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  
JLS

1694 halfpenny with reverse die errors

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rob said:

I think it's a case of deciding what the biggest issue is. Literacy was at a premium leading to many corrections. The punches are in a dire state by 1700. And with the dies being used to destruction you also see a considerable amount of degradation along the way, including a lot of detail loss at the edges and die filling. Here is another 1700 again with a fairly messy T, which although not identical to yours, would not be the first shape you would choose to represent a T.

028 - Copy.JPG

Absolutely Rob. Look at the obverse Ts on this 1700. And what's that under the IV, an O?

 

1700T.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob said:

I think it's a case of deciding what the biggest issue is. Literacy was at a premium leading to many corrections. The punches are in a dire state by 1700. And with the dies being used to destruction you also see a considerable amount of degradation along the way, including a lot of detail loss at the edges and die filling. Here is another 1700 again with a fairly messy T, which although not identical to yours, would not be the first shape you would choose to represent a T.

028 - Copy.JPG

That's one of Nicholson's GVLIEEMVS reverses unless I'm mistaken - the better one.

I don't think fully struck up Britannia heads exist on the 1701 coins, and are very rare on the 1700 date. Even Nicholson's no stops obverse 1701, possibly the best known 1701 (except the silver proof in the BM/Peck plate coin which has a fully struck up head) has a flat head and corresponding weak cuirass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, oldcopper said:

I've seen 4 of these 1699 BRITAN IA's - the Baldwins late 2000's sale, Mark Rasmussen list 7, SNC 1976 and a worn one sold recently by DNW in a mixed lot. DNW have also sold 2 others previously which were in no way missing the second N! (whoops!) but the more recent one was genuine. There is a characteristic flaw on the right hand side of the upright of the T - this is present on 3 of the above but not, surprisingly, on the Mark Rasmussen coin which is from the same dies on careful comparison. I think Mark's coin must have been struck earlier before the die flaw developed.

https://imgur.com/a/pRH1zi7 

Here's my suspect 1699 BRITAN IA halfpenny - was very dubious to me before due to the wear but it does seem to have a "flaw on the right hand sight of the upright of the T" so let me know what you think !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any way to see it without clicking on links to access imgur, i.e can you not just post a picture in the normal way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, oldcopper said:

That's one of Nicholson's GVLIEEMVS reverses unless I'm mistaken - the better one.

Correct.

027 - Copy.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rob said:

Is there any way to see it without clicking on links to access imgur, i.e can you not just post a picture in the normal way?

Here you go - just can't resize pictures on my phone. 

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. You wouldn't want to stake your life on a decision one way or the other. I'm staying on the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JLS said:

https://imgur.com/a/pRH1zi7 

Here's my suspect 1699 BRITAN IA halfpenny - was very dubious to me before due to the wear but it does seem to have a "flaw on the right hand sight of the upright of the T" so let me know what you think !

The flaw is about halfway up and appears as a small sticking out "branch" at right angles. You can see this very clearly on the Baldwin coin (Auction 50, lot 332) and the May 1976 SNC item 3996 (also sold Spink Coin Auction 14 lot 311 and Glens 30/4/86 ("Lancashire Collection"). However, and I must apologise as I was writing from memory previously, both the Mark Rasmussen example (List 7, item 175) AND the DNW specimen (21st Feb 2018, lot 370) don't have this flaw. [I said the DNW one had the flaw last time]

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=305672

I can't see the flaw on yours, but that doesn't rule it out as described above.  But the two 9's aren't touching in the DNW specimen and they are in yours, so your coin is from a different die. I'll relook at the other's illustrations and will get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JLS said:

https://imgur.com/a/pRH1zi7 

Here's my suspect 1699 BRITAN IA halfpenny - was very dubious to me before due to the wear but it does seem to have a "flaw on the right hand sight of the upright of the T" so let me know what you think !

Just checked the other examples - as expected the 2 9's aren't touching so yours is from a different die and thus is more doubtful as a BRITAN-IA.

The BM doesn't have a specimen but instead have a cut-out photo of a reverse of this type with Peck's acknowledgement written on the back that he agrees that the variety is valid.

As for the 1697 missing N variety, the fact you can clearly see a faint N on the Peck plate coin indicates not one of Peck's finer moments! The obvious reason is uneven "camber" (is that the right word?) of the 2 dies giving a weak patch top left reverse when brought together.

The one in the Bates collection resold early 2019 also showed part of a faint N (as do all others provided they're not too worn). So this variety shouldn't be classed as a missing letter variety:

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=326816

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Just checked the other examples - as expected the 2 9's aren't touching so yours is from a different die and thus is more doubtful as a BRITAN-IA.

Yeah - I doubt there are two "BRITAN-IA" dies out there somewhere...although I guess you can never know with the poor quality of the copper coinage at the time. Thank you for the thorough analysis. I'm very happy to have picked up the 1694 without paying much for it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JLS said:

Yeah - I doubt there are two "BRITAN-IA" dies out there somewhere...although I guess you can never know with the poor quality of the copper coinage at the time. Thank you for the thorough analysis. I'm very happy to have picked up the 1694 without paying much for it. 

 

 

Assume nothing. The 1817 shilling is known for an I/S in HONI error. The same is known for 1820, but from a different die. And while we are on halfpennies, here is a GV/B 1694 W & M, followed by 3 1701s with the same error. If you can make a mistake once, you can do it again. I've finished too many emails off with amny thnaks to suggest otherwise.

gv over b halfpennies.jpg

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  

×