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  
Sylvester

William III Crown - Thoughts please

Recommended Posts

I was about to put this on eBay, just assuming it was a bog standard worn 1696 crown. So I photographed it, looking at the photos and the coins I thought oh it's a 1698, looked in the coin book and then though, wait hang on there ain't a 1698. So I've looked at this coin every which way, in natural light, artificial light and thought hard 'the last digit is a 6', but as worn as the coin is, it certainly looks more like an 8 - however, looking at 1698 halfcrowns the 8 is a different shape to what I have here, it looks like a 6 which turns at the top and comes back to make an 8. I can't find any evidence of any overdates for these 1696 crowns, which was my next logical thought. The edge date is OCTAVO as per 1696.

The coin weighs 28.5g and is very worn. Silver ring when dropped and it travels down a magnetic silver slide as one would expect silver to. I though perhaps a forgery was the next logical conclusion.

SDC11888a.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Had a thought since I posted that. Could someone at the mint have punched the last 6 for the date too high and then corrected it by punching it lower, hence giving an 8 type figure, when in reality it is 6/6 (the first 6 being higher)?

 

The Obverse:

 

SDC11887a.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could also be 6 over inverted 6 (9).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm possibly. I can see that as well. Presumably they accidentally placed the punch upside down and only realised once it was done, so corrected it, resulting in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a shilling with 6/9, but it didn't make a convincing 8.

There's nothing to stop the underlying character being an 8, because a mistake by definition can be random.

02434.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there were a lot of production errors during the William III series, particularly around the Great Recoinage of 1696-7. The lower denominations were very much affected, particularly at the branch mints. This is somewhat unusual a crown though, but not unheard of for example the GEI variant.

Looks like that shilling you had also had some letter under the E of ET, unless it was a dig in the field, looks serifed though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without examining the coin firsthand, I can certainly see why you would think it was a 1698. I thought the same upon looking at the image.

Suggestions that the apparent 8 is a 6 over a higher 6, a 6 over upside down 6, etc. all bear merit. However, barring the discovery of a significantly  higher grade example to study, it is all speculation and conjecture, and the truth may never be known conclusively.

All that being said, it DOES look like an 8.

 

 

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  

×