Last week Dick Johnson wrote:

Martin Purdy writes:

Last week Dick wrote:

David Powell writes:

Introducing the Pb6....

Those of you familiar with the small Roman copper series of the 3rd to 5th centuries may be familiar with the terms AE1 through AE4, used todescribe the denominational value of pieces in an era sufficiently obscure that no-one now living has any totally reliable idea of what exactly theywere worth. The old well-understood series of sesterius, dupondis, denarius, semis and quadrans had long since gone and, the replacement system ofsmall change being inadequately discussed in literature, we are left to describe copper coin denominations in terms of diameter, as follows:

AE1: >25mm
AE2: 21-25mm
AE3: 17-21mm
AE4: < 17mm

In fact, the scale should probably have been taken one step further, if 4mm bandwidths are assigned as above. The most horrible 5th cent minimsand barbarous radiates go down to 11mm frequently and 9mm on occasion, so probably we should have AE4 = 13- 17mm and AE5 = 9-13mm. Our own English15th and 16th lead hits similar minima, so Pb4 and Pb5 would not be unreasonable, if one were to adopt the same approach; I'm not suggesting we do, Iam happy to use diameters. End of issue; surely nobody would be so stupidly impractical enough to go down below 9mm, would they....?

The Indian state of Travancore was notorious for the small size of some of its pieces, the tiniest of which just about hit this figure; one canimagine only the tiny silver slivers of 17th cent Russian kopeks getting close. One looks at them and feels glad not to have lived in a place wheresuch ridiculous things were forced upon the population. Most of the earlier 17th cent main series tokens would be AE4, and they are small enough inthe hand; pity our Londoners c.1500 with their Pb5s, but at least we never reached the excesses of Russia and Travancore. Or so I thought until Irecently encountered the little group above, which just happen to come from Herefordshire.

They may look large on paper, but in fact the magnification factor is about 1.7; the small ones are around 8mm, the large ones about 9cmm.Probably, the latter are worth twice as much as the former. The design is quite fine and several of them are in moderately good condition, despitethe dimensions. The design, a triquetra {three-legged figure} with varying degrees of forking at the end of the arms, is consistent in concept if notalways in execution, and the quartet of pellets seems to be invariable. There are never three, never five; which other of our crude leadmanufacturers would have been that consistent? In other words, considering their size, they are of a fair standard of manufacture. One wonders howsuch miniscule proportions would have tested the makers' skills. 8mm, might I say, would be Pb6!

The weights are greater than one might think; the big ones in the sample scale at between 1.13gm and 1.29gm, whilst the seven small ones all liein the quite compact range of 0.56gm to 0.67gm. Those with a keen eye may also note a counterstamp on the largest one, depicting a plain threeleggedcartwheel in miniature. Would you really enjoy using such pieces regularly?

To read the complete January 2011 Leaden Tokens Telegraph issue, see:
www.mernick.org.uk/leadtokens/newsletters/LTT1101.pdf

Ken Spindler of San Diego writes:

To read the earlier E-Sylum article, see:
HOW BIG CAN NUMISMATIC ITEMS BE? (www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n53a23.html)