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

I am intrigued by the "R/B" photograph which is as clear as you can get, well done, but there is nothing like seeing the actual coin. when you hold it is there a nick in the leg of the R and are the right serif foot of the R and the leg connected? I have commented previously that I think the R/B is just an R/I with the right serif further over (see how the I is turned anticlockwise). What are your views. This is the first time I have seen a picture good enough to bring that view into doubt.

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B.

I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am intrigued by the "R/B" photograph which is as clear as you can get, well done, but there is nothing like seeing the actual coin. when you hold it is there a nick in the leg of the R and are the right serif foot of the R and the leg connected? I have commented previously that I think the R/B is just an R/I with the right serif further over (see how the I is turned anticlockwise). What are your views. This is the first time I have seen a picture good enough to bring that view into doubt.

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B.

I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer.

I think this photo shows it better.

1887-6D-3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am intrigued by the "R/B" photograph which is as clear as you can get, well done, but there is nothing like seeing the actual coin. when you hold it is there a nick in the leg of the R and are the right serif foot of the R and the leg connected? I have commented previously that I think the R/B is just an R/I with the right serif further over (see how the I is turned anticlockwise). What are your views. This is the first time I have seen a picture good enough to bring that view into doubt.

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B.

I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer.

I think this photo shows it better.

1887-6D-3.jpg

A good case for R/B could be made there. However, don't also discount the possibility that parts of a letter can join up - look at the 'leakage' on the right of the base of the T; the same thing might have happened with the R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good case for R/B could be made there. However, don't also discount the possibility that parts of a letter can join up - look at the 'leakage' on the right of the base of the T; the same thing might have happened with the R.

That's a possibility. It would be useful if there was another example to compare with. Does anybody have such an image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am intrigued by the "R/B" photograph which is as clear as you can get, well done, but there is nothing like seeing the actual coin. when you hold it is there a nick in the leg of the R and are the right serif foot of the R and the leg connected? I have commented previously that I think the R/B is just an R/I with the right serif further over (see how the I is turned anticlockwise). What are your views. This is the first time I have seen a picture good enough to bring that view into doubt.

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B.

I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer.

I think this photo shows it better.

1887-6D-3.jpg

A good case for R/B could be made there. However, don't also discount the possibility that parts of a letter can join up - look at the 'leakage' on the right of the base of the T; the same thing might have happened with the R.

Well you can't get any better than that. This photo convinces me the so called R/B is just an R/I. The particular effect is created by striking the I slightly twisted. You can see how it is low at the top of the R and particularly low on the left hand side this pushes the right hand serif further out to the right. It is still just possible there is a B in there somewhere just as there is a V in the R/V but the main point in both cases is the low and clearly visible top of the I . My vote is R/I previously known as R/B. Anyone else agree? Come on where are you Rob, let's here what you would be happy to go to print on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am intrigued by the "R/B" photograph which is as clear as you can get, well done, but there is nothing like seeing the actual coin. when you hold it is there a nick in the leg of the R and are the right serif foot of the R and the leg connected? I have commented previously that I think the R/B is just an R/I with the right serif further over (see how the I is turned anticlockwise). What are your views. This is the first time I have seen a picture good enough to bring that view into doubt.

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B.

I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer.

I think this photo shows it better.

1887-6D-3.jpg

A good case for R/B could be made there. However, don't also discount the possibility that parts of a letter can join up - look at the 'leakage' on the right of the base of the T; the same thing might have happened with the R.

Well you can't get any better than that. This photo convinces me the so called R/B is just an R/I. The particular effect is created by striking the I slightly twisted. You can see how it is low at the top of the R and particularly low on the left hand side this pushes the right hand serif further out to the right. It is still just possible there is a B in there somewhere just as there is a V in the R/V but the main point in both cases is the low and clearly visible top of the I . My vote is R/I previously known as R/B. Anyone else agree? Come on where are you Rob, let's here what you would be happy to go to print on.

Well at least not this with its obvious spelling mistake. Sorry .......for "here" read "hear"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can't get any better than that. This photo convinces me the so called R/B is just an R/I. The particular effect is created by striking the I slightly twisted. You can see how it is low at the top of the R and particularly low on the left hand side this pushes the right hand serif further out to the right. It is still just possible there is a B in there somewhere just as there is a V in the R/V but the main point in both cases is the low and clearly visible top of the I . My vote is R/I previously known as R/B. Anyone else agree? Come on where are you Rob, let's here what you would be happy to go to print on.

I'm not sure that I agree with it being an R/I with a slanted I. The serifs aren't very long and the angle of the I is so slight as to be almost negligible. The following picture is from the same coin and shows the R/I also used in GRATIA. Presumably the alterations to the Rs would have been made at the same time with the same punch, which shows that you would need either a much larger slant on the I or a substantial die break to connect the serif to the leg of the R.

1887-6D-4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can't get any better than that. This photo convinces me the so called R/B is just an R/I. The particular effect is created by striking the I slightly twisted. You can see how it is low at the top of the R and particularly low on the left hand side this pushes the right hand serif further out to the right. It is still just possible there is a B in there somewhere just as there is a V in the R/V but the main point in both cases is the low and clearly visible top of the I . My vote is R/I previously known as R/B. Anyone else agree? Come on where are you Rob, let's here what you would be happy to go to print on.

I'm not sure that I agree with it being an R/I with a slanted I. The serifs aren't very long and the angle of the I is so slight as to be almost negligible. The following picture is from the same coin and shows the R/I also used in GRATIA. Presumably the alterations to the Rs would have been made at the same time with the same punch, which shows that you would need either a much larger slant on the I or a substantial die break to connect the serif to the leg of the R.

1887-6D-4.jpg

Ok there is your particular coin which shows the serif well over to the right but my research shows that all four Rs on the obverse are overstruck and that this has been done individualy on each one. Worse still the "I" used is, in many cases, not of the same font size as the R. So in some instances it would appear above the foot, below the top, to the left, to the right, twisted, below the foot, or placed so as to look exactly like a perfect R. As you can see from the R of GRATIA it is to the left of the R and the serif is smaller than the left serif of the R whereas the overstrike in VICTORIA is not the same at all. Look now at the Rs of BRITT and REGINA, these will also be overstruck but the chances are they will not look like the first two. My guess is they will look twisted out slightly clockwise with a faint line in the upright. This is most common on the 3rd. and 4th. R. I show a picture of a particular R/I in BRITT. give me a ring 07967505509

post-5025-013313500 1329170451_thumb.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

×