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.
- dragonbloodaxe's site
Please sign in or join etribes to add comments.
