Which is England's Worst Ever Coin?

[John Conduitt]

It wasn’t meant to be this way. I’ve been searching for a Henry II Tealby penny for some time now. I’ve rejected many examples while looking for a portrait with enough face to be a recognisable person, sufficient legend to identify mint and moneyer, and a flan that isn’t so battered, bent and gouged as to look like something that just fell out of an exploding engine. At some point I’ll have to up my budget to get such a coin. Tealby pennies have been called England’s worst coins for a reason.

Somehow, despite my fussiness, I ended up with a Tealby anyway, and not of the standard I’d hoped for. It came with a group lot I bought for a completely different coin, which is often the way I’m forced to get coins I’m procrastinating over. I presume this coin wasn’t the reason anyone bid on the lot.

At their best, Tealby’s are hauntingly beautiful. The king’s face peers out of darkened silver like Macbeth’s ghost. The legends look like they were chiselled in rock at the beginning of time. The dark flans are smooth and uneven and spent a while in Mount Doom. Not mine. It has deep, lush toning that gives off the Dark Ages vibe, but that’s where its beauty ends.

Henry II Cross-and-Crosslets Class A? B? C? D? E? F? Tealby Penny, 1158-1180

England. Silver, 21mm, 1.37g. Facing crowned bust holding sceptre to left; hENRI REX. Large cross pattée, crosses in angles; mint and moneyer (S 1337-42). Found near Llanferres, Denbighshire.

Of the 6 Tealby classes, I have absolutely no idea which it is. I can make out three rather refined fleurs on the crown, which might point to an earlier class, but the traces of mantle seem to suggest only it isn’t Class A. I’ve no chance of even guessing a mint or moneyer.

If anyone has a nicer Tealby (in other words, has any Tealby), please post it.

But is the Tealby really England's worst coin? I've added a poll to see whether Numisforums members agree. If you're wondering why most of the choices are medieval, that's because the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Georgians and almost everyone else made some effort to make their coins presentable. The other contenders are:

Stephen and Matilda Pennies

The Normans were terrible coin makers. Stephen was particularly bad, but he had the excuse that he was involved in a vicious civil war. With the centre of power moving about, coins were struck at regional mints, and were awful. His rival Matilda also struck terrible coins. I don't have one of Matilda or Stephen's regional coins, not least because they cost thousands for a barely identifiable scrap of metal. In terms of value for money, they surely are the worst. This is one of Stephen's better issues.

Stephen Voided Cross and Stars Cut Halfpenny, 1145-1150

London. Silver, 20mm, 0.69g. Crowned facing bust holding sceptre; +(STIEFNE). Voided cross with a star in each angle; (ALISAND?)R:ON:LVN (S 1280). Ex David Rogers. From the Wicklewood (Norfolk) Hoard 1989, EMC 1200.1105.

Richard I Class 4 Penny

Few of the shortcross series could be considered beautiful, but it's incredible the moneyers got away with depicting Richard I as they did. Class 4 pennies have been described as the most degenerate and some of the ugliest coins ever struck in England. The coin below is a more attractive Class 3.

Richard I the Lionheart Class 3ab2 Penny, 1190-1194

London. Silver, 1.40g. Crowned facing bust with sceptre to the left, 7 pearls to crown, whiskers made up of small curls up side of face; ҺЄNRICVS R ЄX. Voided short cross with quatrefoils of pellets in angles within inner beaded circle; WILLELM · ON · LV (moneyer Willelm) (S 1347; SCBI Mass 812, this coin). Ex Professor Jeffrey P Mass. From the Wainfleet (Lincolnshire) Hoard 1990, 380 short cross pennies and 3 halfpennies deposited before 1205.

Posthumous Henry III Penny

Henry III improved the quality of England’s coinage to the point it became the preferred currency in Europe. But just after he died, Edward I was on crusade and coins were churned out at such a rate it seems they didn’t have time to cut new dies when they wore out. The resulting coins are horrible.

Henry III Posthumous Issue (under Edward I) Class 6 Long Cross Penny, 1272-1275

Bury St Edmunds. Silver, 18mm, 1.53g. Crude bust holding sceptre with III to left, naturalistic hair curls like an Edward I bust; no initial mark, legend begins at 11 o'clock; HENRICVS REX III. Long cross; ION- O(N)-SAN-TAD. (S 1377). From the Colchester II Hoard 1969.

Debased Tudor Pennies

The likes of Edward IV and Henry VI produced some nice coins, and with the introduction of the Henry VII portrait groat collectors of English hammered have coins of which they can be proud. With his characterful visage, Henry VIII made some of England’s most memorable coins. But he was such a war-monger the need for funds meant the currency became horribly debased. This legacy was carried into the reigns of his children until Elizabeth I did something about it. Consequently, low denomination Tudor coins are often pretty ghastly. It took me a long time to find a Philip and Mary penny even as nice as this.

Philip and Mary Base Issue Penny, 1554-1558

Tower. Base silver, 15mm, 0.65g. Central Tudor rose within beaded circle; P Z M D G ROSA SINE SPI. Quartered shield of arms over cross fourchée; CIVI TAS LON DON; mintmark half-rose and castle (S 2510A).

Charles I Halfcrown

Perhaps it was because he was another monarch embroiled in a civil war, but Charles I seemed to have a lot of trouble getting his portrait struck clearly on his silver coins. Because of the war, huge numbers of coins were hoarded and these, you’d think, would survive in great condition. But no.

The halfcrown should be one of the most impressive of all English coins. It’s a large beast with a majestic depiction of Charles riding into battle. But it always comes out flat, with most of the horse lost as if in heavy fog. It might not be quite as unattractive as some of the other coins on the list, but it's a candidate for the worst because with all its promise, it’s such a disappointment.

Charles I Group 3a1 Halfcrown, 1636-1638

Tower. Silver, 15.02g. King on horseback left with scarf flying from waist, sword upright, larger horse, mintmark tun over crown; CAROLVS DG MA BR FR ET HI REX. Oval scroll garnished shield of arms; CHRISTO AVSPICE REGNO (S 2773). From the Bledington Manor House (Gloucestershire) Hoard c1910 of 11 halfcrowns.

Winston Churchill 1965 Crown

The only milled entry, the only commemorative and the only one from the ‘United Kingdom’, this makes the list not because it was made particularly badly but because it’s so hateful. Churchill was a sort of Boris Johnson of his day – a master blagger, full of soundbites but little else. He may have moved those listening to their radios at home, and jingoists today, but those fighting on the front line weren’t fooled. They voted him out as soon as they got back in one of the biggest voter swings of the century.

But whatever your views of the man, this coin is nasty, and there have been a lot of coins depicting Churchill. Here a soft-focus Churchill growls like the theatrical bulldog he thought himself to be in tacky caricature. The minimalist design and 1960s font give off a feeling of cheapness rather than stylishness while the copper-nickel fabric seems even worse than that of regular circulation coins. Nearly 20m were struck, which no-one wanted. If you want one, you’ll have to fork out 25p, but that’s because it’s still legal tender and that’s its face value.

Elizabeth II Churchill Crown, 1965

London. Cupronickel, 39mm, 28g. A sombre-looking portrait of Sir Winston Churchill, in a siren suit facing right; CHURCHILL. Young laureate bust of HM Queen Elizabeth II right, legend around, date below; ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA F·D· 1965 (S 4144). Photo from the British Museum.

Which do you think is the worst English coin? Have I missed anything dreadful?

Edited July 17, 2023 by John Conduitt

[expat]

I think you have demonstrated the issue very well. Hard to chose the worst of the worst, as the subject is not part of my collecting interests. The Tealby Penny though does tend to stand out as being conspicuously poor when you see them listed. As far as modern coinage goes, the Churchill is by far the worst.

As an aside, the Henry III Posthumous Issue (under Edward I) Class 6 Long Cross Penny, 1272-1275, I would be happy to have in my collection, purely because I am from Bury. St. Edmunds.

[JayAg47]

I gotta go with Churchill, at least the other coins have certain charm and they simply reflect the history as to why they look horrible. But the modern issue is just lackluster and horribly designed, when there's technology to make much better coins. And what a horrible human it represent, the guy responsible for Bengal famine that killed millions.

Edited July 17, 2023 by JayAg47

[JeandAcre]

Terrific OP on multiple fronts, @John Conduitt --very entertaining, just for one.  I didn't get any further than voting for the Churchill crown because it was the only milled, hence least interesting of the lot.  Except, Yeah, he was another racist b-----d.

But this Tealby was a true 'bucket list' coin.  With, I promise you, a price to match!  I'm going to be lazy and just paste it from the Time Period Game thread.

 

My only Henry II Tealby, besides cut halves.

Henry II, King of England 1154-1189.
AR penny of London, Cross-crosslet / ‘Tealby’ coinage, class A2 (c. 1158-1161).
Obv.  Henry facing, crowned, holding a sceptre surmounted by a cross in his right hand.  (His hand, and the jewelled left /right-hand edge of his cloak, extend to the lower part of the outer edge.)
[From 8 o’clock:]  +h[EN]rI rE[X] ANG  (‘HENRI REX ANG[LIE];’ Henry, King of England).
Rev.  Cross; St. Andrew’s crosslets in each angle.
[From 11 o’clock:]  +SWETM[AN ON L]VN  (‘SWETMAN ON LVN[DE];’  the moneyer Swetman, in London.)
North 952 /2 (and p. 218, ‘Tealby Coinage: Mints and Moneyers’), Spink 1137. 

(...Edit:) The portrait really is okay in hand.  Otherwise, I like it for being relatively early in the subseries, and for the moneyer's Scandinavian name.  Those show up even later than this; it's a cool indication of how long the assimilation process actually took.

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by JeandAcre

[DonnaML]

None of the above. It's any one of these abominations or 100 others just as bad, spewed out by the Royal Mint on a regular basis over the last 20+ years. If I wanted to be a stamp collector, I'd collect stamps.

This 2015 issue, imo, is worse artistically than the one from 1965:

 

[JayAg47]

Talking about dull coins, my top pick would be the Australian crown, seriously didn't they have anything better to represent Australia or even the royal family. I mean it's just a crown, c'mon you can do better! 

[JeandAcre]

@DonnaML, just, Yeccch!!!  The legend for the Churchill one should be, 'Objects in Mirror May Be Closer Than They Appear.'  As in, the scene in Jurassic Park.  The Snowman one (a great little animation, btw) is really revolting.  Cloying at best, even if it slams on the brakes just short of being downright creepy.  Peter Rabbit looks either sick or mentally disturbed.

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

None of the above. It's any one of these abominations or 100 others just as bad, spewed out by the Royal Mint on a regular basis over the last 20+ years. If I wanted to be a stamp collector, I'd collect stamps.

This 2015 issue, imo, is worse artistically than the one from 1965:

 

Yes those are horrible. I opened Pandora's box by including a commemorative 🤣 The 1965 one was at least 'circulating' and perhaps ramped up interest in such coins, so could be said to represent this whole phenomenon.

I suppose as collectors of medievals we rather like the poorly-made coins of 500 or 1000 years ago. They bear the scars of war and turmoil. Nothing could be more anathema than a colourised Peter Rabbit.

[Nap]

I have a number of the coins you mention, and many of them sure are ugly.

Stephen penny, Watford type, William at Canterbury

 

Matilda penny, Bricmer at Cardiff, especially ugly as it is broken into 3 pieces and repaired crudely (as were a number of coins in the Coed-y-Wenallt hoard)

 

Henry II penny, Tealby type, Nicole at Ipswich

 

Richard I, class 4b, Steven at London

 

Henry III posthumous penny, issued under Edward I, class 6, John at Bury St. Edmund

 

Edward VI debased penny, York

 

Charles I halfcrown, group III, under Parliament

 

There is much ugliness there!

One type I really don’t care for is the Charles I copper farthings.  They do not wear well.  The Commonwealth small change was poorly produced.  Even though the portrait of old Henry VIII is a classic one, the debased testoons and posthumous groats were not quality made coins and most are rather ugly.  Some of the provincial Charles I coins have laughable cartoon-like portraits (i.e. Worcester groat).  The Churchill coins suffer from the source material, similar to some of the quite ugly coinage of George III.

[John Conduitt]

16 minutes ago, Nap said:

There is much ugliness there!

One type I really don’t care for is the Charles I copper farthings.  They do not wear well.  The Commonwealth small change was poorly produced.  Even though the portrait of old Henry VIII is a classic one, the debased testoons and posthumous groats were not quality made coins and most are rather ugly.  Some of the provincial Charles I coins have laughable cartoon-like portraits (i.e. Worcester groat).  The Churchill coins suffer from the source material, similar to some of the quite ugly coinage of George III.

Those are great examples. Some of them verge on 'quite nice'.

I have a lot of those farthings 🤣 It is very hard to get them in good condition. This one hasn't worn well and is made uglier because it's the first issue after James I died - they re-carved CARO over IACO, and not well.

Charles I Richmond Type 1b Farthing, 1625

London Token House. Copper, 0.73g. Single-arch crown with 9 jewels; mascle privy mark; CARO D:G: MAG: BRIT: (Obverse 1) with CARO cut over IACO from a James I Lennox Type 4. Eagle-headed harp with 5 strings; FRA:ET HIB:REX; Die axis 0° (Everson 1b 58a).

I don't have any small change from the Commonwealth, but I do have a sixpence with an anchor mintmark. These were issued under Richard Cromwell (roughly speaking - I think he'd departed by 1660). Coins issued at that time were very poor quality and low in silver, which was in short supply.

Commonwealth Sixpence, 1660

Tower. Silver, 2.98g. Arms of England surrounded by a wreath, anchor mintmark above; · THE · COMMONWEALTH · OF · ENGLAND. Arms of England and Ireland, topped with mark of value in Roman numerals; · GOD · WITH · VS · 1660 · VI · (S 3220). Ex Samuel Birchall of Leeds (1761-1814), precursor to James Conder and author of A Descriptive List of the Provincial Copper Coins or Tokens issued between the Years 1786 and 1796, arranged Alphabetically.

I don't know if it's the wear, but this portrait of Charles I looks cartoonish.

Charles I Group D Shilling, 1636-1638

Tower. Silver, 5.87g. Fourth bust type 3a left with double arched crown, no inner circles, value in field behind, mintmark tun; CAROLVS DG MA BR FR ET HI REX. Oval shield garnished quartered shield of arms in frame, no CR either side; CHRISTO AVSPICE REGNO (S 2791). Ex Ivan Buck. From the Messing (Essex) Hoard 1975.

As for George III, I actually like his coinage. George was not blessed with good looks but I think they did a good job with what they had. I don't have a 'bull head' but on those he's so ugly as to be handsome.

George III Eighteenpence Bank of England Token, 1815

London. Silver, 27mm, 7.31g. Head 2; GEORGIUS III DEI GRATIA REX.BANK TOKEN 1s 6d, 1815, within wreath of oak leaves (S 3772). Issued by the Bank of England during  Napoleonic Wars, prior to the 1816 British Currency Act. As these coins were not Crown coinage, they were classed as bank tokens.

[DonnaML]

Even worse than the ones I posted before:

What fresh hell is this? I'm sure it must be some ghastly British children's TV show, but the names sound incredibly creepy to me. And it looks like something you'd find as a giveaway in a cereal box.

Although this doesn't purport to be a crown coin (the face value of which is 5 GBP these days), there are commemorative crowns that are just as horrible. I think I've mentioned before that the Royal Mint issued about 25 different types of crown from 1902 through 2002, and I have at least one of each. They all comemorated various royal events or other events of national importance -- coronations, jubilees, birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, deaths, and so on. Since then, there have probably been 100 issued, 90% having to do with "popular culture," and many designed to appeal to parents to buy for their children, like sets depicting different dinosaurs and the like. As I said, they might as well be stamps.  

[GregH]

There are some truly horrible “coins” made just for collectors. The “Mr Men” coin that @DonnaML posted above is clearly the winner of the Worst Ever Coin contest (albeit from a very strong field of contenders).

But is it even a “coin” if it was never intended for circulation? 

Generally I find the British medieval coinage to be dull (with the exception of the gold issues). I don’t care about rare mintmarks and moneyers and other minutiae. I like nice artistic portraits of historical figures, and this doesn’t really happen in the British series until the Tudors. From this point until modern times, we have some spectacular coins - especially during the reigns of Elizabeth I and Charles I.

[Nap]

53 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Even worse than the ones I posted before:

What fresh hell is this? I'm sure it must be some ghastly British children's TV show, but the names sound incredibly creepy to me. And it looks like something you'd find as a giveaway in a cereal box.

Although this doesn't purport to be a crown coin (the face value of which is 5 GBP these days), there are commemorative crowns that are just as horrible. I think I've mentioned before that the Royal Mint issued about 25 different types of crown from 1902 through 2002, and I have at least one of each. They all comemorated various royal events or other events of national importance -- coronations, jubilees, birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, deaths, and so on. Since then, there have probably been 100 issued, 90% having to do with "popular culture," and many designed to appeal to parents to buy for their children, like sets depicting different dinosaurs and the like. As I said, they might as well be stamps.  

The coin is a silly commemorative, but I remember the Mr. Men and Little Miss books very well.  You could find them in bookstores in the US in the 80s, and I had a bunch of them.  I loved them as a kid, and remember crying when I heard that Roger Hargreaves died.

I guess even as a kid, I was an Anglophile.

 

[DonnaML]

57 minutes ago, Nap said:

The coin is a silly commemorative, but I remember the Mr. Men and Little Miss books very well.  You could find them in bookstores in the US in the 80s, and I had a bunch of them.  I loved them as a kid, and remember crying when I heard that Roger Hargreaves died.

I guess even as a kid, I was an Anglophile.

 

My son was born in 1990. Somehow I managed to miss these when I was buying books for him! 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

DonnaML's win for being the most putrid (Per the Peter Rabbit: it's the Ice Cream Bunny, lol! - or should I say, harr harr harr.  It's an inside joke for those who know about bad movies.)

The 2015 Churchill looks more like Joe Besser.  "Not so faaast!"

The worst are probably some post-1945 coin. However, in the spirit of the thread I'll halfheartedly vote for the Henry III posthumous penny.  I didn't really hate any of them.  When's the starting point of the contest?  1066?  Before that?

[Dafydd]

 

I was given a Churchill Crown as a school boy and even as a child found it ugly and lacking. I remember thinking why didn't they finish it?

My late friend Joe Cussen was instrumental in the move of the Royal Mint from London to Wales and was honoured as a young man for his work with an OBE.

At one stage he used to present patterns to the Queen for her approval and he said that he never made a comment except for one obverse which he considered a monstrosity and here it is. Not a coin but a medal.

 

Joe made the comment that it was ugly and unbalanced  and was disproportionate  to the Queens head and the Queen said, it's not about me but about the institution and the Crown and I like it.  It was not designed by the Royal Mint but by the Queen who was focused on the Crown.  Joe commented that  if that obverse had migrated to the coins of the realm he would have resigned as he thought it was dreadful. He was a great enthusiast of William Wyon.

I don't own a Charles 1st Halfcrown but would describe them as naive more than ugly and I would like one one day.  Do you notice any similarities ?

 

A really entertaining post @John Conduitt Thank you.

 

[John Conduitt]

6 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

DonnaML's win for being the most putrid (Per the Peter Rabbit: it's the Ice Cream Bunny, lol! - or should I say, harr harr harr.  It's an inside joke for those who know about bad movies.)

The 2015 Churchill looks more like Joe Besser.  "Not so faaast!"

The worst are probably some post-1945 coin. However, in the spirit of the thread I'll halfheartedly vote for the Henry III posthumous penny.  I didn't really hate any of them.  When's the starting point of the contest?  1066?  Before that?

Most of the modern stuff is non-circulating commemorative. Souvenirs rather than coins. But so many people hate them I don't know who the market is for it all.

There is no starting point. But I went though all my British Celtic, Saxon and London Roman coins and couldn't find anything vaguely horrible. Too many horses and too much of Genius, maybe, but that's not a criticism of one particular coin.

The question came up as I read that the Tealby was the 'worst ever English coin'. According to this poll it is, until we get to 1965 and the commemoratives.

[Dafydd]

Here is my Stephen Penny @John Conduitt  Sadly I cannot say that I feel that is reminds me of face peering out of silver like Macbeth's ghost. but more like the King disappearing into Quicksand! I have had buyers remorse since I bought it. I am more than open to trades!

CROSS MALINE "WATFORD" TYPE PENNY ON NON NORWICH
S.2178

SEE ALLEN BNJ 2012 PAGE 113  Ex-Michael Trennary.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Conduitt]

10 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

 

I was given a Churchill Crown as a school boy and even as a child found it ugly and lacking. I remember thinking why didn't they finish it?

My late friend Joe Cussen was instrumental in the move of the Royal Mint from London to Wales and was honoured as a young man for his work with an OBE.

At one stage he used to present patterns to the Queen for her approval and he said that he never made a comment except for one obverse which he considered a monstrosity and here it is. Not a coin but a medal.

 

Joe made the comment that it was ugly and unbalanced  and was disproportionate  to the Queens head and the Queen said, it's not about me but about the institution and the Crown and I like it.  It was not designed by the Royal Mint but by the Queen who was focused on the Crown.  Joe commented that  if that obverse had migrated to the coins of the realm he would have resigned as he thought it was dreadful. He was a great enthusiast of William Wyon.

I don't own a Charles 1st Halfcrown but would describe them as naive more than ugly and I would like one one day.  Do you notice any similarities ?

 

A really entertaining post @John Conduitt Thank you.

Your friend was right (and brave to criticise the Queen's design!). William Wyon's engravings are legendary, as were many by the Wyons. Thomas Wyon engraved George III’s ‘Bull Head.’

[John Conduitt]

5 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

Here is my Stephen Penny @John Conduitt  Sadly I cannot say that I feel that is reminds me of face peering out of silver like Macbeth's ghost. but more like the King disappearing into Quicksand! I have had buyers remorse since I bought it. I am more than open to trades!

CROSS MALINE "WATFORD" TYPE PENNY ON NON NORWICH
S.2178

SEE ALLEN BNJ 2012 PAGE 113  Ex-Michael Trennary.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes this is the sort of horribleness I was talking about 🤣 But it's not easy to get much better.

[JeandAcre]

Here's my Stephen Watford cut half; the seller on ebay.UK said it was a detector find, although he didn't come across as someone who did much of his own.  I actually like it, despite all.

Right, zero legends, except '----R ON' ...someplace.  Thanks a lot.

But I like the profile, with the collar and sceptre.  ...Where medieval is concerned, my esthetic kind of begins and ends not with conventional (for instance, Classical) beauty, but whether something looks, well medieval.  If that holds, it translates as 'Cool.'  Right, I gravitate more to Cezanne than, say, Ingres, too.  

(Edit:) ...Although, in the case of the Henry III posthumous ones, I do kind of get it.  (Granted, I did get one; sadly, no pics.)  The ubiquitous awfulness of the strikes almost evokes the coiners acknowledging how atrocious the style was.

Edited July 20, 2023 by JeandAcre

[Nap]

If you go back to Saxon times, the Northumbrian sceats and stycas will win no beauty prize.  I have a great affinity for them and have put together a comprehensive set of these but am under no illusion about their beauty or artistic merit.  The later irregular ones are even worse with blundered and illegible legends.

Here are a few:

Aethelred I sceat, archaic quadruped type.  The letters are backwards and of horribly different size, the creature is poorly rendered and the triquetra below looks like a lumpy rock.  From Aethelred’s first reign 774-779, and an extremely rare coin.

 

Aethelred I sceat with the triangular base “shrine” on the reverse, by the moneyer Cuthgils.  Also very rare.

 

Eanred styca, moneyer Brother.  From the Archbishop Sharp collection (very old provenance)

 

Redwulf styca, moneyer Alghere.  A rare and rather high grade example, which despite its state of preservation is still quite ugly.

 

An irregular styca with blundered legends.

 

Aethelred II, moneyer Leofthegn.  The most artistic of the copper styca coinage, a coin that goes away from the basic design of king’s name around a cross, moneyer’s name around a cross, and instead features a creature on the reverse, reminiscent of the quadruped seen on the sceattas of Northumbria nearly 100 years earlier.  While it is exceptional for its time, Leofthegn was no Euainetos, and the creature is fairly unfortunate looking.  This is despite this being an above average example, possibly the finest outside of museums. Only one reverse die is known, making the coin extremely rare, maybe 20 copies out there.  And this coin has a provenance going back a hundred years and was previously part of the famed RC Lockett collection.  Still, objectively it’s an ugly coin.

[DonnaML]

Personally, @Nap, I think the creature on your last coin is kind of cute!

[John Conduitt]

16 hours ago, Nap said:

If you go back to Saxon times, the Northumbrian sceats and stycas will win no beauty prize.  I have a great affinity for them and have put together a comprehensive set of these but am under no illusion about their beauty or artistic merit.  The later irregular ones are even worse with blundered and illegible legends.

Here are a few:

Aethelred I sceat, archaic quadruped type.  The letters are backwards and of horribly different size, the creature is poorly rendered and the triquetra below looks like a lumpy rock.  From Aethelred’s first reign 774-779, and an extremely rare coin.

 

Aethelred I sceat with the triangular base “shrine” on the reverse, by the moneyer Cuthgils.  Also very rare.

 

Eanred styca, moneyer Brother.  From the Archbishop Sharp collection (very old provenance)

 

Redwulf styca, moneyer Alghere.  A rare and rather high grade example, which despite its state of preservation is still quite ugly.

 

An irregular styca with blundered legends.

 

Aethelred II, moneyer Leofthegn.  The most artistic of the copper styca coinage, a coin that goes away from the basic design of king’s name around a cross, moneyer’s name around a cross, and instead features a creature on the reverse, reminiscent of the quadruped seen on the sceattas of Northumbria nearly 100 years earlier.  While it is exceptional for its time, Leofthegn was no Euainetos, and the creature is fairly unfortunate looking.  This is despite this being an above average example, possibly the finest outside of museums. Only one reverse die is known, making the coin extremely rare, maybe 20 copies out there.  And this coin has a provenance going back a hundred years and was previously part of the famed RC Lockett collection.  Still, objectively it’s an ugly coin.

Yes Northumbrian stycas can be crude (and repetitive). So many are worn and weathered, they might've looked better when new.

Eadberht Class Di Series Y Secondary Sceat, 737-758

York. Silver, 1.00g. Fantastic animal left, cross under tail and triquetra below. Large cross in centre; .EOTBEREhTVF (S 847).

I didn't include irregular issues of anything. If you do, then a whole world of awful coins opens up.

Tetricus II Barbarous Radiate, 273-280

Imitating Cologne. Bronze, 16mm, 2.41g. Radiate beardless? bust right, very crude letters. Equitas standing, holding scales and cornucopia; AEQ[UITAS AVG]. Found in Britain.

[rhj959]

This 50p came out of the ground in a playing field outside a Girl Guide Hut. Under 50 years old but already showing serious signs of corrosion.  I frequently find Roman coins of similar size in similar soil that come out perfectly legible.  I can't see this 50p lasting 2000 years in the soil.