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.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Rob said:

1698

Thanks Rob.

I was way off i could make out the 16 but the others look like zeros to me 🙄 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be the far commoner 1696 with a different 6. You may have trouble selling it as the rare '98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Could be the far commoner 1696 with a different 6. You may have trouble selling it as the rare '98.

I think you might be right. I went for 8 based on no visible top to the 6 and its position relative to the exergue line, but having spent half an hour looking, the limited number of 1698s I can find all have a smaller top loop to the 8 than seen on the 9 and it is quite a thin line when compared to the 6/9 loop. Given the limited striking period in 1698, the low output and by extension the limited number of dies employed, it would therefore seem more likely to be 1696.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


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

I think you might be right. I went for 8 based on no visible top to the 6 and its position relative to the exergue line, but having spent half an hour looking, the limited number of 1698s I can find all have a smaller top loop to the 8 than seen on the 9 and it is quite a thin line when compared to the 6/9 loop. Given the limited striking period in 1698, the low output and by extension the limited number of dies employed, it would therefore seem more likely to be 1696.

I think both the recent decent grade ones (the Bates and Pywell-Philips) were both from different dies and had thinner 8's. Doesn't mean there aren't other dies out there, but it would be a massive figure if it was an 8.

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=316038

and the Pywell-Philips one:

image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can say anything about W3 halfpenny dates (or legends) that could be considered abnormal given the variety of fonts and character sizes used. Look at the size of the 0 used on some 1701s, or the Roman vs Italic 1s. It isn't limited to farthing and halfpenny size characters either, because there is a 1699 (Nicholson 120) with a ludicrously large inverted V for A. If anything is abnormal, it is a coin without inconsistencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 12:29 PM, Rob said:

I don't think we can say anything about W3 halfpenny dates (or legends) that could be considered abnormal given the variety of fonts and character sizes used. Look at the size of the 0 used on some 1701s, or the Roman vs Italic 1s. It isn't limited to farthing and halfpenny size characters either, because there is a 1699 (Nicholson 120) with a ludicrously large inverted V for A. If anything is abnormal, it is a coin without inconsistencies.

Agreed, I am collecting these at the moment and a normal coin definitely has some legend oddities. For the Peck 705 variety there seem to be a large number of die combinations, despite the odd combination of As for Vs in the obverse legend and the large O in the date. The large O punch seems to have been prepared to cover up a misplaced 1 or for a 1701/1699 overdate (both appear to exist), and then used liberally to make new dies. 

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

×