Madness

@Peckris 2 Do you have any images of an over-dipped coin so that I can see an example of their appearance (dull & pale)? Thanks! Does this apply to all metals/alloys, or just silver?

Looking for a new hobby, wife inherits a half-sovereign and... abracadabra! Here I am. I see coins as tangible, and sometimes beautiful, artifacts that are representative of ages, events and historical figures; Something you can hold in your hand that has passed through the pockets and purses of ordinary people of times past. I've also decided to collect a small number of meaningful coins rather than going for bulk. With this in view, I'm focusing, perhaps unwisely, on Australian proclamation coins. I'm less than a week into numismatics. I foolishly purchased earlier in the week a 1794 guinea. From eBay. From an unknown seller. Without research. Without photos. My monthly budget is about 50 pounds. I spent about 430 pounds on this coins. A bit of retrospective reading revealed that, apparently, "good very fine" doesn't mean what a layman would expect. I'm about to start looking for a 1787 shilling. Here are a few questions: How do I tell the difference between a poor strike and coin wear? I'm aware of some of the pieces of evidence of cleaning/dipping. Is there a comprehensive, illustrated guide somewhere? Do you have a preferred variant of this coin? If so, which and why? Could I get one in extra-fine condition for somewhere in the range of 100-150 pounds? Are there any trustworthy sellers you could recommend? It will take me between two and three months to save, so plenty of time for reading. Thanks! Looking forward to learning from this community of friendly experts.

It would be nice to have something published, but I'm afraid I'm far too "newly-minted" and lacking the patina of experience and general numismatic knowledge. I'm only two months into this hobby/obsession. I think I'd need to approach someone much more knowledgeable than me to review the work before presenting it publicly.

It's true that knowledge is power. It's also true that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I'm not sure which of these two statements is true in relation to my most recent purchase: I would guess that this coin should be graded at aVF at best. I paid 60 GBP for it, despite suspecting that this is a few multiples more than the Spink value for a 1787 sixpence in this condition. Why was I willing to pay this much? 1. It's the only example of a 1787 sixpence with this combination of features that I have seen out of the 200 in my growing database: with-hearts/with-serifs-on-7's/7-strings-on-harp. I have another image taken by the seller from a different angle and taken under different lighting that prominently shows all seven strings. There are possibly other coins made from the same die, but they appear to all have only six strings. This die match has yet to be confirmed. 2. It's the most prominent example of an off-centre struck 1787 sixpence I've come across to date. By the way, is there a technical word in *numismatisian* for an off-centre strike? This isn't an example of madness of the "unresearched variety". Rather, I think of it as an example of madness of the "I've-researched-and-want-it-but-have-probably-paid-too-much" variety. One of the unavoidable dangers of attempting a complete collection of varieties and dies of a particular coin is that the only remaining examples are very hard to find, in poor condition and possibly both. How much is something like this worth? To most people, probably very little. To me, much more. Would anyone care to guess what the market price would be for something like this? Is it crazy to pay over Spink?

Notes to Self Hypothesis 1 - If a coin has evidence of circulation wear and is "lustrous" it will have been dipped Hypothesis 2 - If a coin is identified as a scarce variant shortly after being released for circulation it will be quickly absorbed from circulation by collectors. Hypothesis 3 - If a coin is withdrawn from circulation by collectors shortly after being released for circulation it will be less likely to show wear than one that continued to circulate. Hypothesis 4 - Coins with scarce variations that require magnification to identify will be more likely to continue to circulate than scarce variants identifiable by the naked eye. It follows that, in general, the condition of the former will be inferior to that of the latter. Hypothesis 5 - Coins that were withdrawn from circulation by a collector are more likely to be extant than those that were not. It follows that coins with scarce variations identifiable by the naked eye will be over-represented and skew any attempt to estimate or determine the number of coins produced by a particular die. It is likely that coins with scarce variations identifiable under magnification will be somewhat over-represented and influence any attempted to estimate or determine the number of coins produced by a particular die.

Two songs about rats. As strange as it sounds, Michael Jackson and Mozart share the experience of having been exploited prodigies.

Down the rabbit hole again! I've started to investigate the dies used to produce the 1787 sixpence with the intention of collecting one example of each die (over time). In the past three days I've built a data base of images from 171 examples, hopefully with many more to come. My target is 500 sample images and I hope this isn't optimistic. Here are a few preliminary observations about the reverse dies. There are four primary families of dies: With semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and without serifs on the "7"s in the date With semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and with serifs on the "7"s in the date Without semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and without serifs on the "7"s in the date Without semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and with serifs on the "7"s in the date In the overwhelming majority of instances the Hibernian harp contains 6 strings. However, I've come across the following: A. 5 examples of with-hearts/without-serif-7 coins that have 7 strings (just under 3% of sample to date) B. 3 examples of without-hearts/without-serif-7 coins that have 7 strings (about 1.8% of sample) C. 1 example of with-hearts/with-serif-7 coin that has 7 strings (about 0.6% of sample) All of the examples in group A belong to the same die. At least 2 examples of those in group B are from the same die, while the jury is out on the third example. I strongly suspect that all coins in groups A and B are from the same die. My reasoning? Firstly, the absence of the semee-of-hearts was a mistake recognised and rectified part way through the run. As with the shillings, the hearts were hand-engraved, presumably on existing dies, to correct the error. There are about three die flaws that you can see developing across the coins in groups A and B, becoming more obvious as the die ages: Die fill in two letters and the wearing of the left lower serif in "1" of the date. I'm noticing generally much more die wear on 1787 sixpences than on 1787 shillings. Given that a similar quantity of each denomination was struck, I suspect that there were, perhaps, significantly fewer dies used. This is just a hunch. I'll see if can find any records indicating the number of dies produced as this information is available for the shillings. The number of dies produced needn't be the same as the number of dies used, though. Further updates to come.

A few options: Singing Yaks' Organisation Strident Youthful Occultists Splendid Yodelling Oncologists Salubrious Yam Omelets Slimy Yesterday's Oatmeal Sceptical Yearly Optimists See Your Optometrist

Note to self: Die study methodology It could be helpful to make an attempt at a preliminary grouping of dies for both shillings and sixpences. This could be accomplished on the obverse by literally joining together the dots, forming a quadrilateral. By comparing the the side-lengths and angles within the quadrilateral there may be sufficient differences to form "families" of dies, even if not individual dies. Using a dot would be preferable to a letter in at least one regard, as it is easier to find the centre of a dot than locate a reference point on a letter that might have been disfigured by wear or fill. Perhaps it could even be possible to do this by joining together only three dots and measuring angles and lengths of a triangle. It would certainly be less time consuming as the measurements and mathematics become simpler. This method would allow the use of a simple grid system to define positions (as opposed to circular position and distance from centre) and wouldn't require the rotation of images to standardise positions. The correlation of three/four angles and three/four distances would be sufficient to define the die family. Consider the use of a vector based graphics tool for this as opposed to GIMP. Once grouped into "families" further differentiation can be made between its members to find individual dies.

I'm beginning to wonder about the possibility that the reverses of the 1787 sixpences were manufactured differently to the shillings. The consensus is that the shilling dies were created from fully-formed punches that already had all details in place, including lettering. I'm observing features of the sixpence reverse that suggest each die was built up from a number of punches with different design elements. I've noticed the following: 1. Alignment of lettering differs in at least a few examples, but I've not examined this closely yet 2. In some examples the 7's of the date have serifs while others don't 3. The rotational position of the circle in the centre of the garter star varies In the sixpence pictured above there are details entirely missing at the top of the uppermost two crowns and yet the letters above them are still visible. This suggests to me that when the die was being created the "crown-punch" (if, in fact, such a thing existed) was struck at a slight angle, resulting in coins with a relatively high relief at the base/corner and details missing at the top/opposite-corner. I'd need to find a. other examples of this die to confirm, and b. compare the precise position of each of the design elements across as many dies as I can find. I'm going to buy this coin. At 59 GBP the price seems OK. By way of comparison Michael Gouby has an EF "no-hearts/serif-7" example for 95 GBP. It would be good to have this coin in my hand and look at it more closely. In addition, the details in GIII's hair and the Hibernian harp are amongst the best I've seen on a 1787 sixpence so far. I've decided not to bid on that I/D sixpence being auctioned by DNW, which means I've got some money to spend on examples of other dies.

Note to self: To fully describe locations on a coin face it's necessary to use both circular position in degrees and distance out from the centre or in from the rim. Sector & segment differentiation and alignment of a figure/letter/number could also be of some use in die analysis.

My guestimate: aEF Generally well struck coin, with the possible exception of portions of segment between 300 degrees and 60 degrees on the reverse, most notably the crowns. This, though, could be a punching issue rather than a striking issue. The of rounding of laurel leaves suggest die wear, not coin wear. Older die also suggested by pitting and rounding of lettering. Flattening of shirt frill suggests coin wear. Reverse die is of the "no-hearts/serifs-on-7's" variety. Possibility of pre-strike adjustment marks on reverse. Could @Rob or someone please critique by observations and grading? Thanks! Some weird, silicon-like marks at 0 degrees on obverse and garter star on reverse. Anyone know what these might be?

Thanks @Rob My grading was influenced by the lack of detail/flattening in the curls of GIII's hair. Do you think this is die fill, not coin wear?

Never mind

I recently purchased a 1787 sixpence from Michael Gouby graded at aEF. I don't consider it to be the prettiest of pieces, but was attracted by an interesting detail: I'm sure it's very apparent to you that there is a funny curved line between the top and bottom of the first "I" in "III". I'm pretty confident that this is an overstrike of sorts. My theory is that the die maker started to strike "Dei" straight after "Georgius" in a momentary lapse of concentration. Immediately noticing his error he corrected it by filling in the curved section of the "D", leaving an "I". In the process of filling he missed a very small fraction running along the edge of the "D"s curve, which resulted in the small, thin raised line you see. I was encouraged to do some research and so over the course of a couple of days I looked at several hundred images of 1787 sixpences. Basically, I looked at every reference and image to the 1787 sixpence that Google brought up directly and then some. Out of these I found nine definite matches with the same issue. If the sample I looked at was representative of the entire issue, slightly more than 2% have this identifying feature. Not only was the I/D overstrike there, but each coin shared several other anomalies indicating they were all from the same die: Die pitting to the left of the hair ribbon, die pitting in the corner of the mouth, a mark underneath the eyebrow and the precise position of the legend lettering. The 2% figure is consistent with the number of dies produced for the minting of the 1787 shilling (see the Manville/Gaspar article) . Coincidentally, this die was used to produce a (presumably) very small number of coins on a heavy pure silver flan. Here's one of the two examples I came across: In one of these two examples it was described as a proof. I don't think this is the case. Although the edge is plain, there is no toothing around the edge as there are in the September proofs struck by Pingo. Moreover, there is bifurcation of the bottom of the lettering. This all indicates that the coin was struck without a collar (proofs were made with a collar) and the edge wasn't milled as you would expect with a circulation coin. An odd hybrid. I can't imagine that a die in poor condition like this would ever be used for a proof either: The pitting of the die; The D/I; The error on the "E" of "Dei" (which seems to have been corrected on the circulated sixpences produced from this die). There doesn't appear to have been any special preparation of the blank's surface either. There's no way that this is a proof. I'm only very new to numismatics, but here's my theory of the existence of a heavy flan struck with this die. The end of the order was approaching, but the mint was running short on workable dies. They dug out a die from the metaphorical bottom draw that had been put there because of the D/I and "E" errors, but it had accumulated some surface blemishes (small rust pits maybe). Wanting to test whether they could use it, a few test strikes were made using a thicker blank they had to hand so as to differentiate it for the circulation coins. No need to mill the edge as it wasn't meant to be used. Somehow is escaped being melted down again and escaped into the wild. Do you think my theory has any possibility of holding water? Anyway, I bought the first coin pictured from Michael for 55 GBP. I was tempted to bid on this sixpence currently listed for the upcoming DNW auction. It has an estimate of 200-300 GBP, which is out of my reach at the moment. Very happy to have the example I bought from Michael, though.

I've changed my mind about Michael. He said he'd accept the return but was very snarky when I told him the reason for my request. Not at all friendly. Can't deal with any more stress from the situation, so I won't go ahead with the return. I'll either keep the sixpence or sell it. What's it worth in VF? 25 GBP?

My guestimate: gVF

Post a picture of a coin and a link to one or more musical pieces that were written in the same year. I'll go first: 1787 Shilling - Made to order at the Tower Mint for the Bank of England. This is the "no dots on obverse" variation: Mozart - Eine Kleine Nachtmusic Mozart - Don Giovanni - Overture As an aside, my nickname at high school was "Mozart" because of my love of classical music and a desire to become a composer. One of these things has remained, although I did enter uni with this goal still in mind.

1513 Here's a piece written by Robert Fayrfax (1464-1521). King Henry VIII's grandmother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was his patroness for a while. Although I don't have a chronology of his works, the embedded Gloria from his Missa Albanus would almost certainly have still been in circulation as the style was still popular in England in 1513. His work is represented in the Eton choir book of 1510, which miraculously escaped the destructive zeal of the reformation. Not only are we musically richer for its survival, but the manuscript itself is a thing of beauty, magnificently and elaborately decorated, much like the music it surrounded.

I'd like to identifying as many dies as I can for 1787 shillings and sixpences. Re the shilling, 122 obverse and 125 reverse dies were prepared (Manville & Gaspar). It should be possible to distinguish a large number of obverse dies using images found online. The legend positions of all are slightly different given that these were punched by hand. My proposed method would involve the following: Identify and download many good quality images of obverses as possible Resize the images so all examples share a common diameter Rotate the images as necessary so that George III's bust is in exactly the same position in all examples Superimpose a circluar grid which would allow me to determine at which point on the circle (measured in degrees) each letter falls Organise the coins by groups according to the position of the letters, each group the product of a different die It would also be theoretically possible to distinguish the fruit of different reverse dies. According to Manivlle and Gaspar, the position of reverse legend is consistent across all examples. Fine features such as the strings in the Hibernian harp and the hearts in the Hanoverian shield were added by hand. I've also noticed that there are slight variants in the rotated position of the circle in the centre of the garter star. Using these unique details die identification should be a possibility, but it certainly wouldn't be a walk in the park. My reason for this post is to ask for help with the photo editing. I've found a free alternative to Photoshop called "GIMP". Is anyone familiar enough with this to help me work out how to use it? Additionally, can anyone see any problems with the method I've proposed? "Why bother going to all this trouble?", I hear you ask. Well, frankly, it will provide a way to help me fill in some time in an enjoyable manner. Additionally, it would be nice to have a collection of 1787 shilling and sixpences that includes every extant die variety. I don't call myself "Madness" for nothing! King George III's mental malady was nothing compared to mine!

You put me on to the Davissons coin I think, Jerry. Really appreciate your help and generosity in sharing information. Time will tell re the DNW auction, but I'm trying to sell some stuff on eBay to give myself a good shot.

I've initiated the return process @Sword and explained the reason for this to Michael. Thanks for the suggestion. If I'm going to have a coin like this, I don't want it to be just an ugly placeholder. I want to take pride in my collection. Disappointing, as return postage won't be cheap. Even people who are trustworthy make mistakes. I need to learn more about grading. Much more practice needed!

Never mind. I'd need to sell the sixpence I have to buy the sixpence I want. If I lost the auction I'd be left with no example of the I/D. Forget I said anything.