Oversight Withers' Ed II Farthing Type 30l ?

[Coinery 926]

I was taking a closer look at the Withers' farthing varieties for Edward II and noticed that Type 30l, described in the book as 'shoulder lines to bust depicted' or possibly 'scribe lines' that are as 'prominent as the letters...and look as if they are intentional,' was in fact nothing other than the devices of a reverse die, so presumably just a re-hammered farthing?

Anyone?

Pictures taken from the book 'Farthings and Halfpennies Edward I and II' by Paul and Bente R Withers.

[Rob 3,000]

I would go for a reverse die in a previous existence, insufficiently rubbed down before being recut with the obverse.

[Coinery 926]

I would go for a reverse die in a previous existence, insufficiently rubbed down before being recut with the obverse.

I toyed with that idea, but thought the reverse details were so strong that it was inconceivable to think it ground down die-stock? For the central design to exist so strongly, I would've also expected to see some involvement in the legend, which looks very clean on the coin pictured?

You don't think it could've been a ballsed up strike which the die-sinker restruck inverted?

[Rob 3,000]

We'll probably never know.

In DNW a few years ago there was an Exeter civil war shilling with two completely different reverse designs on it which had to be on the die, because if struck twice, you would expect the majority of the underlying detail to be obliterated by the second strike - certainly if the latter was a half decent attempt.

Part of the problem in interpreting these anomalies is that sometimes they ground out small areas of the die when recutting, for example when an initial mark was changed, or as in the case of my Oxford 1644 C4 halfcrown where you can see the plumes by date have been individually removed leaving a very uneven surface. By extension, we are unable to assume that a recut die's surface will be planar as it would more likely be akin to the Somme. It is easy to imagine that a die recut under the light of a candle in the middle of winter would not be fully ground down. The whole thing is only a centimetre or so across, which would also not help.

[Coinery 926]

We'll probably never know.

Unless a second coin exists from the same die with the same reverse marks on it? Then we'd know for certain it was a badly ground piece of die-stock! I'll be keeping my eyes open.

I'll email Colin and link him here. He may have found one of these, being as it's marked down as a variety. Would be a very clear example of your previously made point it there are others.

Just out of interest, if this does turn out to be reground stock, do think it should still stand as a variety? Thinking of flawed one's and dots after, I guess it would be, really????

What about you Peter, have you got one of these hidden away somewhere?

Scott??

[Coinery 926]

Just to confirm, Colin (aboutfarthings) hasn't ever seen one either!

[HistoricCoinage 115]

Perhaps 'ghosting' from the reverse?

Friend's picture, again. It's a W4a farthing with it in incuse.

[Coinery 926]

Could never be ghosting though, Clive, as the devices are all as per normal strike!

[HistoricCoinage 115]

Could never be ghosting though, Clive, as the devices are all as per normal strike!

Didn't think it was, but, for some reason, I'm not buying a reverse die struck underneath. Do we know of any better images of such a phenomenon?

[Coinery 926]

Could never be ghosting though, Clive, as the devices are all as per normal strike!

Didn't think it was, but, for some reason, I'm not buying a reverse die struck underneath. Do we know of any better images of such a phenomenon?

Deja vous for me here, and what a terribly written post of mine! It's all up in the air, but a second example would prove Rob's proposal, and no other would suggest mine?

Nothing boring in the Plantagenet series!

[Coinery 926]

To clarify! A second example would conclusively prove a poorly ground down stock! The absence of any other example would suggest it was another coin re-entered into the dies!

[Rob 3,000]

This is the Exeter shilling I referred to earlier. Lot 3699 in DNW 79. As you can see, the reverse is made up of two different designs, one with the scroll garnishing and the other with the pyramid and pellet garnishing. The only way I can rationalise this is for the die to have been only partially rubbed down prior to re-engraving. There is no logical reason to explain why an Exeter shilling would be struck with one die and then restruck with a second reverse. Civil War currency wasn't called in for recoining, so that eliminates an obsolete coin being used as a blank.

[Rob 3,000]

To make it easier to understand, here is a montage of Exeter shilling reverses 3 & 5. Reverse 3 has the pyramid/pellet and barrel scroll garniture, whereas reverse 5 has the tower mint halfcrown style.

The rose initial mark is at 8pm when the shield is the right way up but if rotated to the normal position then you see the large S type scrolls appear in the correct relative position with the curved/straight sided garnishing normally at 6pm clearly visible.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Rob

[Rob 3,000]

Sorry to pirate the thread.

I've done a bit more digging and the legend appears to tie in better with halfcrown reverse 15 rather than shilling reverse 5 (which I initially used to demonstrate the principle for Clive). The inner circles are only about 1.5mm different in size which would tie in with the pellets being slightly further away from it than on a conventional shilling reverse 3.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Rob

[Coinery 926]

Not a pirate at all...extremely relevant! I totally agree with your rationale on this. If it was an overstruck coin, there would be more evidence of the underlying coin showing in other areas IMO.

I truly hope to find a 2nd example of TYPE 30l, as this is a particularly extreme example. This would set your proposals in stone for good.

[Coinery 926]

Here's an example on a halfpenny, where you can see the flukes of the anchor (and of course the eyelet within the Cepher) to the right of the Cepher. If it wasn't for the extreme positioning of the anchor PM, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Portcullis was a double-strike, which it's not.

[Rob 3,000]

I've seen that before somewhere, just trying to think where?............

[Coinery 926]

I've seen that before somewhere, just trying to think where?............