[CoinLink News] The UK auction firm of Spink has announced the upcoming sale of an Anglo-Saxon gold Shilling of King Eadbald of Kent dating from c.620-635. This is the first gold coin struck in the name of an English King and a rare and important piece of English history. Found near Deal Kent in 2010, this coin will be sold at auction on June 24th and is expected to fetch upwards of £8,000. (Editor: Seems very Inexpensive)

This type was long known to be amongst the earliest of Anglo-Saxon gold coins with a single example present in the important Crondall hoard found in Hampshire in 1828 and dating from c.670. The conclusive attribution of these coins to king Eadbald of Kent, reigned 616-640, though was only made in 1998. This followed the emergence of new finds which enabled the obverse inscription to be confirmed as avdvarld reges, and translated as ‘of King Audvarld’.

The name ‘auduarldus’ appears in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica completed in 731 in which he wrote about king Eadbald of Kent. Given this and the presence of one of these coins in the Crondall hoard, the attribution to Eadbald is now accepted

While the Kentish Shilling or Thrymsa seems to have sought to match the Merovingian Tremissis, the design of this coin is peculiarly Anglo-Saxon using neither motifs found on Merovingian coins nor seeking to copy Roman types. In common with some other coins (e.g. the so called ‘Witmen’ and ‘Londiniv/Londeniv’ types), this coin has an inscription on the reverse. This can be clearly read on a example in the Ashmolean Museum as containing the word londenv indicating London as the mint or die source for these coins all of which share the same obverse die.

The real significance of these coins though is in the obverse inscription naming the historical figure of king Eadbald. This is exceptional for a coin of this period and is only certainly found again at the end of the seventh century with the Sceattas of Aldfrith of Northumbria (685-705). As such the Eadbald Thrymsa is the earliest coin issued in the name of an English king.

Eadbald succeded Aethelberht as king of Kent in 616. Aethelberht is principally remembered for having accepted St. Augustine into his kingdom and his subsequent conversion to Roman Christianity. It seems, according to Bede, that after his accession Eadbald fell foul of the young Church, rejecting Christianity, ejecting its Bishops and incurring the wrath of the Church committing ’such fornication as the Apostle Paul mentioned as being unheard of even among the heathen, in that he took his father’s (second) wife as his own.’

Whatever Eadbald did, this situation did not last for he repented and was duly baptized, rejecting his wife and thereafter favouring the Church within his kingdom. (more…)

[ CoinLink News ]Several additional appellate briefs and amicus briefs have been filed with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Odyssey Marine Exploration’s “Black Swan” case. The filings support Odyssey’s argument that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because the recovered coins did not belong to Spain and therefore do not qualify for sovereign immunity, Spain did not have possession of the coins, and sovereign immunity only applies to vessels exclusively on a non-commercial mission.

Among the briefs were two separate filings by groups of descendants whose ancestors owned the cargo shipped aboard the Mercedes. The trial court actually missed the basis of their claims calling them “descendants of those aboard the Mercedes.” The trial court, the descendants argue, also missed the fact that no vessel was found at the site and that in any event, property rights to cargo are distinct from the rights to the vessel.

An amicus brief (a filing by a “friend of the court” not a party to the case) was also filed by a congressional delegation led by Congressman Gus Bilirakis. That filing clarifies relevant legislation in the case and asserts that if the Mercedes was on a commercial mission at the time of its demise, as all evidence proves, that vessel should indeed be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.

“We are very pleased that Congressman Bilirakis and the other members of Congress who submitted this brief understand the dangerous implications of the district court’s decision here,” said Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey’s Vice President and General Counsel. “If any foreign vessel is allowed to escape the jurisdiction of our courts regardless of its mission or the cargo it carries, there could be grave environmental consequences and national security ramifications. It is very clear that only warships on strictly non-commercial missions are meant to enjoy sovereign immunity, and we feel confident that the Eleventh Circuit will confirm that.”

Additional signatories to the brief include: Congressman Bill Young, ranking Republican Member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Congressman Connie Mack, Congressman Vern Buchannan, Congressman Thomas J. Rooney, and Congressman Thaddeus McCotter.

The Historical Shipwreck Salvage Political Action Committee, joined by the Institute of Marine Archaeological Conservation and Fathom Exploration, Inc., also submitted an amicus brief arguing that if the trial court’s decision stands it could mean the end of archaeologically sound shipwreck recovery and conservation because salvors would have no incentive to properly document their finds or give notice to parties with potential interest. They echo the praise of Odyssey submitted by some of the descendant claimants as, “dedicated professionals who set the highest standards for maritime salvage and archaeology of deep water wrecks…Without the continuing courageous efforts of Odyssey there would be no benefit to the claimants and perhaps of greater importance no benefit to the public.”

Peru has also filed an appeal of the trial court’s ruling, as has a Florida doctor claiming to have historical contractual rights to any property in Florida owned by Spain. All appellants argue that because the court did not conduct a hearing on any of the issues, there was a violation of due process. (more…)

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NasdaqCM: OMEX) has filed its Appellate Brief in the “Black Swan” case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In the brief, Odyssey demonstrates that the district court erroneously dismissed the case by using flawed legal analysis and by failing to acknowledge or understand several major aspects of the case, including the issue of sovereign immunity.

Odyssey’s brief cites the recent favorable ruling by the Eleventh Circuit for the salvor in the Aqua Log (Aqua Log, Inc. vs. State of Georgia, 594 F.3d 1330, 11th Cir. 2010) case. This ruling was made shortly after the district court ruled in the “Black Swan” case and is a beneficial clarification of sovereign immunity in support of Odyssey’s position. In the Aqua Log case, the Court ruled that the sovereign must be in possession of the salvaged items in order to claim immunity from the courts in an admiralty case.

“The precedent set in the Aqua Log case is very relevant to the ‘Black Swan’ case and Spain’s sovereign immunity claim. The Eleventh Circuit found, as we had argued to the district court in our case, that a sovereign could not claim to be immune from the jurisdiction of the court when it did not have possession of the salvaged goods. It’s clear that Spain never owned the majority of the cargo here and did not have possession of them either,” said Melinda MacConnel, Odyssey Vice President and General Counsel. “The district court apparently dismissed the fact that there was no vessel present at the “Black Swan” site. The concretions of coins found by Odyssey were scattered over an area bigger than six football fields, with no coherent ship’s hull or structure. Even if that cargo did come from the Mercedes, it is well documented that the majority of the Mercedes’ cargo was owned by private merchants who paid for its transport and the Mercedes was carrying paying passengers. Under well-established U.S. and international law, vessels on such commercial voyages do not have sovereign immunity.”

The opening brief also points out several erroneous factual findings and legal conclusions made by the district court including the following:

• The district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the disputed issues of fact, unquestioningly accepting testimony presented by Spain. This was a violation of due process for all of the claimants as well as Odyssey.
• The district court erred in failing to recognize that the Defendant in the case (an in rem proceeding) was NOT Spain or a vessel owned by Spain. The actual Defendant in the case was the group of coins and artifacts (the res in this case) discovered and recovered by Odyssey.

(more…)