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.

Martinminerva

1693 shilling 3 (not 9) over 0 or 6. Unknown?

Recommended Posts

post-928-1169202783_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169202806_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169202753_thumb.jpgI have acquired a William & Mary shilling of 1693, on which the 3 appears to be struck over a 0 or more likely a misplaced 6, given that 1690 shillings were not struck.

I know a rare 9 over 0 version exists, but has anyone come across a 3 over 0/6 such as this? The condition is not brilliant – less than fair, so do any of you out there have a better one to confirm the overstrike and indeed the final digit? Any comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-928-1169202783_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169202806_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169202753_thumb.jpgI have acquired a William & Mary shilling of 1693, on which the 3 appears to be struck over a 0 or more likely a misplaced 6, given that 1690 shillings were not struck.

I know a rare 9 over 0 version exists, but has anyone come across a 3 over 0/6 such as this? The condition is not brilliant – less than fair, so do any of you out there have a better one to confirm the overstrike and indeed the final digit? Any comments?

I would say it's not over 6 or 0. The 6s are almost the same size as a 0 with a tail attached. If you compare with my 1693 which is better but not brilliant, you can see the 3 is essentially the same shape. It appears on my piece that both the 6 and the 3 have been made up from more than one cut. The 6 has the loop closed with a thinner section and the top half of the 3 is in higher relief than the loop of the 3 although this is not obvious from the scan.

However, you have inadvertently highlighted a variety I wasn't aware of. The square blocks surrounding the Lion of Nassau are positioned differently on the two pieces. Yours has an extra block bottom left, and mine has an extra block just right of 12 o'clock. I don't know which is more common so will have to check.

post-381-1169329383_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-928-1169202783_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169202806_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169202753_thumb.jpgI have acquired a William & Mary shilling of 1693, on which the 3 appears to be struck over a 0 or more likely a misplaced 6, given that 1690 shillings were not struck.

I know a rare 9 over 0 version exists, but has anyone come across a 3 over 0/6 such as this? The condition is not brilliant – less than fair, so do any of you out there have a better one to confirm the overstrike and indeed the final digit? Any comments?

I would say it's not over 6 or 0. The 6s are almost the same size as a 0 with a tail attached. If you compare with my 1693 which is better but not brilliant, you can see the 3 is essentially the same shape. It appears on my piece that both the 6 and the 3 have been made up from more than one cut. The 6 has the loop closed with a thinner section and the top half of the 3 is in higher relief than the loop of the 3 although this is not obvious from the scan.

However, you have inadvertently highlighted a variety I wasn't aware of. The square blocks surrounding the Lion of Nassau are positioned differently on the two pieces. Yours has an extra block bottom left, and mine has an extra block just right of 12 o'clock. I don't know which is more common so will have to check.

Thanks for this. Very interesting what you point out about the squares around the central lion. Clearly then there is more than one distinct reverse die being used, but I also notice that the bottom part of your coin's 3 is significantly shorter than my one, even not counting the spurious "overstrike" bit. The bottom limb on my 3 extends to exactly below the central bar, whereas yours stops quite a bit shorter. I wonder if other members have specimens of either 'squares' variety, and whether there is consistency with the style of 3, and indeed the possible overdate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In half an hour's looking I found 4 varieties of Lion of Nassau. Three with differently positioned blocks and one without any at all. The two commonest were yours and mine in roughly equal measure. I suggest there could quite possibly be more than these 4.

Re the overdate, I would be a lot happier if there was a trace of it on the other side as well. The left side looks to be very prominent indeed which makes me think you ought to see at least a trace on the other side. It's the absence of this feature that leads me to doubt whether it is a 6 or 0.

I think the basic style of both 3s is similar if you consider it as two separate cuts. My bottom loop is rotated slightly anticlockwise compared to yours and so has a shoulder where the top half joins. Yours doesn't have this discontinuity and so would be punched in slightly clockwise meaning your tail is further left. Both 3s have a small blob on the end of the tail which would tend to imply that this is the end, and is not a case of my 3 being shortened from die fill IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-928-1169641773_thumb.jpg

In half an hour's looking I found 4 varieties of Lion of Nassau. Three with differently positioned blocks and one without any at all. The two commonest were yours and mine in roughly equal measure. I suggest there could quite possibly be more than these 4.

Re the overdate, I would be a lot happier if there was a trace of it on the other side as well. The left side looks to be very prominent indeed which makes me think you ought to see at least a trace on the other side. It's the absence of this feature that leads me to doubt whether it is a 6 or 0.

I think the basic style of both 3s is similar if you consider it as two separate cuts. My bottom loop is rotated slightly anticlockwise compared to yours and so has a shoulder where the top half joins. Yours doesn't have this discontinuity and so would be punched in slightly clockwise meaning your tail is further left. Both 3s have a small blob on the end of the tail which would tend to imply that this is the end, and is not a case of my 3 being shortened from die fill IMHO.

Here's another picture of the 3 on mine, which might just hint at something on the RIGHT hand side of the 3 - there appears to be a little gap halfway up the bottom curve where the original 0 or 6 might leave the course of the 3 over it, but has been almost entirely erased from the die before the correct digit was puched or cut in, but that may well just be imagination or a nick on such a worn coin. It would be very interesting to see if someone has another specimen similar, but in much better condition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How comparable is the size of the underlying character compared to the 6/9? It is difficult to tell from the image as the coin isn't face on. Logically you would expect it to be a 6/9 as there are 2 used on the coin. Therefore you would expect the error to be punched at the same time as the rest of the numerals and so the size should match these two characters. A 0 is more problematic because there aren't any on the coin and a 0 on W&M shillings only exists as 1693/0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-928-1169673406_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169673456_thumb.jpg

How comparable is the size of the underlying character compared to the 6/9? It is difficult to tell from the image as the coin isn't face on. Logically you would expect it to be a 6/9 as there are 2 used on the coin. Therefore you would expect the error to be punched at the same time as the rest of the numerals and so the size should match these two characters. A 0 is more problematic because there aren't any on the coin and a 0 on W&M shillings only exists as 1693/0.

It is hard to be certain about the scale of the under-strike, if any, due to the poor condition of the coin, but it appears to be of the right proportions to be a 6 or a 0. I attach a larger photo of the figure and a scale drawing of what I believe is visible. The outlined part is the actual 3, and the solid black is what may be the underdate. Like you say, this is very clear to the left, where a curved (and raised – so incuse on the die) limb peters away to little or nothing, but to the right it is much less obvious. I honestly can’t tell if my solid black part to the right is just part of the curve of the 3 and so purely conjecture and imagination on my part, or part of the curve of a 0 or a 6, mostly erased from the die. The little indent is interesting, though. How wide is your 3 at this point, compared to mine if you enlarge it to the same scale? That might help ascertain if there is anything there. Like you, I would plump for a 6 rather than a 0 from the fact that that digit occurs in the date already, and the fact that the 6 is pretty much the same as a 0 in size and shape but for its little tail. We really need to find a much better condition one, if possible! Is there anyone out there with one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How wide is your 3 at this point, compared to mine if you enlarge it to the same scale?

I'd say yours is a bit wider. It could possibly be due to the loop. As you say, a better example would answer the question.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-928-1169842242_thumb.jpgpost-928-1169842281_thumb.jpgWould you believe it - there's 2 of them currently on ebay, both in better nick, and both looking very much like the 3 is over a 6!!! Paste these into the web browser:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...=ADME:B:SS:UK:1

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...=ADME:B:SS:UK:1

Perhaps it is not so rare a variety, and perhaps it deserves recording?!

I'll try and paste pictures in too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-928-1170843509_thumb.jpg

On further research, I see in the Coincraft Catalogue of 1995 that there is reference number "WMSH-025 1693 shilling with 3 over inverted 2". Is this it, then? That might well answer why there is no extension of the underdate to the right of the 3, as the inverted 2 (picture attached for comparison) would not have one!

So how rare are these? My one and those two on ebay, but I expect there will be many more?

Can anyone provide a picture of a high grade one to answer things conclusively?

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

×