies that were cut in half to provide the denomination] from the Saxon era are very rare indeed, even the standard issues. This regional issue is a Great Rarity. So much so that we know exactly which coin it was copied from. This coin, in the British Museum, is shown below for comparison.

            Genuine Eadþig 'Flower' Halfpenny. SCBI 34 - BM 857.

Fakes such as these have usually have tell-tale signs that the coin is not genuine. For example Ashmore does not seem to have been able to cut a near-perfect freehand circle, such as those on genuine coins. His are generally more ovoid in shape and sometimes the ends do not join together [a feature very occasionally seen on the real thing]. Whilst his copying of period style coin legends is usually near accurate, his sizing is not, and his spacing is poor. Also on genuine coins the positioning of the letters follows the diameter of the inner circle exactly, Ashmore could not perfect this - and it is a giveaway. For example note the 'R' in REX, on Ashmores coin it tilts backwards slightly at its 9 o'clock position, on the genuine coin it is perfectly aligned. His lettering is also much thinner than usual, and does not flair into the wedges as it should. It is not executed with the confidence of the original die-sinkers.

The reverse of the coin is rather good. When circles were not involved, Ashmore was in his element. Although one or two warning signals flash up here too. The foliage of the 'flower' on the genuine coin is absolutely symetrical. Ashmore's die is not as perfect. The small semi-circle below the groundline joins the outer leaves of the plant on the real thing, Ashmore's is way out and a little small. The foliage should also flow in perfect arcs from the groundline. The moneyers name, EADþINE [EADWINE] should be evenly spaced beneath the groundline, Ashmore's moneyer legend slopes down and to the right. The major mistake he made here though is that he did not align the two rosettes of pellets. On the tenth century coin they are perfectly aligned.

Fraudsters are known to take Ashmore reproductions and doctor them to make them look old and worn. This is particularly effective if selling through pictoral media such as ebay, or a dealers website. The coin is taken and beaten around the edges with something blunt and heavy, this causes chips and wearing to the flan as if it has been damaged in the ground. Sometimes corrosive chemicals are used on the coin to age it artificially, and manufactured 'patina kits' are also employed for this purpose. Coins are repeatedly heated and cooled and 'rusted' through contact with iron. Some even bury the coins in awful conditions to try to replicate the look of a long buried genuine example. The Ashmore above has been heavily 'doctored.'  In pictures, especially slightly blurred ones, the coins can look indistinguishable from the real thing. And then, once purchased the real shock comes ...

Two things cannot be determined from a picture. One is weight, the other is flan thickness. The fake above is almost a millimetre thick, far too thick to be genuine, as these coins were of wafer-thin silver. At 2.0g it is also far too heavy. The genuine Eadþig above weighs 0.6g. It is extremely difficult to replicate correct flan thickness, and thus, as is normal, fakes are almost always heavier than genuine coins. I should also add that the flan diameter measurement is not accurate. It is slightly too big, and coinage of this era was, as a rule, evenly struck on the flan.

I purchased the Ashmore above specifically as a teaching tool. The more that can be done to make people aware of this kind of fraud the better.

If in doubt about the genuiness of a prospective purchase, please ask an expert for advice. Although by no means an expert, I have considerable experience and can be contacted here for any reason.

Images taken from the EMC/SCBI database. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 11/12/2007.
• login or register to post comments

V.VIII Ecgberht and the elevation of the see of York.

Upon the resignation of bishop Vilfrid II of York, in AD732, a new bishop was chosen in his place. Eadberht of the royal line of Bernicia was renowned as a great scholar and administrator. A former pupil of Beada [672-735], he was ordained a deacon whilst on a visit to Rome, and later created bishop of York in 732 by his cousin king Ceolvulf of Northumbria [to whom Beada dedicated his Ecclesiastical History]. He held this office for three years until the see of York was formally elevated to the status of an archbishopric in 735. He became its first archbishop, recieving his pallium from Pope Gregory III [731-741] in Rome, and continued in this role until his death in 766. He was the first Northern archbishop, and the first to recieve the pallium, since St. Paulinus of York [died 633 at Rochester].

His learning was prodigious and the school and library he founded at York were famed across Europe and attracted scholars from the most noble families. Among his proteges were Alcuin, the biographer of Ælfred [the Great] of Wessex, whom he educated as a child. Several ecclesiastics graduated from York and were later created bishops and archbishops throughout Europe, including Liudger, first bishop of Munster. Ecgberht himself wrote prolifically on canon law and clerical matters, and some of his works survive, though with later additions. He corresponded with the Holy See, recieving letters from the bishops of Rome including Gregory III and Paul I [757-767], and also with St. Boniface, [Vynfrið of Wessex, c.672-754] the Apostle of the Germans, who asked Ecgberht to support his censure of king Æðelbald of Mercia. He is known to have been in contact with archbishop Cuðbert of Canterbury, and remained a lifelong friend and correspondant of the Venerable Beada, who visited him at York in 733 shortly before his death and who always wrote of Ecgberht in his letters with the deepest love and respect. 

When king Ceolvulf abdicated and entered a monastary in 737, Ecgberhts brother Eadberht became king of Northumbria. He ruled this kingdom for twenty one years and later scholars refer to the period when the brothers had control of both church and state as a time of unparalleled peace and stability. This is nowhere more evident than in the coinage issued jointly in their names.

Archbishop Ecgberht issued a joint AR sceatta coinage with three different kings of Northumbria during his incumbancy. After Ecgberhts death a short-lived and excessively rare issue was struck with king Æðelvald Moll [759-765], and following this another very rare coinage with king Alchred [765-774 - issue dated 765-766, the year of Ecgberhts death]. Both of these issues feature the kings name around a small cross on one face and the archbishops name around a small cross on the other. But perhaps his best known coinage, numismatically, is the issue struck in collaboration with his brother king Eadberht of Northumbria.

The Ecgberht/Eadberht coinage was struck in some numbers throughout the reign of king Eadberht [737-758], who also struck a sceatta coinage in his own name with a heraldic beast motif on the obverse. These early named silver sceats are very rare. Ecgberht was the first English archbishop to openly proclaim his name and title on the currency. He was also the only Anglo-Saxon bishop to employ a full-length figure of himself on any coinage. Although the Church had arguably had minting rights since its establishment in England in 597, if these rights were endorsed then only anonymous sceats were issued under the previous bishops. Later archbishops of York, to Eanbald I [issue 779-780], struck a joint coinage with the reigning kings of Northumbria, and from Eanbald II [796-835] to the incumbency of archbishop Wulfhere [849-900, issue to 867] issued coinage in their own names with the names of moneyers on the reverse.

The joint issue of the brothers features the kings name on one face around a small cross, sometimes in a pelleted circle. This is the regal die and was the responsibility of the royal moneyers at York. This face is often refered to as the reverse of the coin, but this is disputed. The ecclesiastical die, of the archbishops moneyer, features the standing figure of archbishop Ecgberht with arms outstreched on the left of the die, with his name and [sometimes his] abbreviated title around the right-hand side. The symbols the archbishop has on either side of him vary. He is pictured with the cross, the pastoral staff, and the crozier in various combinations, and the variant symbols can be on either side of him. He is often refered to as holding these objects, and that may be true of a few coins, but in the majority of cases his arms reach out beyond them, indeed the objects are often joined by a horizontal line at their bases, which does not pass beyond the base of each, and so is not a 'ground line'. In fact the combination of joined symbols and base line may represent a stylised building, probably a church, an early York Minster being the obvious conclusion. The design of the archiepiscopal mitre also varies on some coins, as do the vestments worn. Some coins may show the pallium.

The legends vary on this coinage as no names were standardised at this time, and were generally written phoenetically. The most commonly used variant seems to be +ECGBERHT, sometimes followed by A, R or AR. Thus his name is given in the Old English, whereas Eadberht's is most commonly given in a Latinized form with a runic 'S' ; +E◊TBEREHTVΓ REX. The variant renderings of these names freely add some letters and omit others.

The weights and silver content of these coins vary considerably, by up to one gram in some cases. It is usual for lighter coins to be regarded as later than those of good weight and silver. As to be expected most have been found in and around Yorkshire, but several, such as my own, a very light example found in Cambridgeshire, have been discovered further afield.

Sources : [books] An Ecclesiastical History of the English Church and People. Venerable Bede.  A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain, various authors. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England etc... various authors. [websites] Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England. Classical Numismatic Group. NNDB : The Venerable Bede. Classic Encyclopedia. Zenbulogy.com.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 10/12/2007.
• login or register to post comments

V.VII A new and unpublished penny of David I of Scotland.

                  Newly discovered David I penny.

A recent metal detecting find in plough soil in Yorkshire has revealed only the third Cross Moline [Type I] coin of king David I of Scotland [1124-1153] to be found in England. I am honoured to be the first to publish details. The coin may be described as follows :

Obverse. Crude crowned bust right holding sceptre, and breaking inner circle. +DAVID : RE : around.

Reverse. Cross Moline with fleurs in angles [as Stephen, 'Watford' Type I] +DER ... G : ON : EDEN :

When found the coin was covered with a deposit of iron. Months of careful initial cleaning by the finder, an experienced and successful detectorist, have uncovered a beautiful and extremely rare coin. The finder hopes to have the coin cleaned further, professionally, in order to reveal more of the portrait and further lettering.

All coinage of David I is very rare, there being four known types [N 909, N 910, N 911 & N 915]. This is a Type I [N 909], which closely resembles, and is in fact based upon, the initial type of king Stephen. Early examples of the type feature blundered legends in Stephen's name and later in David's name, but this coin is later still [c.1140 ?] as the coin is struck in David's own name and the legends are clear. David I was maternal uncle to and a strong supporter of the Empress Maud during the Civil War. Production of Scotlands first coinage began, with English moneyers, in 1136/7, following David's capture of the recently created English mint at Carlisle in 1136. It was made possible through the revenues of David's English Earldom and the proceeds of the silver mines below Neatshead near Alston in Cumberland, which fed the main mint at Carlisle, plus other Northern English & Scottish mints. Because there was no shortage of silver, most Scottish coinage issued during the Norman era was struck to the full internationally accepted 22 grain standard.

Martin Allen, in correspondence with the finder, confirms that the English finds of this type have all come from Yorkshire, which seems to indicate usage confined to Scotland and Northern England.

David I's coinage was struck at only three mint towns, Carlisle [CARD], Edinburgh and Roxburgh [ROCE]. These were closely related mints which shared common moneyers. North in his seminal work on English Hammered Coinage lists the legend EDEN on David's coins as an uncertain mint town. We now know for certain that the legend refers to the then recently established mint of Edinburgh. This is a very rare mint town, but especially so for the initial Scottish hammered of the Norman period. Only three moneyers are known to have struck there, EREBALD, DERLIG [called DERIND by North, & DEOR(L)ING by EMC] and FOLBALD. From the visible lettering on the coin, which to me reads DER ... ... G, the best bet for the moneyer seems to be DERLIG. Dr. Allen [and others, in correspondence] disagree, and thinks the legend could be a blundered rendering of EREBALD, but admits he is uncertain, as am I. Moneyers names often exist in many different forms on the same coinage as no standardised spelling existed at the time. Dies were mainly engraved at regional centres and sent out to provincial and other mints, so no two were identical. The dies used to strike this coin were very worn, hence the obscured lettering.

Other similar examples of N 909 with the same moneyer & mint town are :

EMC 1200.0965 [below (a)] from the same dies as the Beauvais Hoard example [Glendinning #161, below, (b)], but different dies to this coin, they are almost worn out. Mint signature is EDE.

[a]

[b]

SCBI 48 - Northern Museums : 1893 [below] also from different dies, [compare the shape of the letter 'N' on these examples]. There is another in the British Museum struck from the same dies. Both coins from the Prestwich Hoard. Mint signature is EODEN.

No coins are known from the same dies as this new David I.

Recorded on the EMC/SCBI database as EMC 2007.0276.

References : Coinage and Currency under Stephen. Mark Blackburn [For The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign. Ed. Edmund King.] The 'Beauvais' Hoard. Michael Faintich. Coinage of the Anarchy. George Boon. EMC/SCBI database. Wikipedia. About.com.

Many thanks to Neil for allowing me to publish his remarkable find.

Please note that I do not own this coin [unfortunately]. Nor do I have access to it.

• Posted by dragonbloodaxe on 04/11/2007.
• login or register to post comments