FA+
Shop
322
Views
Views
1
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 837
File Size 159.1 kB
Report this content
More from Saara
How long have their been pennies? The answer might surprise you. Although the world "Penny" is Germanic and is related to to the German "pfennig", the actual orgin of the familiar English coin is the Roman denarius. The denarius was silver, not copper. But the original pennies minted in Britain were also silver, and date back to the time when the Romans left Britain and took their mints with them. For the next several hundred years most pennies seemed to be struck in the prosperous north, but around the 8th. and 9th. century the economy flagged everywhere. Few pennies were struck, but those that were were debased bronze coins like the one illustrated.
I bought this in the early Spring for around fifty bucks as I recall. It was difficult to decypher, even though the dealer had written most of the essentials on the holder. The hard part was deciding whch side was the front and which the reverse, so I could begin trying to fit the supposed inscriptions with what I could see.
Prosperity returned in time, and pennies began to be struck in silver again. In France, coins of the same weight and general appearance of English pennies were struck as "deniers", clearly betraying their shared origin in the Roman denarius. The names Stycas and Sceants applied to these early northern English pennies seem to have come from a later date, and were certainly *not* what people called them at the time. No one is sure in fact what people called them. But the most likely name was... ready for it? "pennies".
The penny was not struck in bronze or copper again for many centuries. Not until the early 17th. century, under James II, was the need for a common, low denomination coin felt again, and pennies began to be issued once more in base metal. The other side of the coin -- excuse the expression -- is that silver was too expensive for ordinary purchases.
Strangely, silver pennies persisted in being minted until the 20th. century. They were small, very light coins struck only for what are called "Maundy" sets. These were presentation sets, gifts of the king as part of a royal ceremony. While Maundy sets continued to be given to larger and larger circles of recipients well into the 20th. century, whatever personal distinction it once meant dwindled away. The custom must have been discontinued by 1967 with the introduction of decimal coinange, if not earlier.
Now of course, the English have a decimalized coinage in which there are pennies to a Pound, rather than 240. Someday they may even be compelled to adopt the Euro with ist 100 Cents. But I suspect nothing will stop the English from calling their lowest common denomination a penny for another several centuries.
I bought this in the early Spring for around fifty bucks as I recall. It was difficult to decypher, even though the dealer had written most of the essentials on the holder. The hard part was deciding whch side was the front and which the reverse, so I could begin trying to fit the supposed inscriptions with what I could see.
Prosperity returned in time, and pennies began to be struck in silver again. In France, coins of the same weight and general appearance of English pennies were struck as "deniers", clearly betraying their shared origin in the Roman denarius. The names Stycas and Sceants applied to these early northern English pennies seem to have come from a later date, and were certainly *not* what people called them at the time. No one is sure in fact what people called them. But the most likely name was... ready for it? "pennies".
The penny was not struck in bronze or copper again for many centuries. Not until the early 17th. century, under James II, was the need for a common, low denomination coin felt again, and pennies began to be issued once more in base metal. The other side of the coin -- excuse the expression -- is that silver was too expensive for ordinary purchases.
Strangely, silver pennies persisted in being minted until the 20th. century. They were small, very light coins struck only for what are called "Maundy" sets. These were presentation sets, gifts of the king as part of a royal ceremony. While Maundy sets continued to be given to larger and larger circles of recipients well into the 20th. century, whatever personal distinction it once meant dwindled away. The custom must have been discontinued by 1967 with the introduction of decimal coinange, if not earlier.
Now of course, the English have a decimalized coinage in which there are pennies to a Pound, rather than 240. Someday they may even be compelled to adopt the Euro with ist 100 Cents. But I suspect nothing will stop the English from calling their lowest common denomination a penny for another several centuries.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 837px
File Size 159.1 kB
That was pretty common among "imatatives". After a type has been copied from a copy several times it can be nearly impossible to figure out what the original image had been. I've seen heads and horses that looked like nothing other than lines and dots on Celtic coins of various kinds. At some point the instinct for design may take over and the abstract quality begins to be purposeful. The die maker may no longer care that he's inscribing a man on a bull or whatever.
In this case, however, there's no illustration -- just letters. The significance of the crosses or dots I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does.
In this case, however, there's no illustration -- just letters. The significance of the crosses or dots I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does.
It was once quite rare for the average Briton to ever see one pound (literally, a pound of Sterling silver) amongst their assets, so the shilling was the primary currency for most English, in their peculiar three-tiered system (only one or two African countries, plus China, use a three-tiered system, rather than the more-common two-tiered system we're used to), but for most, one could get by for a few pence a day, room and board. (Pence, not pennies- Only in North America is the penny pluralised as "pennies".) A farthing, the smallest "unit" (not officially recognised as such- The smallest coin minted in the old English system, as far as I know, was the half farthing), could buy a bowl or soup, or perhaps a pint of ale. A penny- four farthings (literal translation: quarters, or, a fourthing)- would buy a good meal or room at an inn for a night.
There is much to be said of the sheer power and cultural lore surrounding England's old LSD (pounds, shillings, pence, based on the common symbols of the units) system, much of it quite romanticised over the centuries, well before decimalisation... :)
(America was not the first to decimalise, but was the first to create a new currency that was decimalised from the outset, and to be successful at it. It was quite rare for its time, although now, we really can't imagine a time when almost all countries employed complex monetary systems-- except for the British LSD system.)
(On a note, it's amazing to think an English pound Sterlilng was indeed a pound of Sterling silver, yet today's pound coins are even significantly smaller- yet thicker- than current dollar coinage here in the U.S., and be worth TWICE as much!)
d.m.f.
(A fellow coin collector, although not as focused on ancient coins, simply because I can't afford to.)
There is much to be said of the sheer power and cultural lore surrounding England's old LSD (pounds, shillings, pence, based on the common symbols of the units) system, much of it quite romanticised over the centuries, well before decimalisation... :)
(America was not the first to decimalise, but was the first to create a new currency that was decimalised from the outset, and to be successful at it. It was quite rare for its time, although now, we really can't imagine a time when almost all countries employed complex monetary systems-- except for the British LSD system.)
(On a note, it's amazing to think an English pound Sterlilng was indeed a pound of Sterling silver, yet today's pound coins are even significantly smaller- yet thicker- than current dollar coinage here in the U.S., and be worth TWICE as much!)
d.m.f.
(A fellow coin collector, although not as focused on ancient coins, simply because I can't afford to.)
Pence. Indeed. I'm not sure the distinction is correct when speaking of individual coins, though, rather than a sum. One might say five pennies are worth five pence. But I pontificate.
I suspect that before before copper coins were introduced into English use, the significance of silver pennies was that common people didn't use money very often. When a money economy extened all the way down to even the poor, it was necessary to have denominations suited to buying a bunch of turnips or a loaf of bread.
I know of third and quarter-farthings, but they were minted in Victorian times for use in Malta and Ceylon respectively, though found in catalogs for English coins.
I suspect that before before copper coins were introduced into English use, the significance of silver pennies was that common people didn't use money very often. When a money economy extened all the way down to even the poor, it was necessary to have denominations suited to buying a bunch of turnips or a loaf of bread.
I know of third and quarter-farthings, but they were minted in Victorian times for use in Malta and Ceylon respectively, though found in catalogs for English coins.
Pence vs. pennies: A fair assessment, I think.
As for the smaller sub-farthing coinage, I suspect these were probably for tax purposes, but I could be wrong....
As for silver pennies, it was once common practice to chop them up into even smaller bits (4, 6, even 8 pieces), which were of a more common usage... Not to mention, there were far fewer subjects in those days than today. (The chopping of coins would last up until the end of the 18th Century, at a time when the American dollar was created based on the Spanish real, which were commonly chopped up into 8 pieces- the origin of "pieces of eight" in pirate lore and for "2 bits" equalling a quarter dollar. The name "dollar' came from the then (I think) Austro-Hungarian Empire, whom at one time had the "thaler" as the unit of currency- close to that of an ounce of silver. The American dollar would remain an ounce of silver in value until American mints stopped using silver in 1964-1965 and the great devaluation of 1969.)
d.m.f.
(Who tends to collect foreign coins and banknotes, as they tend to be more creative than American currency...)
As for the smaller sub-farthing coinage, I suspect these were probably for tax purposes, but I could be wrong....
As for silver pennies, it was once common practice to chop them up into even smaller bits (4, 6, even 8 pieces), which were of a more common usage... Not to mention, there were far fewer subjects in those days than today. (The chopping of coins would last up until the end of the 18th Century, at a time when the American dollar was created based on the Spanish real, which were commonly chopped up into 8 pieces- the origin of "pieces of eight" in pirate lore and for "2 bits" equalling a quarter dollar. The name "dollar' came from the then (I think) Austro-Hungarian Empire, whom at one time had the "thaler" as the unit of currency- close to that of an ounce of silver. The American dollar would remain an ounce of silver in value until American mints stopped using silver in 1964-1965 and the great devaluation of 1969.)
d.m.f.
(Who tends to collect foreign coins and banknotes, as they tend to be more creative than American currency...)
I think it's funny you mentioned about the roman mints since the origional minting of the coings never used dies or presses but each one was done by hand and specialy weighed under guard and if the crafter messed up any or shorted the weight value their hands was either chopped off or was exicuted in the most greusome way....
Of course the Romans used dies! They couldn't possbily have carved the features in every one of the tens of millions of coins produced every year.
The dies were hand made though, and calculations apparently show that a given artisan must have made several sets a day. No tools remain to show how this was done though there is a suspicion they must have invented belt driven rotary devices like a dremel to keep up this volumne of work. Each artisan had a style of his own that can sometimes be identified, though we have no idea of his name or career. In the late empire there were usually numerous mints besides the one in Rome. Provincial issues also vied with official mintages in circulation. Asian cities, Egypt, and Spain seemed to be especially active. In the third century these disappeared one by one, leaving about two dozen official mints. Then in the 4th. century it was found prudent to restrict the striking of gold coins to only the mint associated with the imperial court -- you find the rubric COMOB on the reverse, indicating something like "fine gold, struck by the court".
There's some debate about heating the metal though. A lot of sources claim the blanks were heated just before the were placed in the die and struck. The problem with this notion is that heating doesn't soften metal noticeably until its within a few degrees of melting. It would be almost impossible to work so near a furnace so close a blank could be removed and put in a die before its temperature dropped below that narrow band of temperature.
More likley the Romans heated the blanks sometime before striking and allowed them to cool. This would anneal the metal, making it a bit softer, witout the need to rush the process from furance to die.
There are many mysteries about Roman means of producing coins. LIke what many of the coins were actually called. And why those of Asian Minor in the third century have a small pit in the center, on both sides.
The dies were hand made though, and calculations apparently show that a given artisan must have made several sets a day. No tools remain to show how this was done though there is a suspicion they must have invented belt driven rotary devices like a dremel to keep up this volumne of work. Each artisan had a style of his own that can sometimes be identified, though we have no idea of his name or career. In the late empire there were usually numerous mints besides the one in Rome. Provincial issues also vied with official mintages in circulation. Asian cities, Egypt, and Spain seemed to be especially active. In the third century these disappeared one by one, leaving about two dozen official mints. Then in the 4th. century it was found prudent to restrict the striking of gold coins to only the mint associated with the imperial court -- you find the rubric COMOB on the reverse, indicating something like "fine gold, struck by the court".
There's some debate about heating the metal though. A lot of sources claim the blanks were heated just before the were placed in the die and struck. The problem with this notion is that heating doesn't soften metal noticeably until its within a few degrees of melting. It would be almost impossible to work so near a furnace so close a blank could be removed and put in a die before its temperature dropped below that narrow band of temperature.
More likley the Romans heated the blanks sometime before striking and allowed them to cool. This would anneal the metal, making it a bit softer, witout the need to rush the process from furance to die.
There are many mysteries about Roman means of producing coins. LIke what many of the coins were actually called. And why those of Asian Minor in the third century have a small pit in the center, on both sides.
And if anyone's interested in why Aethelred was called "The Unready"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethelred_the_Unready
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethelred_the_Unready
That was Aethelred II "The Unready" of England, 968 to 1016. The Aethelred II who struck my stycas was only king of Northumbria, his second reign being 844 ot 845 AD.
Yes, I had some confusion over that too, but that's what Wikipedia is for.
There's a pieceon this Aethelred as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethel.....of_Northumbria
I see from it that the conventional dates given by numismatics for his reign are probably wrong.
Yes, I had some confusion over that too, but that's what Wikipedia is for.
There's a pieceon this Aethelred as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethel.....of_Northumbria
I see from it that the conventional dates given by numismatics for his reign are probably wrong.
I'm not an avid coin collector, but I am fascinated by rare and antique coins. I consider them "Little pieces of public sculpture on can carry in a pocket." I also like to fantasize about who might have handled the coins before especially in the past. Look! Here's a Ruble supposedly found in Napleon's coat pocket! Thanks for the interesting and informative inclusion.
It's always tempting to imagine a certain con being in someone's pocket who made history. Unfortunately, people that impotant often never had to handle money. It's doubtful Caesar ever handled any of the silver denarii minted in his name, for instance. He would likely have handled late Republican denarii when he was a young man, and relatively poor for a Roman aristocrat. But there were millions struck every year. What odds the great man ever held on even in passing? More than likely the men who used it were named Publis Anonymous Homus and while important in their day, as wealthy traders or bankers, are unknonwn today.
The only likely exceptions to this I've known personally is a medalion given to a legionary in Britain for heroism in some battle or other. It was a rare distinction, and the odds are extremely good it was given to the man in person by the emperor Commodus. I've held this medalion myself... and know who bought it for over $6,000!
I also held once some confederate bills for two or three thousand dollars, along with the bill of sale given in receipt for the slave they bought. It would be interesting to know who the slave was, and whether he had descndents, but that would be asking too much.
The only likely exceptions to this I've known personally is a medalion given to a legionary in Britain for heroism in some battle or other. It was a rare distinction, and the odds are extremely good it was given to the man in person by the emperor Commodus. I've held this medalion myself... and know who bought it for over $6,000!
I also held once some confederate bills for two or three thousand dollars, along with the bill of sale given in receipt for the slave they bought. It would be interesting to know who the slave was, and whether he had descndents, but that would be asking too much.
Comments