Sovereign = legal tender; why no denomination?

[GoldDiggerDave]

Did any of the Roman coins have denomination on the coin? 

[LawrenceChard]

16 minutes ago, SidS said:

Denominations stated on 'British' coins is an interesting one. I say British but actually mean English before 1707. Scottish coins etc. might have their own examples but I know nothing about those.

The first English coins I can think of with denominations stated are James I coins from the 1603-25 era. The silver/gold coins often have the denomination stated in Roman numerals - VI for sixpence, XX for the Pound coin (20 shillings, which went by many names), XXX for half crown (30 pence).

This continued through to the end of hammered in 1662.

Then stated denominations were mostly scrapped, except for Maundy coinage which stated the value in a variety of ways. Interlinked C's during Charles II's reign, Roman numerals (actually I for Iacobus) during James II's reign, giving way to Arabic numerals onwards from 1689.

The farthing joined the value stated club in 1799, the Sixpence and Shilling joined in 1831-4, although had a brief spell out of it again during 1887-1892. The Britannia groat hit the ground running in 1836 with denomination stated.

The florin debuted in 1849 with two denominations 'one florin' and 'one tenth of a pound' stated proudly.

The bronze coinage of 1860s onwards started with denominations.

Realistically there was a slow shift to full denominations stated from the 1830s onwards. Up until 1887, when there was a blip backwards to no denominations stated throughout the jubilee era (except denominations 6d downwards, which kept them).

By the old head era the denominations started up again. The crown upwards though didn't, as stated in other posters' replies.

So it's way more complex than at first glance.

That's a great answer.

Indeed, the James I silver coins, starting in 1603, were earlier than the examples I mentioned. His gold coins followed later, from about 1619.

Good detailed point about the "I"s on James II's small silver coins being for his initial I (for IACOBUS), rather than Roman numerals.

Don't forget that the first "ONE FLORIN ONE TENTH OF A POUND" was dated 1848, not 1849, although it is thought the 1848 issue may have been intended as a pattern.

 

[LawrenceChard]

7 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

Did any of the Roman coins have denomination on the coin? 

Not expliciitly, although antoniniani did have a "radiate" helmet, whereas denarii had a laureate or bare head for males, and a crescent moon below portrait for females.

I think similar conventions may also have applied to some other denominations.

[SidS]

23 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

That's a great answer.

Indeed, the James I silver coins, starting in 1603, were earlier than the examples I mentioned. His gold coins followed later, from about 1619.

Good detailed point about the "I"s on James II's small silver coins being for his initial I (for IACOBUS), rather than Roman numerals.

Don't forget that the first "ONE FLORIN ONE TENTH OF A POUND" was dated 1848, not 1849, although it is thought the 1848 issue may have been intended as a pattern.

 

Yes correct about the 1848 florin. I always assumed them to be patterns or proofs, but regardless of this the design of the 1849 started there though.

[LawrenceChard]

49 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

That's a great answer.

Indeed, the James I silver coins, starting in 1603, were earlier than the examples I mentioned. His gold coins followed later, from about 1619.

Good detailed point about the "I"s on James II's small silver coins being for his initial I (for IACOBUS), rather than Roman numerals.

Don't forget that the first "ONE FLORIN ONE TENTH OF A POUND" was dated 1848, not 1849, although it is thought the 1848 issue may have been intended as a pattern.

 

 

24 minutes ago, SidS said:

Yes correct about the 1848 florin. I always assumed them to be patterns or proofs, but regardless of this the design of the 1849 started there though.

I had intended to include a link to yet another old web page:

Victoria "Godless" Florin 1848

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=1848godlessflorin.html

It actually took us a long time to sell that coin, and is another example of coins I wish we had not sold!

😎

[SidS]

8 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

 

I had intended to include a link to yet another old web page:

Victoria "Godless" Florin 1848

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=1848godlessflorin.html

It actually took us a long time to sell that coin, and is another example of coins I wish we had not sold!

😎

Whilst we are on the topic of godless and gothic florins, there's a question I've been pondering for a while, maybe you know the answer?

When the gothic florins hit the cash tills in 1851-2, were the godless coins withdrawn? I don't think I've ever seen one in near blank grades as the gothics often turn up in. So my feeling on it is that they probably were withdrawn at some point in the 1850s, in much the same way the 1887 shield sixpences were taken out of circulation - you never see those much below VF.

Edited April 10, 2022 by SidS

[LawrenceChard]

4 minutes ago, SidS said:

Whilst we are on the topic of godless and gothic florins, there's a question I've been pondering for a while, maybe you know the answer?

When the gothic florins hit the cash tills in 1851-2, were the godless coins withdrawn? I don't think I've ever seen one in near blank grades as the gothics often turn up in. So my feeling on it is that they probably were withdrawn at some point in the 1850s, in much the same way the 1887 shield sixpences were taken out of circulation - you never see those much below VF.

I had not given it any thought, but we have seen 1849 Godless in lower grades. Because it was a first and only (circulation) date, it may well have been "collected" as a curiousity, even by non-numismatists, which would account for seeing few very worn ones, and you are correct that a lot of Gothic florins turn up very thin and worn, for some reason. Perhaps they were found to be very useful, so they got heavily circulated.

The 1887 Jubilee shield sixpences were withdrawn for a different reason, people gold-plating them to pass off as half sovereigns, which is why they are known as the "Withdrawn" type.

[SidS]

46 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I had not given it any thought, but we have seen 1849 Godless in lower grades. Because it was a first and only (circulation) date, it may well have been "collected" as a curiousity, even by non-numismatists, which would account for seeing few very worn ones, and you are correct that a lot of Gothic florins turn up very thin and worn, for some reason. Perhaps they were found to be very useful, so they got heavily circulated.

Ah the hoarding of first year issues, I hadn't thought of that.

[LawrenceChard]

9 minutes ago, SidS said:

Ah the hoarding of first year issues, I hadn't thought of that.

It's only a guess, as I wasn't there at the time!

😎

[Stuntman]

Are you sure, Lawrence? 😁

I think the Farthing still 'wins' the denomination question because it actually has the name of the denomination on the coin, as opposed to something denoting its value.  But all other answers are correct too!

There are some really nice gold thirty-shilling pieces from way back when, that have III on them.

(edited , they have III rather than XXX).  I thought there were coins with XXX on them but I think I was mistaken.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Stuntman

[SidS]

Is the value not the same thing as the denomination though?*

 

*Ignoring revaluations of course - such as when we had those funny 5p coins that said 'one shilling' on them. 😁

[Stuntman]

For me, if the denomination is a shilling, I am taking the date from when the coin actually said 'shilling' on it, rather than when it said XII on it, being twelve pence.   So in the shilling example, under my definition this would start from William IV rather than the earlier hammered coinage.

 

I'm drawing a distinction between the literal name of the denomination itself being on the face of the coin, rather than any indications of its value on the face of the coin.

But I am also agreeing with you 😃

[LawrenceChard]

19 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

Are you sure, Lawrence? 😁

I think the Farthing still 'wins' the denomination question because it actually has the name of the denomination on the coin, as opposed to something denoting its value.  But all other answers are correct too!

There are some really nice gold thirty-shilling pieces from way back when, that have III on them.

(edited , they have III rather than XXX).  I thought there were coins with XXX on them but I think I was mistaken.

Looks like we need a Stewards Enquiry.

For James I:

The gold thirty shillings did have XXX, while silver shillings had XII

Gold Laurels had XX, Half Laurels X, and Quarter Laurels V.

Gold fifteen shillings had XV, while silver sixpences had VI

Charles I Triple Unites had III

Charles I Silver Pounds had XX

Charles I Silver Half Pounds had X

Charles I Silver Crowns had V

Charles I Silver Halfcrowns did not have their denomination on them, except for emergency siege money, which did have XXX 

Charles I Silver Shillings had XII

Charles I Silver Sixpences had VI

Etc.

P.S. I once thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong because I had been right all the time!

😎

[Stuntman]

Cheers Lawrence.  I was fairly sure that I'd actually seen a gold thirty shillings coin with XXX on it, either at a coin fair or in a museum, so it must have been a James I specimen.

Anyway, many thanks!

Stunters XXX

😉

[LawrenceChard]

25 minutes ago, SidS said:

Is the value not the same thing as the denomination though?*

 

*Ignoring revaluations of course - such as when we had those funny 5p coins that said 'one shilling' on them. 😁

Often, but not always.

It could be said that "sovereign" is a denomination, while £1 is the (face) value, and of course if we simply say "value" it is ambiguous because we may be meaning its face value, its intrinsic value, or it market value.

Also, in the days of the original gold sovereigns, some of them were issued thirty shilling sovereigns.

For slightly different reasons, the monetary exchange value of the guinea series varied. Originally, they were 20 shillings coins, but became known as guineas because some early years had an elephant, or an elephant and castle mark (for the Guinea Company), but their exchange rate in shillings varied, as high as 30 shillings, and in later years at 21 shillings.

It can get complicated, and many things are not as simple as they seem at first glance.

🙂 

[LawrenceChard]

4 hours ago, ady said:

Amazing the talent on here, it is almost nerdish- i'd be glad of the first!

We ought to have a "Talent" competition, especially as a "talent" can also refer to a coin or weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(measurement)

😎

[LawrenceChard]

On 10/04/2022 at 14:05, Stuntman said:

The history of coins page on the Chards website that Lawrence linked to is the sort of thing that makes people interested in collecting older UK coins.

The first UK coin that actually had its denomination written on it was the Farthing of 1799.  These are relatively easy to come by, and are a nice coin to have in a collection that has 'a bit of everything' in it.  

The modern sovereign from 1817 onwards came out after this date of course but most UK circulating coins didn't actually have their denominations written on them until the 1830s-1860s.  Some denominations even later.  Halfcrowns not until 1893 and Crowns not until 1927, I think!

So the Sovereign has probably just never needed to evolve in such a way to include its denomination, given that it is made of gold and its basic specifications have remained unchanged.  Most other coins have changed metal composition and/or size since 1817, multiple times!

 

On 10/04/2022 at 14:34, ady said:

Amazing the talent on here, it is almost nerdish- i'd be glad of the first!

 

On 10/04/2022 at 15:02, LawrenceChard said:

Thanks, @Stuntman, for the comment.

When I read your mention that the 1799 farthing was the first UK coin to feature its denomination, I thought "Why didn't I know that?", so I Googled "1799 farthing", and found an old familiar page:

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=1799farthing.html

A quick glance at the photos explained why:

By the time I got to replying, I had an enlightenment, but see later...

I might be wrong (again), but I think the first UK coin to bear its denomination was the 1668 silver twopence of Charles II, although this was in the form of two interlinked letter "C"s, so it could be argued that the 1685 silver penny and threepence of James II were the first, as they had the Roman numerals "I" and "III" on their reverse.

Now back to the enlightenment:

On checking the images on our old 1799 Farthing web page, I noticed we had used photos of copper halfpennies for some reason. As these do not have their denomination on them, it is not instantly obvious that we screwed up. It would also mislead anyone looking on our site for information. The page was probably created in about 2000, and I can't remember whether I wrote the page (I hope not), or whether I can pass the buck to anyone else.

We had used the same photos correctly on this page about 1799 Halfpennies:

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=1799halfpenny.html

So Stuntman was probably more correct, or less wrong, than I was, but neither of us got it right.

Now I have discovered our "boob", I will need to find an actual 1799 farthing, get a decent photo, and correct the incorrect page. I am not sure we have a minty one to photograph.

Also, it's now too late for anyone to claim their free pint for spotting our "deliberate error".

😎

 

On 10/04/2022 at 15:11, SidS said:

Denominations stated on 'British' coins is an interesting one. I say British but actually mean English before 1707. Scottish coins etc. might have their own examples but I know nothing about those.

The first English coins I can think of with denominations stated are James I coins from the 1603-25 era. The silver/gold coins often have the denomination stated in Roman numerals - VI for sixpence, XX for the Pound coin (20 shillings, which went by many names), XXX for half crown (30 pence).

This continued through to the end of hammered in 1662.

Then stated denominations were mostly scrapped, except for Maundy coinage which stated the value in a variety of ways. Interlinked C's during Charles II's reign, Roman numerals (actually I for Iacobus) during James II's reign, giving way to Arabic numerals onwards from 1689.

The farthing joined the value stated club in 1799, the Sixpence and Shilling joined in 1831-4, although had a brief spell out of it again during 1887-1892. The Britannia groat hit the ground running in 1836 with denomination stated.

The florin debuted in 1849 with two denominations 'one florin' and 'one tenth of a pound' stated proudly.

The bronze coinage of 1860s onwards started with denominations.

Realistically there was a slow shift to full denominations stated from the 1830s onwards. Up until 1887, when there was a blip backwards to no denominations stated throughout the jubilee era (except denominations 6d downwards, which kept them).

By the old head era the denominations started up again. The crown upwards though didn't, as stated in other posters' replies.

So it's way more complex than at first glance.

I have just updated our old https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=1799farthing.html page, with new photos, and corrected captions.

These are the new photos:

and the Obverse:

and for those interested on the alloy composition:

About 98% pure copper.

😎

[GoldDiggerDave]

What about tokens were they legal tender?

[LawrenceChard]

42 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

What about tokens were they legal tender?

No. That partly explains why they are called tokens.

😎

[CANV]

we are of course English .. thus we dont need to 'denominate' anything.  

it is a sovereign 

its is wimbledon

it is the open

it is lords 

it is twickers

 

 

I could go on but it gets boring...   anyway the point is... it is A 'SOVREIGN'

[LawrenceChard]

1 minute ago, CANV said:

we are of course English .. thus we dont need to 'denominate' anything.  

it is a sovereign 

its is wimbledon

it is the open

it is lords 

it is twickers

I could go on but it gets boring...   anyway the point is... it is A 'SOVREIGN'

SOVEREIGN?

😎

[CANV]

I got a A in some maths stuff n physics at O level.    spelling less so  

[SidS]

12 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

 

 

 

I have just updated our old https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=1799farthing.html page, with new photos, and corrected captions.

These are the new photos:

and the Obverse:

and for those interested on the alloy composition:

About 98% pure copper.

😎

0.1% gold! I should start stacking these.

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, SidS said:

0.1% gold! I should start stacking these.

There may be some contamination on the clear film covering the lower sensor, so we either need to change it, or run a quick re-calibration or the machine.

The results for chocolate coins are far more interesting!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

12 hours ago, CANV said:

I got a A in some maths stuff n physics at O level.    spelling less so  

My spelling is excellent, even if I say so myself, but...

... my fingers are dyslexic!

😎