This week’s fresh listings:

This page is to be updated every Tuesday and will contain all the latest Coin, Medal & Token listings for that particular week.

Most sold coins are now accessible via a new link on the front (index) page category grid.

Additions to www.HistoryInCoins.com for weeks commencing Tuesday 28th July & Tuesday 4th August 2026

WSC-9384: 1559 Mary and Francis Scottish Hammered Silver Nonsunt. Second period, 1558-60, with Mary married to the Dauphin (heir apparent to the French throne), Francis, aged just 15. Francis was even younger, being just 14. The dolphin - very much a nod to the actual Dauphin - faces left on this coin indicating that it emanates from dies struck in the latter part of 1559. S.R.5448. The term "Nonsunt" derives from a play on the reverse inscription: IAM NON SVNT DVO SED VNA CAR ("They are no more twain, but one flesh"), which is biblical reference from the Gospel of Matthew celebrating the act of marriage. The early 1st and 2nd periods, immediately prior to Mary's first widowhood in 1660, issued billon coinage. This twelvepenny groat - something of an oxymoron in that a groat traditionally means x4 pence - was issued at 0.5 alloy, explaining the poor state of preservation of extant examples today. However, if you think that's bad, the contemporary Mary Lion or Hardhead, including not one but two dolphins, was struck at 23/24 alloy which even Henry VIII, famous for literally embezzling the country and population, never came close to achieving south of the border. Nonsunts are bizarrely difficult to source these days. This is a nicer example than most and one which could, if desired, be improved in appearance by some careful cleaning and preservation. The main image wasn't the best so I included a small thumbnail taken using a camera phone. £435

WTH-9385: Choice Henry VIII Hammered Silver Halfpenny. Second coinage, 1526-44, initial mark Arrow, London mint, S.R.2356. If we take the earliest possible date for this coin of 1526, we find Henry still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, after an impressive 24 year. Jump to the last date, 1544, and we find that Henry had been extraordinarily active on the marriage front, being on his sixth and final attempt at matrimony, Catherine Parr. The coin is exceptionally well centred, has a clear initial mark, good edges, nicely toned and is high grade. Choice. £285

WTH-9386: Edward VI Hammered Billon Silver Penny. Third period, “very base issue” of 1551, in fact so much so that coinage from this debased issue circulated at 50% face value. London mint, initial mark Escallop - E.D. at start of legend. S.R. 2474. Full, round flan, good edges, not looking particularly billon (rings nicely when dropped) and marginally better than the S.R. plate coin. Also, the slightly rarer London mint. A very nice example. £265

WTH-9387: Elizabeth 1st Early Hammered Silver Groat or Fourpence. Initial mark Martlet, Tower (London) mint, bust 1F, second issue, S.R. 2556. Second issue Martlet hammered groats were only struck for a total of 10 months (9^th December 1560 to 24^th October 1561) – interestingly, the Martlets and Cross Crosslets were the last hammered groats issued under her reign, even though Elizabeth reigned for a further 40+ years. Attractively toned, very nice grade - just look at all the detail on the Queen's portrait! A most pleasing example of a very early Elizabeth 1st coin that, as a denomination, wouldn't be seen again for the remainder of Elizabeth's reign. James 1st had no groats, even though he issued halfgroats. Indeed, it wasn't until the actual Civil War under Charles 1st, some 80 years on from this coin, that we see groats make a long overdue reappearance. £435

WTH-9388: 1595 High Grade Elizabeth 1st Late Hammered Silver Sixpence. Initial mark Woolpack (9th May 1594 - 13th February 1596), Tower (London) mint, bust 6c, fifth issue, S.R. 2578A. Earlier and later dates are frequently encountered with overdates (ie, recycled reverse dies with the new final digit of the date being literally overstruck on the top of the old date) but not 1595. You will only see straight 1595 dated sixpences, indicating that there were no old earlier reverse dies left after 1594 (no later coins are known to have utilised any reverse dies earlier than 1596). Also, there were no 1595 reverse dies left at the commencement of 1596 because no later coins are known to have been overstruck on 1595 reverses. At the end of the century there was a proliferation of overdates (in fact, scarcely a straight date was to be seen!) with examples such as1599/8/6, 1599/8, 1599/6, 1600/159-, and my favourite, 1600/1596! There are many more such examples. 1594 to 1597 was a period of devastating recession in Elizabethan England. The crops failed for four successive years and inevitability, food prices rocketed. Inflation was rampant and as a result, real wages fell to their lowest levels since the Black Death. As if that wasn't enough, the crucial English cloth export industry collapsed, leading to massive unemployment. The ongoing war with Spain was also continuing to drain the crown's treasury, meaning the state had to tax more. Interestingly, one of the first examples of government state wide help (benefits) was seen as a result of all of this in the "Elizabeth Poor Law of 1601" which financed relief to the poor, albeit through yet more taxes. In 1599, after several recession years where very, very small amounts of coinage was issued, thus resulting in a surplus of old dies which still had life left in them, the penny (or sixpence!) finally dropped - they recognised that more dies were being made than coins were being struck so they began to sink reverse dies reading 159- only, meaning a fresh final digit could be punched onto the coin as appropriate and nobody would be any the wiser. It was a fairly inopportune moment for this epiphany though - the century was just about to tick over, meaning the last digit was not the only one needing to be changed! 1595 as a date represents a frequency of 1.0% for the 2,716 recorded single finds of Elizabeth 1st coins and 1.1% for all 5,588 recorded Elizabeth 1st hoard coins. *** 1595 is the thirteenth rarest of all forty two dates ***. Rarer date, superb grade together with solid and impressive provenance. £425

Provenance:

ex Prestonbury Hoard (June 2004), dispersed...

ex DNW (Dec 2005, lot 39)

ex Lloyd Bennett (2005)

WJC-9389: 1610 over 1609 High Grade James 1st Rarer Date Hammered Silver Sixpence - possibly finest known for detail? Initial mark Key, second coinage, fourth bust, Tower (London) mint, S.R. 2655. Any double digit date James 1st sixpence is rare - in fact any sixpence bar the first couple of dates and the last couple is rare. The overdate is a result of dies being sunk and then, due to the pitifully small output of sixpences for James 1st, the old dies being recycled by changing the final date digit as well as the initial mark. The accompanying ticket states that only £11 face was coined in total for 1610, and that being for all denominations, including the larger value coins. It was a truly miniscule amount of coinage struck for that entire year, with sixpences being just a tiny proportion of that already diminutive issue. At the death of James (as with every old monarch), all old coinage passing through officialdom was recalled and redirected to the melting pot - remember, the new monarch's primary means of letting the populace know that they were in power was via their depiction on the back of the coin of the day. There was no bullion reserve at the mint available to mint new coin so this recall of old currency not only took out all the worn and damaged coins from circulation but, more importantly, provided the silver for new coins to be struck. In 1662, hammered coinage was ended as milled took over. In 1696, the Great Re-Coinage was undertaken with Sir Isaac Newton as Warden of the Royal Mint. Between 1662 and 1696, hammered and milled coinage circulated together but at the Great Re-Coinage, all hammered coinage, by law, had to be exchanged at the mint for its equivalent value in milled coinage. This was a definite win for the population as the exchange was not done on weight, rather face value. Any worn or clipped hammered coins (and there was a lot of that in circulation) that traders might be unwilling to take (a heavily clipped groat weighing 50% was literally only worth half a groat in silver) were exchanged at the mint with no questions asked. It cost the mint millions (and led to the infamous later Window tax in an attempt to claw back the loss) but it effectively removed nearly all hammered coinage from the country. The still serviceable, better grade hammered coinage was allowed a brief respite but that had to be centrally pierced in order to still circulate and even that was permanently withdrawn (ie to the melting pot) under George II. With all that in mind, it's easy to see how rare all hammered coinage is today. We rely on coins lost (and found!) to the ground, the odd coin kept as a momento or curio and coin hoards. The economy at the time, very much like the Commonwealth period, dictated that hoarding wasn't a thing, making James 1st sixpences akin to hens' teeth today. The sixpence dies were shallow and the striking indifferent at best, which did nothing to help the state of the coinage. This rare date 1610, although obviously chipped, is a remarkable find. I'm not sure there's a similar or better example out there for this rare date in terms of detail - you're looking at a better than VF coin, and yet James 1st sixpences and VF just should not be two things that go together! Excessively rare. £685

WCom-9390: Fascinating Commonwealth Hammered Silver Halfgroat. Struck 1649-60. A centrally struck, problem-free attractive coin being much above average. Fascinating because although it purports to be S.R. 3221, this coin is in fact a charming and highly collectable contemporary counterfeit. The obverse die has been sunk very shallow with blurry detail in order to give the appearance of a worn coin (a clever device that avoided any kind of scrutiny because the coin looks to have been in circulation for years) whereas in actual fact, there is very little wear at all to this coin. The reverse die is the opposite - very little wear and not pretending to have any. I wonder if the counterfeiter ever intended these two dies to become bedfellows?! Looking closer at the reverse, the obvious feature is the significant die break - this is absolutely not damage to the coin (the crack was and is not in the coin, rather just the strike) and would not have been an intentional feature of the coin. The die simply cracked but the counterfeiters stuck with it to get their money's worth out of it, which may well answer the question as to why these two disparate dies were used to make one coin. The cross hatching to the left shield is rudimentary and naive, yet charming. The harp has x7 strings but again, there's that appealing childlike crudeness to the design. From the point of view of the individual who made this coin, with the specific intention of passing it into currency in order to probably double his outlay, it was a brave move because the penalty for such crimes in this general period was considerable (if an official moneyer at the mint was found to be doing something like this, the most extreme punishment would be the removal of his right hand) and under the Puritans, I can't see them being any less forgiving! From the point of view of today's collector, these are now highly prized - if nothing else, how on earth has this coin survived all the points in its timeline where it should have been removed and destroyed?! This July 2026 US auction witnessed a contemporary counterfeit of a Charles 1st Scottish twenty pence. The come-and-get-me $100 estimate was somewhat exceeded with 31 bids and a final price, after commission, of just over £900, illustrating just how sought-after these coins now are - much rarer than the real thing! A very nice coin from a particularly interesting period of British history and a coin that someone, in that very narrow date range of 1649-60 (obviously couldn't have been earlier and who in their right mind would even contemplate putting such a coin into Royalist Charles II circulation?) was willing to risk the loss of their right hand to do it. £395