Page images
PDF
EPUB

John White; but it is further stated by Ruding (3rd ed., vol. i. p. 124), that Dr. Taylor Combe saw the coin in the collection of Mr. Austin and was satisfied of its authenticity. It subsequently disappeared and has never made its reappearance. It is difficult to form an opinion based upon a mere illustration of a coin, but the judgment of Dr. Combe was generally sound, and Ruding expressly states that he was convinced that that learned antiquary could not have been mistaken as to the existence of the coin, and that it was not probable that the correctness of his eye could have been deceived by a forgery. Having regard to the fact that the piece in question appears to be of the same type as an undoubtedly genuine penny of this monarch, specimens of which are in the cabinets of both Mr. William Brice and of myself, there is further reason to believe that Mr. Austin's coin may also have been genuine. I have headed this paper with a wood engraving of my coin, which was formerly in the collection of Mr. Joseph Gibbs, and which is apparently from the same dies as Mr. Brice's specimen. The weight of my piece is almost 18 grains, but Mr. Brice's piece, purchased by him some ten years ago from the late Mr. Webster, who thoroughly believed in its genuineness, weighs as much as 19 grains. The moneyer's name on both coins is TORHTVLF. The type of all the three pennies referred to is that of Ethelbearht (Hks. 169, Rud. XV. 1, 2), and which occurs less commonly in the reign of his father Ethelwlf (Hks. No. 1 type, Rud. XIV. 2). In the case of the coins of this type of the three successive monarchs, Ethelwlf, Ethelbald, and Ethelbearht, as illustrated by the specimens belonging to Mr. Brice and myself, the king's profile head on the obverse scarcely varies, except that thelbald's head is encircled with a

VOL. VII. THIRD SERIES.

T

diadem of pearls. The head on the piece, Hks. 168, before referred to, is very different indeed; it wants the diadem, and the work generally appears far above the quality of work of the period. If it be accurately engraved these points would to my mind form the only element of suspicion that could be adduced in opposition to its authenticity. Fortunately, however, the fact of the existence of pennies of Æthelbald now depends in no way upon this piece, although it may be mentioned in its favour that the name of the moneyer BEANMVND appearing on it, also occurs on pennies of the same type of his successor Ethelbearht. The name of the moneyer

TORHTVLF, who is responsible for the pieces in the collections of Mr. W. Brice and of myself, occurs on pennies of the same type in the reigns of both Ethelwlf and Ethelbearht. It appears probable, therefore, that the same moneyer performed his functions during the three successive reigns, and hence also may arise the cause for the before-mentioned similarity of the portraits of the three monarchs upon the pieces of this type.

H. MONTAGU.

IV.

QUEEN ANNE'S SO-CALLED "BELLO ET PACE"

[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

In my work on the Copper, Tin, and Bronze Coinage of England, I have, under the reign of Queen Anne, described (No. 16, p. 51) a very rare piece of that period, as follows:

"Obv. ANNA. DEI. GRATIA. The queen's bust within a double inner circle. Under the head, a scroll. The letters of the legend on both sides are sunk, instead of being raised.

"Rev. BELLO ET PACE. Britannia, helmeted, and standing, holds an olive-branch in her right hand and a spear in her left, in a double inner circle. In exergue, 1713. A broad grained rim. R. 7."

I further stated that the piece was incorrectly engraved in Ruding, Suppl. Part II. Plate IV. No. 1, and that examples occurred in the Hunter Collection and in the British Museum; the latter in poor condition. I also

1 Rollin and Feuardent. London, 1885.

referred to one comprised in the Bergne Sale (Lot 1076), and which was described as being in pewter or mixed metal.

The piece described, whether it be coin or medalet, is of most inferior design and execution; and in consequence of some excitement in the numismatic world, caused by the fact that the specimen formerly belonging to Mr. Bergne was sold at the sale of some portion of the coins of Mr. E. Shorthouse, at Birmingham, on the 2nd December, 1886, for the large sum of £19 17s. 6d., I have been induced seriously to consider whether it is really a farthing or only a jetton or medalet of the period. In the result, I have come to the conclusion that it is nothing more nor less than a badly-designed and as badly-struck medalet privately issued in celebration of the peace of Utrecht.

I have carefully examined the specimen in the National Collection, an engraving of which is given above, as well as another specimen which came into the possession of Mr. C. E. Mackerell under the circumstances hereafter mentioned. Both these are struck in a better kind of copper than the Bergne and Shorthouse piece, which by the courtesy of its purchaser and present proprietor, Mr. Murdoch, I have also carefully scrutinised. All the specimens appear to be more in the nature of cast than of struck pieces, and would at first sight seem to have been cast from a chased model. On the whole, however, I am of opinion that they were struck from dies carelessly engraved, and probably also in a somewhat worn condition.

It is with great diffidence and with some hesitation, having regard to the kindness displayed on all sides, that I have decided upon putting forward my views concerning the attribution of these pieces, but magna est veritas

et praevalebit, and their owners have proved themselves true numismatists by not in any way discountenancing a free discussion on a subject in which they are so greatly interested.

Mr. Murdoch's piece is, notwithstanding the description in Bergne's Sale Catalogue, not of pewter or mixed metal, but certainly of copper, though apparently of a somewhat inferior quality. It formed Lot 829 in the Shorthouse sale, and among the remarks appended to its description was a statement to the effect that only three specimens were known. This is not accurate, as in addition to those mentioned in my book, the late Mr. Webster had two, one of which he sold to Mr. Mackerell, in whose possession, as before stated, it now is, and the other went elsewhere. It is possible that others may exist, as Mr. Webster obtained his two specimens quite casually, and the piece is one that would scarcely inspire the uninitiated with any presentiment of its rarity, having regard to its worthless execution and "cast" appearance.

Notwithstanding the inaccuracy in other respects of the engraving in Ruding, that author correctly inserted the date, 1713. It is, however, somewhat natural that the final 3, which is most wretchedly formed, should have been mistaken by others for 5, as a magnifying glass is almost necessary to prove its identity. The error referred to was made by no less an authority than the late Mr. William Till in his Description of the Farthings and Pattern Halfpennies of Queen Anne,2 issued as an appendix to his Essay on the Roman Denarius, he having previously described the piece with the same erroneous date in The Mirror of the 30th May, 1835, published by Limbird at 134, Strand.

Longman, Orme, Brown & Co. London, 1838.

« PreviousContinue »