A REVISED SURVEY OF THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TOKENS OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE GEORGE BERRY AND PETER MORLEY MANTON AND HOLLIS produced the standard work on the seventeenth-century trade tokens of Buckinghamshire between the years 1926 and 1931, in the form of three papers in BNJ xviii, xix, and xx (1925-6, 1927-8, and 1929-30).1 Spink & Son Ltd. reprinted the papers as one volume, whilst the Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society organized a limited edition of seventy-five overprints in 1933. This latter included a further corri- genda, an index, and the woodcuts exhibited by Manton in support of his paper to the Society delivered on 24 February 1926. Of the seventy-five copies, only twenty-five were scheduled for sale at £1. \s. each, the others being distributed by the authors as they saw fit. A small number of copies were sold by Manton's widow, in the late 1940s, for 8J. each. Forty years have elapsed since this work appeared and, though a further list has been published,2 the authors feel that a revision is needed to clarify certain points which have puzzled previous writers. Accordingly, this survey is an attempt to provide a completely up-to-date list of the tokens, together with a brief analysis of the style of the pieces on the lines of Milne's excellent catalogue of the Oxfordshire series.3 Milne showed that a study of the style, especially of the borders, gave an indication as to whether a certain piece appeared early in the series (1648-c. 1664), or late in the series (c. 1659-1672). This helps in giving a loose dating to the many undated tokens in the series.4 Those tokens which can definitely be attributed to David Ramage must have been struck prior to 1662, the year he died. The tokens in the list have not been described in full as it is hoped this will be incorporated as a primary feature in a new work on the 1 James Odom Manton and Edwin Hollis, Bucking- series now under review is dated 1656 (no. 14, Stephen hamshire Trade Tokens Issued in the Seventeenth Cen- Dagnall of Aylesbury). Admittedly this has no inner tury. circles and is struck in lead, thus marking it apart 2 Peter Seaby, A Guide to the Token Coinage of the from the general run of seventeenth-century tokens. 17th Century. Part 1: Home Counties, Buckingham- Similarly, the issue of tokens with the earlier style shire, Seaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin, July-August of outer border appears to have been carried out until 1960. the mid 1660s. The latest-dated piece with this type of 3 John Grafton Milne, Catalogue of Oxfordshire border is no. 85 (Richard Robinson of Eton), dated Seventeenth Century Tokens, Oxford University Press, 1666. Other late pieces of this style, though dated 1935. 1664, are nos. 183 and 202. 4 It is now generally accepted that, as was first sug- There are also three cases of 'border muling' be- gested by Milne, the majority of tokens of earlier (pre- tween early and late styles in the Buckinghamshire Restoration) issue or date, have an outer border of series, although in two of the three cases it only in- labels and an inner one of cable pattern. The majority volves the outer border. The three tokens are no. 68, of the later tokens have an outer border of diamonds (John Tyler of Chesham), no. 200 (Daniel Sayer of and an inner one of dots. Study of the Buckingham- Winslow), and no. 213 (Thomas Butterfield of shire series has revealed one exception to the above Wycombe). The exception is no. 200, where the plain 'rule'. While Milne found no Oxford county token of line inner circle on the obverse becomes one of round the later style dated before 1659, the earliest in the dots. Only the first of the three is dated, 1665. TOKENS OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 97 tokens and their issuers to be published independently. Reasonably accurate, but not infallible, complete readings were provided by Manton and Hollis in their papers. Manton and Hollis themselves not only listed all the tokens of the county known to them, but they also interested themselves in the issuers, unearthing a considerable amount of detail concerning their personal as well as their business lives. They relied chiefly on parish registers and documents preserved in the Muniment Room of the County Museum, Aylesbury, but did not consult hearth tax and quarter-session records, borough archives, wills, inventories, and records of the Free Churches. Using these sources the writers have been enabled to fill in some of the gaps and discover a great deal more about the men and women who issued the tokens, including their family background, their social status, and their political and religious leanings. Twelve tokens have been added to the list originally published by Manton and Hollis, and fourteen omitted. A considerable number of amendments have been made, all of which are outlined below. The writers have prepared a table of all the Buckinghamshire tokens in this series known to them, in order to compile the study of die-axes which appears in this paper. Sources used have been museums throughout the United Kingdom, private collections, and the stocks of the larger London coin dealers. Of the 1,494 tokens detailed in the study, 972 are in museum collections, or just over 65 per cent of the total. The commonest token is no. 13, that of Edward Cope, draper of Aylesbury. Altogether seventy-three specimens have been examined. The second commonest in no. 147, John Gaynes of Olney, of which forty-three examples have been recorded, and the third com- monest is no. 132, Samuel Lambert of Newport Pagnell. Other common tokens are no. 12, Gyles Childe of Aylesbury, no. 177, Edward Purcell of Thornborough, and no. 217, Jeremiah Gray of High Wycombe. Many tokens in the Buckinghamshire series are extremely rare. There are, in fact, fourteen pieces of which only one example is believed known, and a further eight tokens of which the writers have only managed to examine a single specimen.1 No specimens of nos. 4, 112, 128, or 140 have come to light in researches. With the exception of no. 4, these are descriptions copied from William Boyne's Tokens Issued in the Seventeenth Century. However, specimens of nos. 112 and 140 are recorded as having been on the market in the last twenty years. Like- wise, the writers have failed to unearth any specimens of nos. 47, 169, and 184. A study of the dated pieces is of interest: 1650 1 1656 3 1662 4 1668 25 1651 1 1657 4 1663 1 1669 17 1652 8 1658 6 1664 8 1670 5 1653 7 1659 1 1665 7 1671 5 1654 0 1660 3 1666 19 1655 3 1661 2 1667 11 It will be seen that the peak years of issue were 1666, 1668, and 1669. The earliest 1 The fourteen pieces of which only one example is no. 210 (ex Albert Taplin bequest, 1929), no. 231, believed known are nos. 10 (ex Lowsley sale, Sotheby, and no. 232. 3 May 1899, lot 4), no. 24 (excavated Aylesbury, Apart from the above, the eight tokens of which July 1927), no. 59, no. 65, no. 76, no. 105 (ex Glen- the writers have only been able to examine one speci- dining, 12 July 1929, lot 361), no. 110, no. 143 (ex men are nos. 25, 70, 71, 125, 131, 180, 206, and RatclifF collection), no. 153 (ex Browne Willis 214. collection), no. 156 (ex RatclifF collection), no. 157, 4980 C 75 H 98 A REVISED SURVEY OF THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY dated Buckinghamshire tokens appeared in the north of the county, namely John Hartley's at Buckingham (1650) and William Inns's at Fenny Stratford (1651). The majority of tokens are dated (141 out of 235). The latest to appear were four at Chesham and one at Brill, all in 1671. A large number of undated tokens were issued at Newport Pagnell (14 out of 17) and at Stony Stratford (11 out of 15, all very early in style), and at Winslow (7 out of 13). Of the six dated tokens at Winslow, five bear the date 1666. All the Fenny Stratford tokens, on the other hand, were dated, yet with one exception, they are all early (1651-6). All these facts point to a definite pattern of distribution. It seems likely that agents toured the towns and villages to canvass the tradesmen and gain orders for Ramage and the other London die-sinkers. Their route can almost be traced. It is not sheer chance that five Winslow tokens bear the same date, and four of Chesham are all dated 1671. The fact that it seems customary for the tokens issued in some areas to be undated bears witness that the agents suggested what was put on the tokens. Nowhere is this more true than in the north-east of the county, where no less than twenty-three tokens from seven places in an eight-mile radius of each other bear the same device, a pair of scales. This must have been somewhat confusing for local housewives, for the traders were not all grocers.1 There can be little doubt that the dies for most of the Buckinghamshire tokens were centrally engraved. The majority of the earlier ones bear the unmistakable stamp of Ramage. The later tokens were almost certainly struck from dies made in London, as the same punches used to make the dies for them have also been used to produce dies for a number of London tokens.