Nap

4 hours ago, Roerbakmix said:

As each year, very, very nice. I tend to quickly scroll through your list, to 'absorb' it, and then read the text (which is, as always, well written and informative). Wonderful coins! I especially love the early Anglo Saxon types. 

I was wondering: do you have a website with all your coins listed? 

Thanks!

I do have my collection on the web here:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=38961

It's that time of year again.  December is usually a quiet coin month, diverting time to focus on the holidays, family, and the end of the year in retrospect, while looking forward to the New York International show in January.  I have managed to add a few pieces to my collection and wanted to share.  These are mostly medieval British coins- my main area of interest.

The earliest, and most significant, of my additions.  This is a gold Anglo-Saxon coin, a thrymsa, from ca. 630.  The obverse depicts a face without eyes, with a crescent shaped object under the neck, possibly a pallidum, and possibly meant to represent Bishop Mellitus, prior to his eviction from London.  The reverse shows a cross, with a distorted alpha-omega, and surrounding it in retrograde is the legend 'LONDVNIV', presumably the city of London.  London in the early 7th century was a bit different than the medieval metropolis it would later become.  It was the territory of the East Saxons, one of the petty kingdoms of England, and a people whose historical record is limited and who made no coins.  These gold coins were thought to originate in Kent, who exercised dominion over Essex.  London had a Christian presence in the early 7th century, and Mellitus was acclaimed bishop in 604.  However, the East Saxons kicked off the Kentish yoke in 616, reverting to the old Germanic religion, and giving Mellitus and company the boot.  Mellitus went into exile in France, but ultimately came back to England to become Archbishop of Canterbury in 619, where he remained for 5 years until his death.  London would not have a bishop until the 650s.  This coin is earlier, which is problematic.  If London was a pagan town, why such a Christian coin?  Three possible options-
1) The coin is dated wrong and is actually earlier, from 600-615, or later 650-660 (less likely)
2) The reference to London is wishful thinking, and the coin has nothing to do with the city other than naming it
3) The history is wrong and the Christian presence in the city continued, even without a named bishop, after Mellitus left the scene.

The face without eyes does evoke the consideration of blindness.  Blinding as a punishment was described in late Saxon times and probably goes back earlier.  Blindness also is a common trope in hagiographies.

This coin is unique as a type, but there are several others known from an old coin hoard with eyes and a more detailed face, and a non-retrograde legend, suggesting perhaps this is either a later derivative issue, or an earlier less detailed prototype.  The facing bust Anglo-Saxon gold coin is probably at least partly based on Merovingian and Visigothic pieces.

Another Anglo-Saxon gold coin, this one the so-called 'WUNEETTON' type.  The coin is thought to be a derivative of another type with a similar obverse, the 'WITMEN MONITA' type.  Both coins have a bust in profile with a trident-shaped object.  The name WUNEETTON makes no sense, and more likely the reverse inscription should read 'BETTONE MVNE', or Bettone the moneyer, an English copy of a Frankish coin, or perhaps the individual Bettone jumped across the channel to bring his skills to England.

Another Anglo-Saxon coin, this one a sceat, series K, with an interesting wolf on the reverse.  The creature, called a wolf, but perhaps a lion or some other fearsome creature, has a long tongue and seems to be wearing some sort of drapery, a wolf in clothes?  The Christian symbols feature prominently with a cross on both sides, but the wolf-man is certainly reminiscent of an older age.

An Anglo-Saxon sceat of the little-known Ælfwald II, who gets a short mention in Roger of Wendover's "Flores Historiarum" and a few other semi-contemporary pieces. He succeeded Eardwulf in 806, and only reigned 2 years. Eardwulf was restored to his kingdom with assistance from Charlemagne and the pope. Ælfwald’s fate after that is unknown.

There has been some debate as to whether this issue belongs to the first (779-788) or second king (806-808) named Ælfwald. There is some evidence with the style of the name of the moneyer Cutheard. Cutheard coined for Æthelred I, Eardwulf, and Eanred. On coins of Æthelred, his name is spelled "CVDHEARD", on Eardwulf it is spelled "CVDHEARD" or "CVDhEART", and on Eanred it is spelled "CVDHARD". On all coins of Ælfwald, the name is spelled "CVDhEART". This supports that the coins are more likely to be semi-contemporary to coins of Eardwulf, during whose reign the spelling seems to have changed. This fits better with an assignment to the second Ælfwald. For more detail, see Blackburn & Gillis, "A second coin of Eardwulf and the attribution of the moneyer coins of King Ælfwald" in BNJ 67.

But it remains possible that the coins are of the first Ælfwald. In that case, Ælfwald I would then be the king who first started placing moneyer names on the Northumbrian coins. In his sylloge, Stewart Lyon diplomatically left open both possibilities.

Coins of Ælfwald II are extremely rare. I would guess 25-30 known of Ælfwald/Cutheard, and another 3 or 4 known of Ælfwald/Cuthgils (another moneyer). I believe this example is almost certainly the finest one, at least in private hands.

A Mercian penny of the last independent king of Mercia, Ceolwulf II.

Ceolwulf, of uncertain parentage, but perhaps related to Ceolwulf I, brother of Coenwulf of Mercia, became king in 874 after Burgred was deposed by the Viking invaders. Ceolwulf was likely friendly to the Vikings, or at least willing to work with them. However, it is somewhat unlikely that he was a "foolish king's thane" as he is described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or a puppet of the Vikings. Even if he did submit, he likely was trying to save his kingdom in the only way possible. England was going up in flames from the large Scandinavian invasions, and even Wessex was teetering for a bit. The reason for the skepticism is partly based on coin finds- both Alfred of Wessex and Ceolwulf II of Mercia produced pennies of the same type- the cross and lozenge, and the "two emperors". The latter is an extremely rare type, only known from a few finds including several examples in the Watlington hoard. The two emperors, a copy of an old Roman motif that was also copied on a thrymsa from the 600s, might represent the two kings Alfred and Ceolwulf. As they both produced the same coin types, there was clearly monetary cooperation, and possibly political alliance. This would be unlikely to have occurred if Ceolwulf was nothing more than a figurehead and the Vikings were controlling the country. Thus it is likely that Ceolwulf was marginalized due to the West Saxon bias of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Ceolwulf's ultimate fate is not clear, presumably he died or was deposed within about 5 years. Mercia would never again have its own king.

A 1651 shilling of the Commonwealth of England, made by the milled press of Pierre Blondeau.

Milled coinage came slowly to the British Isles.  The first milled coinage was during the time of Queen Elizabeth, but the technology was not adopted and the mintmasters were arrested and hanged, possibly on spurious charges.  Change is hard.  Milled coinage returned during the Commonwealth period, using technology by the Frenchman Pierre Blondeau, who had previously worked at the Paris mint.  Blondeau produced shillings and halfcrowns in 1651, but only a few patterns, making this issue rather scarce.  The traditional moneyers were very opposed to the new machinery, and the hammered coinage was continued for another decade before the milled technology finally won out.

A somewhat quirky Hiberno-Norse penny, phase IV, with a facing bust in a pointy helmet, a whiskered face, and a garbled legend.  These coins were made in Ireland during the later parts of the 11th century, and imitate the late Saxon and early Norman coinage in England.  Phase 4 coins always have a "scratched die", essentially an 'X' that is crudely cut into the design.  On this coin, it is on the reverse, in the left upper quarter.  The bust is imitative of the facing bust coinage of Edward the Confessor, and the pointy helmet is also seen on English coins of Cnut and Edward.  The hat may be imitative of the helmets worn by the Kievan Rus, a design probably familiar in Scandinavia and the larger North Sea world.

Irish groat from time of Henry VI-Edward IV. The “anonymous” crown coinage was began in 1460, when Richard, Duke of York was gathering support for an invasion of England. Richard strong armed the Irish parliament to support the Yorkist claim, and this crown coinage was approved. But the Irish were being cautious. Rather than coining in the name of Richard, the claimant, or even of Henry, the king, the coinage names nobody and just has a large crown on the obverse. The result is a very distinct and unusual coinage. A groat and penny were coined. The groat has survived in greater numbers than the penny, but is still quite rare.

Later, another crown coinage would be produced naming Edward IV, once the Yorkist claim was established

I will say that this coin is my daughter's very favorite coin in our collection!

A Merovingian denier naming Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace of Neustria

The Merovingian dynasty of early medieval France is frequently remembered for the Roi fainéant, literally the "do nothing kings". The dynasty's legacy of weak monarchs, a fractured kingdom due to the tradition of dividing inheritance, duplicity, and fratricide, make the Merovingians an unfortunate footnote in history as the hapless predecessors of the great early medieval French kings- Pepin the Short and his son Charlemagne.

Of course, the Merovingians were probably not that bad, and the dynasty ruled over a significant empire in western Europe for about 300 years, from about 450-750, during some very turbulent times. Sadly, sources are limited and generally hostile. But the Merovingians went out with a whimper. They did not fall to the Huns, or the great conquests of Islam, or even a rival European state. Rather the fall was internal, these monarchs were gradually replaced by a new dynasty of unrelated leaders, who initially worked behind the scenes as advisors, and ultimately became the kings themselves.

The office of "Mayor of the Palace" was the head of the king's household, and thus a very prestigious and influential position. But as time went on, it became even more powerful, and by the mid 7th century was essentially the power behind the throne. The Frankish kingdoms, of which Austrasia and Neustria were the most important, each had their own mayors. The position, once an appointment by the king or election by the nobles, became an inherited title.

Some of these mayors dreamed of more. In the 650s, Grimoald was the mayor of the palace of Austrasia. He strong-armed the Merovingian king Sigebert to adopt his (Grimoald's) son and make him his heir, disinheriting Sigebert's own son in an attempt to wrest power. However, though the Merovingian dynasty was dying, it wasn't dead quite yet. Grimoald was ultimately unsuccessful, but the blueprint was there.

One of these mayors was called Ebroin. Ebroin, mayor of the palace of Neustria, would avoid the mistakes of Grimoald. He would not try to depose the monarch. He would not attempt to make himself or family king. But in all practical sense, Ebroin was the ruler. The kings of Neustria during his time as mayor were young and purposely sidelined. Ebroin controlled all trade and movement through the country, as glumly noted by travelers. Ebroin expanded Neustria's and his own dominance over Burgundy. The Merovingian kings continued to rule, but by now were really the Roi fainéant.

Ebroin is also thought to be the first mayor to issue coins in his name. Merovingian coinage is a complex field, with a robust and varied coinage issued under many different authorities, in many locations, and of gold, silver, and base metal. There are a few rare coins in the names of kings, but most Merovingian era coins depict only the names of the moneyer and the mint. Some are uninscribed, some hopelessly blundered, others uninterpretable.

(As an aside, collecting Merovingian coins is a great labor of love. Many sources are in French of course, but more challenging is that the sources are very old, and the categorization is generally by location rather than by monarch or time period. And there are literally thousands of different varieties, types, and mints. If you have an unidentified coin, and cannot easily read the inscription, it can be a nightmare to try to figure anything out about it. And of course the coins are not cheap)

The coinage traditionally assigned to Ebroin is an inscribed silver coinage with a right facing bust on one side, with or without the moneyer's name, and a large E on the reverse, with the letters inside BRO/INO. The inscription being thus EBROINO for Ebroin. It can't be proven that Ebroin is the same Ebroin who was mayor of the palace 658-673, and 675-680/681. However, it is strongly suggested based on the find of one of these coins in the Bais treasure hoard, that it fits into this time period. Additionally, the other Ebroin coin has a second name on the obverse, presumably the moneyer. If the moneyer's name is already on the coin, then the other inscription would necessarily be the mint or the ruler. As Ebroin is not the name of a mint town, it is generally presumed to be the ruler.

Grierson and Blackburn, in Medieval European Coinage vol I, noted that two coins of Ebroin were known, one in the national collection of France and plated in Belfort (B 3460), with the name of the moneyer Rodemarus, and the second in the national collection of Germany from the Bais treasure hoard (Bais 99). This latter coin is nearly identical to mine. It is possible that this coin is only the third known coin of Ebroin, though there could be others. There are also similar coins which have the same large "E" or "ER" on the reverse, but without spelling out the name Ebroin. These may be attributed to the mayor as well, but it's not certain.

Interestingly, none of the other mayors of the palace issued coins, which has always injected some doubt as to the attribution of this coin. There have been dubious attributions of other coins to Charles Martel, or Pepin the Short (before he became king), but these have always been speculative, lacking appropriate inscriptions.

Eventually, the most powerful mayor, Pepin the Short, would get rid of the last Merovingian king and become king of France himself, starting the Carolingian dynasty.

An American coin, oh my!  I am an American, but I haven't added a US coin to my collection in over a decade.  However, this type was always on my wishlist.  It is an Oak Tree shilling, from the 1660s.  The coin is inscribed "MASATHUSETS" and dated 1652.  It was not produced in 1652 though.  Rather, the coin was made in the early 1660s and backdated.  This was because Massachusetts was an English colony and did not have any sort of royal charter or assent to produce its own coinage.  So the coinage was illegal.  However, it was backdated to 1652 as during the 1650s, England had been a Commonwealth, and there was no king.  After the restoration in 1660, more formal control over the colonies was exerted.  A story exists, perhaps apocryphal, that the issue of the illegal Massachusetts coinage was brought to king Charles II himself.  Charles was apparently shown one of these coins, and asked about it.  He was told by a flattering courtier that the tree on the obverse represented the "Royal Oak".  The Royal Oak was the tree that Charles had hid in while escaping from his defeat at the battle of Worcester in 1651.  Charles apparently was tickled by this, called the Massachusetts colonists a "parcel of honest dogs", and decided not to prosecute the illegal coinage for a time.

Sorry if a little long winded.  Thanks for reading!

1 hour ago, Roerbakmix said:

Was this coin recognised by the finder? It makes you wonder what kind of battered rarities exist in the ‘to identify’ heaps of coins…

The coin was not recognized for what it was.  It was misidentified initially on a Facebook group before I noticed it for what it was.  I encouraged the finder to record the find with the Early Medieval Corpus, which confirmed the identification.  The finder was not expecting it to be rare or have much value, and he offered me first dibs if/when he decided to sell, which he recently did.

This is how it should look- an intact specimen from the British Museum

Photo courtesy of British Museum Collection

Congrats on the birth of your son!!

The coin is very nice, has a natural patina free from the harsh cleaning so often seen with these late Anglo-Saxon pieces.

Hopefully you are getting a little sleep!  Congrats again!  Don't worry, in a few short years you'll be able to share the hobby with him.

The northern Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria was conquered by a massive invading army in 867, leading to the deaths of two Northumbrian kings- Osberht and Aella, and the conquest of York.  York, called Jorvik, remained in Viking hands for nearly 100 years.  During that time, a series of Norwegian and Irish Scandinavian kings held power, raided, traded, feuded, and fought against England and Scotland.

These Anglo-Viking rulers are true historic figures, but are also legendary.  They did exist.  Their successes and defeats, and their deaths, are recorded in English chronicles.  Many, if not most of them issued coins that survive to today.  But the sagas are where these characters get fleshed out, in probably apocryphal stories of Eric involving fratricide, betrayal, witchcraft, and Odin's hall at Valhalla.

Eric the historic figure was probably a son of Harald, first king of Norway.  Eric would ultimately succeed his father in 932, possibly after killing his half-brothers, but was unpopular in Norway and was run out of town after a short time.  Eric's half-brother Haakon would succeed him in Norway.

Eric went on to live the life of a Viking for some time, raiding in the North Sea.  The sagas have him going everywhere, from Norway to Spain and much in between.  But other than these stories, Eric disappears from history for a time.

During this time the northern English kingdom of Northumbria was being ruled by a series of Viking warlords whose power base was in Ireland.  Many of these were like Eric, who essentially had no political prospects in Scandinavia.  These Vikings, the Ui Imair, who were supposedly descendants of Ivar the Boneless (probably more of spiritual rather than bloodline successors), ruled over territories in England, Ireland, and Scotland for the better part of a century.

Eric eventually became associated with these Norse-Gaels, and seems to have been living in Northumbria.  The political winds of Northumbria had been shifting in the early 10th century, and defeats in battle had greatly weakened the power of the king Anlaf Guthfrithsson.  After his death, another similarly named king, Anlaf Sihtricsson, took over.  The English king, Eadmund, somewhat weak in his position at first, took to recognizing Anlaf as king of York, but with renewed Saxon fortunes these niceties were discarded.  Eadmund was able to bring in an ally in Malcolm of Scotland, and Anlaf was given the boot.

However, rather than submit to West Saxon control, the Northumbrians "chose Eric for their king".  This suggests West Saxon control was still very shaky and given the distances, most northern English weren't that worried about invasion and conquest.  Now Eric was king of Northumbria.  At first things went ok.  The Scots seems to have decided not to get involved.  However, Eadmund was not ok with this situation.  He ultimately gathered an army and headed north.  The Northumbrians kicked out Eric less than a year after he became king, and made nice with Eadmund.

But Eric was nothing if not tenacious.   After his removal, the Saxons lost interest and things in York started to break down. Anlaf Sihtricsson, came back from Ireland to take charge again. Eric subsequently returned to the scene, defeated the Scots, kicked out Anlaf (again), and became king of York a second time in 952.

Eric's time was finally running out though. In 954 he was killed, likely in battle against England. Ultimately, he was the last of the Viking kings of York. Northumbria was finally absorbed into the English realm.

Eric's story is well recorded in the sagas, and there are a number of colorful details that are probably apocryphal. Eric might have been betrayed by a retainer, who had him assassinated. Eric's nickname "bloodaxe" is a colorful nickname that has survived, and presumably had to do with either his prowess in battle, or his murder of his family.  Eric's wife, Gunhilde, is depicted as a sorceress.

Coins of Eric are very rare, due to the brevity of his reigns, but are known from at least 30 examples.  These are generally divided into first and second reign, depending on the presence of a sword on the obverse.  Generally the sword coins are assigned to Eric's second reign, and those without the sword to his first.  They are similarly rare.  Known from some early finds, including a few hoards, very few recent single finds have turned up.  It is thought that the sword coinage is from Eric's second reign, and hearkens back to earlier Viking Northumbrian coinage in the name of Sihtric and St. Peter that also features the sword.

I hope the story was enjoyable, because unfortunately the coin will not be 🙂

This is the poorest coin I have ever bought, it is horribly fragmented representing maybe 40% of the coin, barely legible, bent, dirty, porous.  Quite abysmal.  But it is a sword type of Eric Bloodaxe, a coin I never thought I would obtain.  Less than 20 are known, with the majority being in museums, and at least somewhat damaged,

Penny of Eric "Bloodaxe", king of Northumbria
Second reign (952-954)
Moneyer: Ingelgar
Mint: York
S. 1030
O: [E]RI[C] // REX (sword dividing)
R: [INGEL]GA[R]
Found Driffield, East Yorkshire.  EMC 2022.0390

Great coins.  The series E silver coins are a large and varied series that presumably were made for quite some time, presumably in Frisia, but almost certainly with English imitative types.  The degenerated bust "porcupine" probably had good recognition in many areas, and was happily accepted for trade in England and the continent.

I don't have a G5 type, after all it's excessively rare.

Here is a G4 "XAZA"

Here is a series E with the reverse "sunburst" (supposed to be a stepped cross but degenerated into a sunburst)

Here is the Aethiliraed type

Here is a series E with a funky reverse I haven't seen previously

Here is a series T with the porcupine reverse and a bust that reads "DE LVNDONIA" or "from London".  The reverse reads "SCORVM" and it is related to the "MONITA SCORUM" type (which is probably meant to say "MONITA SANCTORVM" or "money of the Saints"

Here is a SEDE type with the quilled serpent, related to the "porcupine"

And another related type, with a Celtic cross with roundels on the reverse

Those last two are almost certainly English, as is the one that names London, suggesting the "porcupine" design got around.

15 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

A really interesting coin. Surely, it must definitely be an imitation of "BETTONE MVNE".

I discussed this with Arent Pol and he agreed (and had of course already come to this same conclusion).

17 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I see this coin went for £19,000 (about £23,500 total). There are not many people with big collections of Saxon gold.

Sadly, the cost of playing makes building a good set extremely challenging.  I did not buy the York thrymsa from Spink, it went for more than I could do.  It also made more than I had offered the guy, so he made the right call to consign I guess, but you never know at auction.

I'm making some progress but each addition hurts!  The coins actually have been easier to find than they should be, given how rare they are.  Just a good number of them sold in the last few years.  My plan is to keep my examples off the market for a while though.

Here is another coin that has been called "Ultra-Crondall"

Called the "Wuneetton" type, this coin is probably really an English imitation of a Frankish coin "BETTONE MVNE".  It also has similarity to the Witmen type, also with a trident before the face.

Coins in the names of Merovingian kings are all very rare.  The Banassac issues of Charibert II and Sigibert III are perhaps the most common, and maybe the issues of Chlothar II.  But even these are quite rare.

Here is my only regal issue, of Charibert II, king of Aquitaine 629-632.  The king's name is on the reverse.

On 10/5/2022 at 10:10 AM, John Conduitt said:

Spink have a Paulinus (Bishop of York) thrymsa in their upcoming auction. It's an Ultra Crondall coin i.e. from the same time as, but not in, the Crondall Hoard. The estimate is £10,000-12,000, so it's not for everyone 🤣

I was in negotiation to buy this coin from the finder, but he backed out.  Oh well.  Guess he figures he will do better at auction.

In 1828 a hoard of gold coins was found in the small town of Crondall, in Hampshire, England.  This hoard of nearly 100 coins, plus some blanks and a plated forgery, contained the largest amount of early English gold coins ever found in one place.  Even though it has been over 200 years, it remains the only large hoard of these coins found, and in 2022 still contains the majority of the coins of this era that are known.

The coins were owned by the landowner for more than 50 years, until they were sold to the prominent British collector Lord Grantley.  They were auctioned with the rest of his collection in the 1940s, but sold as a single lot.  The British firm Baldwin’s bought the coins and sold them to the Ashmolean museum in Oxford at cost.  The coins remain in the Ashmolean to this day.  Three coin blanks and the plated forgery were lost, but the rest of the coins remain together, a remarkable feat of a hoard almost 200 years old.

The coins are called thrymsas, or tremisses, but the name is probably not contemporary.  Most likely these would have been called shillings or gold pennies.

There are few old hoards that not only represent the material, but also are nearly the only evidence of their coins’ existence.  This is one.  Apart from some single finds, these coins would otherwise be unknown.  It is not an exaggeration to say that the majority of the early thrymsas are only known from this hoard.

It was once postulated that the hoard represented a wergeld, the price paid for a slain freeman.  But this theory no longer holds much interest.  The reason for the hoard is uncertain, but like most hoards it was probably concealment of wealth during a turbulent time.  What a great loss this purse would have been!

Not all of the coins in the hoard were English.  Some were Merovingian or Frisian.  But the majority were English and can be divided into 12 types, thought to be almost certainly of Anglo-Saxon manufacture:

1. Abbo, imitating a Frankish moneyer
2. Witmen moneta, coinage in the name of a moneyer, and it’s derivatives
3. Eadbald, king of Kent
4. LONDVINIV, a facing bust
5. London-derived, a similar idea to the above but with the portrait in profile
6. LEMC, a funky abstract bust reminiscent of Celtic artwork, and those 4 letters on the reverse
7. EAN, a regal bust but with an indecipherable partial name
8. Bust/Lond, with the letters LOND on an otherwise uninterpretable reverse
9. Licinius, a high quality imitation of a Roman coin
10. Bust/cross on steps, a high gold content type with a cross on steps on the reverse
11. Cross/cross, a geometric type of small diameter with two crosses
12. Bust/cross, another type with cross on reverse

The purpose and origin of these various types is not clear.   Only one has an interpretable inscription- that of Eadbald of Kent, which gives us a date range but it is unfortunately fairly large- 616-640.  It is known that Eadbald was born Christian, reverted to the traditional Germanic religion, then became a Christian once more some time after he became king, thus we tend to date the coins to the 630-640 range.  The coins are thought to be of a similar era but do differ somewhat in metal content.  This difference is however even seen in coins from the same die pairing, so it is perhaps less useful to interpret the coinage.  Several other types are known which may be contemporary with the Crondall coins, but for whatever reason were not in the hoard.

So what we are left with is an interesting group of coins with funky imagery, loosely connected to southern England and in particular to the petty kingdom of Kent, but without clear evidence of strong central royal or ecclesiastical control over mintage.  All packaged on a ~11mm flan and weighing just a hair above 1g.

To collect thrymsas of this era is a very challenging task, and will quickly deplete your wallet.  Even with all the money in the world, these coins are near impossible to find.  Of the above types, only the Witmen type has more than 10 examples out there for collectors.  Thus this is quite possibly the greatest challenge for any collector of English coins, to put together any sort of representative collection of these coins. Other coins may be more expensive, but few have such rarity as a type.

Several types are unobtainable.  There are no examples of the coins of Abbo, LEMC, Licinius, bust/Lond, or bust/cross outside of the Crondall hoard.  Most of the other types, again excepting the Witmen type, are known from 5 or less examples in private hands.  Other than the Witmen type, itself not a common occurrence, an appearance of an early thrymsa at an auction is definitely going to attract attention and many competitive bidders.

I did not discuss the later pale gold thrymsa varieties, some of which are considerably more common and appear with greater frequency at auctions (there are a few very rare varieties of these too).  These include the PADA and 2-emperor types.  Will try to discuss these at a later time.

My collection has three Crondall era coins- the LONDVNIV, EAN, and Witmen types.  The LONDVNIV is unique outside of the museum, the EAN is one of two in private hands, although the other (a recent find) is likely to be called treasure and probably will end up in a museum.  The Witmen is the only one that can be considered “common”, with probably 20-30 or so in private hands.

While I hope to add more, realistically that will be challenging with the rarity and significant cost to acquire the other types.  But to be temporary steward for these mysterious artifacts of the dark ages is extremely gratifying.
 

Witmen type, S.753

LONDVNIV type, S.757

EAN type, S.759

Here are the speculative coins of “Hoaud” and “Beorn”

”HOAVD RE”

”BEOM RE”

Here is my set of coins of the kingdom of Northumbria, the northern Anglo-Saxon kingdom.

Aldfrith 685-704

Eadberht 737-758

Aethelwald Moll 759-765

Alchred 765-774

Aethelred I (1st reign) 774-779

Aelfwald I 779-788

Aethelred II (2nd reign) 790-796

Eardwulf (1st reign?) 796-806

Aelfwald II (?) 806-808

Eanred 810-841

Aethelred II (1st reign) 841-843

Redwulf 844

Aethelred II (2nd reign) 844-849

Osberht 849-867

There are no known coins for the kings between Aldfrith and Eadberht (Eadwulf, Osred I, Coenred, Osric, or Ceolwulf)

Similarly there are no known coins for some of the short lived monarchs of the turbulent late 8th century- Oswulf, Osred II, or Osbald.  There are no known coins of Osberht’s rival Aella.  And there are no known coins after Osberht, when the Vikings took over and installed puppet leaders.  The reason for the cessation of coinage for 30 years until ~895 in Northumbria is not clear.

There are coins that seem to be naming some otherwise unknown individual, such as Hoaud or Beorn, and some suggesting the name Aella, but these are irregular issues, and almost certainly there was no king Hoaud.

There were 4 coins “found” in a monastery excavation in the 19th century in the name of Ecgfrith (670-685) but these were determined to be forgeries.

Also, coins of Aelfwald II are disputed, they may have been made during the time of Aelfwald I, and the so-called Aelfwald II, who is only mentioned in passing in one source, might not have been a distinct king.

It is not known whether Eardwulf’s coins were made during his first or second reign, but there are only 8 known so it hardly matters!  As his second reign is disputed the coins are generally assigned to the first reign.

The coin of Aethelwald Moll is also a great rarity, one of only 4 known.  For many years this chipped example was the only one known.  A few others were found in the last 30 years.  This particular coin was first published in 1841 with an accompanying hand drawing; the coin was already chipped then so it is easily recognizable.

It is interesting that the Northumbrian series, with its major rarities, also includes the most common coins of Anglo-Saxon times- the stycas of Eanred and Aethelred II.  Thousands of coins of these two monarchs have been found, and continue to be unearthed, including several massive hoards at Hexham, Bolton Percy, and York.

It seems that the Northumbrian coinage production had a great deal of fluctuation in terms of production.  There are several hundred coins known of Aethelred I’s 6-year 2nd reign, by 5 different moneyers, but there are only 8 coins known of Eardwulf’s 10-year reign, all by the same one moneyer.  By the time of Eardwulf’s son Eanred, coin production ramped up a ton and 20 different moneyers worked for him, with thousands of coins known.  Redwulf, only king for less than a year, had 10 different moneyers working for him, and while his coins are scarce they are not that hard to come by.

I am not aware of extant coins naming any other Northumbrian kings besides the ones I have shown.

30 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

That leaves us:

Scotland: Mary I of Scots, Robert III, Robert II, Robert I, John Balliol, Alexander II, William I, Malcolm IV

England post-Alfred: Mary (sole reign), Henry VI (2nd reign), Harold II, Harold I, Edmund II Ironside/Aethered II 2nd Reign, Cnut, Edgar, Eadred, Æthelstan, (Æthelflæd), Edward the Elder, plus all the Viking issues in York and East Anglia.

Before that are a few other attributed Saxon coins (except Burgred, Aethelwulf, Eadwald and Offa), Northumbria (except Redwulf), the Romans and the Celts (except Cunobelin).

Londinium: Allectus, Constantius I, Severus II, Constantine I and Magnus Maximus.

I can add in a few but I’ll wait to see what else pops up.

I do not have Malcolm IV or Robert the Bruce of Scotland.  I also do not have Harold II of England.  I am missing most of the Vikings.  And of course there are some rare coins of petty rulers of Saxon England that continue to elude me.

I don't want this thread to be too much of me showing off coins, but I can give you a few more of the more challenging missing ones:

Alfred the Great, king of Wessex 871-899
Nonportrait penny, Buga (or Boga) the moneyer

Ceolwulf II, king of Mercia 874-879
Penny, probably from London, Leofwald the moneyer

Eadwig, king of England 955-959
Nonportrait penny, possibly from Lincoln, Eanwulf the moneyer

Edward the Martyr, king of England 975-978
Penny, Canterbury mint, Aethelstan the moneyer

David I, king of Scotland 1124-1153
Penny, Carlisle mint, Erebald the moneyer
(A rough coin but extremely rare as the very first Scottish coin, copying Henry I type XV, only about a dozen known)

Problem with Louis is that even his French coins are tough to narrow down. The denier tournois was issued during his reign and the reign of Louis IX, and they can’t currently be distinguished.  I read somewhere (?) that the deniers reading “TVRONVS CIVI” should be assigned to Louis VIII and this reading “TVRONVS CIVIS” to Louis IX but I don’t think this is widely accepted.  My knowledge of French coinage is limited.

But here is my coin that I attribute to Louis VIII in my attempt to have every monarch:

Aelfweard, Edgar Aetheling, and Jane Grey certainly issued no coins.  Neither did Aethelbald, who was sub-king under Aethelwulf of Wessex.  Fantasy pieces or alterations of coins are known for Aethelbald and Jane Grey, and perhaps the others.

Edmund II is a more curious case.  While he was disputed, he was accepted as king in much of Wessex.  He was around for 6 months.  He had an army to pay.  Why did he not issue any coins of his own?  Certainly some coins of Aethelred II last small cross type were issued during Edmund’s time.

Sven Forkbeard is another one.  The Viking chieftain too was accepted as king of England but was only on the scene for a little over a month, so no coins of his are known.  A tiny number of Scandinavian coins survive in his name (I’m only aware of 3 or 4 known) and several imitation coins of Aethelred II can be assigned “time of Sven” but that’s it.

Here are some Scottish.  James I-V.

James I, king of Scotland 1406-1437

James II, king of Scotland 1437-1460

James III, king of Scotland 1460-1488

James IV, king of Scotland 1488-1513

James V, king of Scotland 1513-1542

With 5 consecutive kings of the same name, all descended from each other, all with relatively long reigns, one might think this was a peaceful, stable time for Scotland.  No such luck.  Despite their long reigns, the James’ all died prematurely, often violently, and there was considerable instability, internally and externally.

While it’s somewhat tragic, the circumstances of their deaths are memorable.

James I was assassinated in his home.  He had warning of the assassin, and might have gotten away, except that his basement exit was locked to prevent people from stealing his tennis balls.

James II was a big fan of artillery.  Sadly, the technology was still somewhat dangerous, and James was blown up by one of his own cannons during a siege.

James III died in battle, fighting against his own subjects who wanted to overthrow him in favor of his son, the future James IV.  James IV was probably a pawn of the barons, but at 15 years old, he was not a babe in the woods.  Later, James IV would greatly regret his role in his father’s death and would wear a heavy chain in penance.

James IV was the last king of the British Isles to die in battle, at the disastrous battle of Flodden, against the English.

James V died shortly after the battle of disastrous battle of Solway Moss, also against the English, not from battle wounds but from disease.  James’ wife was pregnant and gave birth shortly before his death.  James, who was dying, when hearing that his wife had given birth to a daughter, was said to have remarked that the Stuarts “began with a lass and will end with a lass”, referring to Marjorie Bruce, his ancestor, and Mary, soon to be known as Mary queen of Scots, his daughter.

To end on a slightly more positive note, James V was prematurely wrong about the fate of the house of Stuart.  His daughter, Mary queen of Scots, was a remarkable woman who parried the long knives always at her back for her entire life, until finally her cousin Queen Elizabeth (who was supposed to be her protector) did her in.  But it did not end with Mary.  Her son, James VI, would end up sitting on both the English and Scottish thrones.  And James VI would finally break the cycle and die of natural causes.

Here are a few of the tougher missing ones:

Matilda, queen of England (disputed), 1139-1148
Penny, Bricmer on Cardiff

Henry IV, king of England 1399-1413
Fourpence groat, London

Edward V, king of England, 1483
Fourpence groat, London

Richard III, king of England 1483-1485
Fourpence groat, London

Some more that I like:

Henry I, king of England 1100-1135
Penny, Wulfgar on London

Edward I, king of England, 1272-1307
Fourpence groat, London

Henry VIII, king of England 1509-1547
Testoon (or shilling), London

Charles I, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1625-1649
Fourpence groat, Oxford, Rawlins cartouche declaration type

9 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

You have a lot of great coins for this.

I haven't excluded the Celts - but they add about 60 more kings, many of whom aren't certainly kings, so it's a bit of an undertaking. The Romans are easy if you stick to those who struck coins in Britain, which is about a dozen or so, although Magnus Maximus is a huge problem. I collect the other emperors too (who didn't strike coins in Britain) but only where the coins were found in Britain. It isn't too bad as I only collect emperors who had any authority in Britain, so I don't worry about all the expensive usurpers and stop around AD400.

Magnus Maximus is one of the few Roman coins I own 🙂

He is a towering figure in British mythology, even though he was just a minor usurper in Roman history.

The Roman coins from London are rather expensive relative to other mints.  I also don't really care that much about collecting the various mints.  If I was to put together a Roman set, I would also start with the emperors that had a connection to Britain, such as Claudius, Septimius Severus, Constantius Chlorus, etc.

Redwulf, king of Northumbria, 848

Offa, king of Mercia, 757-796

Eadwald, king of East Anglia, 798

Aethelwulf of Wessex, 839-858

William I "the Conqueror", king of England 1066-1087

This is a topic close to my heart, as I am attempting such a thing, a set of all the rulers of the British Isles, including England, Ireland, and Scotland.  I have set my limits at coins of the Anglo-Saxons until the present day.  I have been resisting adding the Celtic coins, mostly because if I start with Celtic, I feel there is an obligation to then add Roman coins, who were the overlords of Britain after the Celts, from the time of Claudius all the way to Honorius.  And that makes the collection a bit too large and unwieldly, and loses the British focus.  So I decided to start with Saxon, though I may eventually consider adding coins of the Celtic tribes.  I suppose Celtic alone could be added without Roman, it just might feel a little disjointed.

I calculated a total of 138 different rulers of the British Isles from Saxon times to today who issued coins.  Some are disputed, such as Louis VIII of France or Matilda.  Some are regnant consorts, such as Philip II of Spain, husband of Mary, but who maybe shouldn't be considered a "king".   Some are Viking warlords who may have taken the name of king, but really were probably tribal leaders.  I did not include any of the bishops or barons who issued coins, that would bring the total number higher.

Of that 138 rulers, I currently have 103.  Several I will never obtain as they are so rare, the only known examples are in museums (such as Beorhtric of Wessex).  Some of the Saxon petty kings may ultimately be prohibitively expensive, such as Eric Bloodaxe, Viking king of York, or Eadbald, king of Kent.  But the search continues.

I'll post a few of my favorites.  This thread has so far been showing modern-ish coins, so I'll post a few older ones.

Here's a short cross of Henry II.  I have a Tealby but it's wretched and I don't even have a photo.

Both the coin and the pic have some issues.  But it's the placeholder for now.

There was an absolutely fantastic Tealby once offered on a dealer's web site, it was well struck and legible, and even had red wax from prior photography.  Photography of a Tealby years ago was almost unheard of (they were usually lumped into multi-coin lots)- this was a special coin.  But it was expensive.  And while I thought about it, someone else bought it.  Sigh.  But there are a small handful of good ones out there!