Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
DrLarry

E over R DEF 1817 Halfcrown

Recommended Posts

I would be grateful for some help with the error of an E over an R in DEF in the 1817 half crown please.   I understand there are a few errors in the 1817 half crown but I cannot find any reference for this one it appears in the two specimens I have found to be a triple error E/E but also E/R.  THe E over R in DEI is recognised on the obverse I have three specimens I have collected but I would be interested if anyone collects GIII half crowns if they could let me know your thoughts...many thanks 

CM180518-095847001 (365x400).jpg

CM180518-095929002 (355x400).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an nEF example in the Adams sale, 1st Dec 2005, lot 586, also recorded as E over both E & R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Rob I am a bit of a novice at looking these previous sales up but I will try 

 

DSC_1278 (300x400).jpg

Edited by DrLarry
additional images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that the Collection of Adams (half crowns) a Baldwin's Sale ?

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin Adams, Spink 1/12/2005, sale #177

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

top picture Looks like E/B/E you can see the curve back where the B would be. An R doesn't have that attribute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I think you might be right it is curving back 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is an artefact on a worn coin because the bottom one is higher grade and has a diagonal across the lower E serif, and what would correspond to the tail of the R appears bottom right. Even though we are only looking at one letter, they are both from the same die I think because the repunching looks to be identical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will add some more images 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes and the die also has three other errors the bar in the A is missing in MAL and the I in FID is over a 1 I think 

 

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here are the other images the first three off the better example and the last the lower grade.  Does appear to be three letters there is a spike of metal centre higher than the lower one 

CM180518-125604001 (243x400).jpg

CM180518-125643003 (336x400).jpg

CM180518-125716004 (346x400).jpg

CM180518-130112005 (305x400).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the curve is created by the R , the punch is rotated and the R's on the half crown are very "bulldog" so I think the rotation may have given rise to the appearance of it as a B 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone have any thoughts about that I over a 1 .  i have looked long and hard at it and whilst there is no evidence of an inward change in the upper right side serif ie the right side seems to descend straight down if offset crooked to the right side there do not appear to be any scars for the removal of the right extension.  The base is interesting the metal clearly varies across and the base of the "1" is higher and 1 or 2 degrees off centre.  

 

Let me know if you would like more images 

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be an I over a 1, but equally it could be the same punch inverted the second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some better images. Possible I suppose 

CM180518-173848011.jpg

CM180518-173713007.jpg

CM180518-173848011.jpg

CM180518-173713007.jpg

CM180518-173848011.jpg

CM180518-173713007.jpg

CM180518-173848011.jpg

CM180518-173713007.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob said:

I think that is an artefact on a worn coin because the bottom one is higher grade and has a diagonal across the lower E serif, and what would correspond to the tail of the R appears bottom right. Even though we are only looking at one letter, they are both from the same die I think because the repunching looks to be identical.

I agree. It only takes a stray bit of metal in the right place to give the false illusion of curving back. My money's on an R too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DrLarry said:

here are the other images the first three off the better example and the last the lower grade.  Does appear to be three letters there is a spike of metal centre higher than the lower one 

CM180518-125604001 (243x400).jpg

CM180518-125643003 (336x400).jpg

CM180518-125716004 (346x400).jpg

CM180518-130112005 (305x400).jpg

Looking at the third picture i guess at F over E over P....with a die crack below the loop of a P....:wacko:

Although looking at the picture again the E must have been used twice....So i give up :D

 

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok then perhaps I can ask a more mundane question: if SPINK sold one in 2005 E over E over R and SPINK are the people that publish the book we most of us use which list rare varieties like the E over R in DEI why have they not listed the one error they sold in 2005 ...that to me as a novice is strange behaviour because how are we supposed to look out for things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

ok then perhaps I can ask a more mundane question: if SPINK sold one in 2005 E over E over R and SPINK are the people that publish the book we most of us use which list rare varieties like the E over R in DEI why have they not listed the one error they sold in 2005 ...that to me as a novice is strange behaviour because how are we supposed to look out for things?

Because if you listed every variety known to man you would end up with a volume to rival the Encyclopaedia Britannica in size. If you took say the Weyl patterns that I wrote an article on a few years ago, then you have around 100 varieties to add to the book, none of which are currently listed. Withers small change lists the hammered halfpennies in 5 volumes from Edward I to the Comonwealth whereas they currently occupy a few pages in Spink. Maurice Bull's halfcrowns of Charles I also occupy 5 volumes taking up 6 inches of shelf space. See where I'm coming from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I can but why then list any variety or error.... that was the underlying question really rather than the fact that there are hundreds of varieties of all number of coins in a series.  So perhaps my question would be best ask as follows: why do some get in the list and others don't? to say that they only list the more common would also seem not to fit because they list the E over R in DEI as extremely rare, some they list as Possibly Unique .  I am trying to understand the logic in the choice what to publish and what not to list.  But perhaps there are volumes and volumes of books picking up dust someplace.  Again I ask so that as a novice I should not bother the room with the many overprints I would like to ask you about which I have the R over B in the 61 halfpenny along with 10 other varieties  but not 62 R over B.  I am just trying to understand as I say 

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has grown organically over the past 50+ years. The most obvious ones, or the most popular got included first, but now it is probably down to pressure from an individual whether it gets included given the potential explosion in listings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok sure then I suppose the best thing to do is to start creating wikipedia pages for varieties then at least when I or others find something and  do a search they will come up as the first entry then we can have a coin library online the size of several encyclopedias that way it would be available to the masses.  Sorry I am wanting a place to aid me in understanding coins in a more esoteric way, as well as the history of dies errors and events that surround the human need to make them.  50 million round metal discs that tell the same story  seem a lot less interesting to me than one round  lump of metal that tells an individual story or helps create a pattern.  it is exploding the listing as the science changes allowing us to see and record so perhaps there's need to be a change in the way we record these pattern changes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut reaction is to suggest buying a lot of books tailored to your personal interests, as specialist volumes invariably touch on the history as well as the finer detail. As I look at the desk in front of me I see Robin Eaglen's Book on the Abbey & Mint of Bury St. Edmunds, Spink 2018, a privately compiled list of halfcrowns with known examples of each listed with their provenances plus where the owner acquired his own, Challis' History of the Royal Mint, Sotheby's catalogue for the Murdoch sale part III (1903), Pirie's Northumbrian stycas (1995), Krause & Mishler and four books on the history of Chester in the Civil War, all of which make for a fairly eclectic mix of reading material. 

The big problem is finding a central point for storing all this info. It also goes without saying that not all people agree with an attribution, so who is right? We haven't agreed on what constitutes a variety yet as you will discover if you search the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said it many times it seems like unless your names XXXXXXXXXX good luck getting a variety published. You can even send the info to XXXXXXXXX and it still won't get published because they didn't find it. Or worse still they will tell you what you are seeing is an illusion yet the pictures and descriptions I have seen from themselves are borderline nonsense. The only way to have this information and has been said to me before is to do it yourself. I know for a fact the guy behind the spink book doesn't even want varieties in the book and if proof is the eating of the pudding 2018 book now omits 1860 6+H Penny variety. Which seems very strange as there was a price structure against the coin so it must exist somewhere. About time the guard was changed and the stuffy well to do's removed. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has long been a problem. Include one person's variety and you upset someone else who didn't. A big positive from paring it back to the basics would mean there would be far fewer people with Churchill crowns worth £600.

It's a circular argument that is intractable - which is something we need to accept. As it stands we have the whole world complaining that the standard references don't have the individual's required info, so let's put the question back to the collector and ask who is going to be the person responsible for making tens of thousands of customised references that conveniently fit in their pockets, and get updated on a regular basis with only the bits they are interested in. I know they won't pay for the service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×