Madness

With one final roll of the dice I put in a bid below estimate and won the auction for the MS-65 1787 Sixpence. Comparison of the coin to my database shows it to probably be a HS27 with a weakish strike that obscures the seventh string. https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-DO12Z Unfortunately Stacks Bowers' invoice includes unexpected items such as a wire fee, insurance and an exorbitant shipping charge. My winning bid was $280 USD. The final price with all fees included is an eye-watering $431.50 USD. Wouldn't have bid if I knew it would cost this much but I'm committed now. In short, I'm unable to pay them immediately. Has anyone dealt with them recently? Are they harsh on defaulters? Is there any possibility of working out a payment plan with them? Thanks!

If there were a risk that the price of less common varieties of 1787 sixpences were to rise I'd be loath to publish. Surely this is the dilemma that faces all specialist collectors that decide to conduct die studies. Perhaps I'll delay presenting the results of my research until I've collected everything I want. That could take quite some time. Another benefit, though, would be that I could illustrate the research with photos of my own specimens rather than wading through the legalities of obtaining permission to publish others' material. Has anyone else here been in a similar position?

My mistake. I usually welcome criticism from people such as yourself anyway as it shows errors in my thinking concerning a subject about which I know very little.

It's possible to not be offended by criticism, as in this instance.

I don't want advice on this one. It's the only example of this coin I've seen, whether you call it a "variety" or not. This term is a construct that makes categorisation easier, allows the analysis of rarity, is tied to market psychology and appeal to collectors and sellers alike. I don't care whether or not it will ever be "listed" as a variety. It's still a variety. Besides, I liked it, a could afford it and I bought it. End of story. Criticism in this case is falling on deaf ears.

Ha! Every penny I had wasn't a great amount. I paid 50 Euro below the estimate and my ceiling was 30 Euro above. I don't think there are any listed varieties of business strikes of the 1787 sixpence apart from with-hearts and without-hearts. Not even the I/D Obverse is listed, and I've seen over ten of them. A variety does not need to be officially recorded in order to exist. I don't think it would be possible to do any more research than I have done. No offence taken.

Moot point now. I have, unsurprisingly, been outbid.

I've circled the feature I'm talking about: Whether you interpret this as part of the harp's body or part of the shortest string, it's a unique representative of a die or reworked die among my database of 500 or so 1787 sixpences. I've only identified dies for about 14% of the reverse images so far, but it appears that the strings and date-dots (in addition to some of the numerals) were added by hand after the dies had been punched as they differ from die to die. I assume that this little detail was engraved at the same time. Perhaps it's a bit like a kid writing "Harry waz 'ere" in wet cement. I was the only bidder on the example at this auction here: http://www.inumis.com/us/vso//grande-bretagne-georges-iii-six-pence-1787-londres-a61577.html I don't care if anyone says I overpaid. I threw every penny I had at it so that I could acquire the coin's quirkiness.

What do you mean by "main upright"?

Thanks for playing, gentlemen! Please make your selection from our showcase of marvelous prizes. The "game" was actually intended for @Peckris 2 to illustrate the scroll form at the end of the shortest string. Only example I've seen.

Let's play a game of "spot the differences":

Never mind

Thanks Rob. Will remove from the slab in the event I'm successful. I'm a collector, not an investor.

This coin will be sticking around. Calmer heads than mine have prevailed. After all, I will be getting to a 1787 shilling die study and it would be a shame to rob myself of resources that will come in handy then.

If I were to win a slabbed MS-65 coin at auction, would it be madness to remove it from its slab? The OCD lunatic within me cries out to put it into a quadrum like all my other coins.

Just won this coin at a French mail-bid auction. There is an interesting detail in the final string of the Irish harp in the form of a scroll-shape at the bottom. It's the only example I've identified in my database. Fortunately I was the only bidder.

Hiromi - XYZ Rush - YYZ

Something old Something new Something borrowed Something blue

Example overlay using the method described in the previous post: The two coins compared are a September proof and the coin in the post above. They seem to be in the same matrix family of"17--". The first two digits of both coins are spatially equivalent as there aren't two versions of each evident. The "8" and "7" are in different relative positions as can be seen by the ghostly overlay or "double-vision". Obviously different dies were used to make each coin, not that an overlay comparison was necessary with a proof involved.

I'm at the stage of formulating a methodology for comparison and have been messing around with GIMP. I'd like your feedback! The first stage of my analysis will be to categorise reverse dies by their most easily discernible features. I consider this to be primarily the relative positioning and alignment of the date. Hocking describes two surviving reverse matrices of the sixpences in the RM museum, the first of which is dated "17--" only and the second of which is dated "178-" only (thanks @Rob). This suggests that the last digit or last two digits were hand-punched into the die, confirmed by the wide variation of their relative positions in my sample of about 500. While the figures themselves degraded with die use, their relative positions should not have changed. I intend to use GIMP to align the Irish shield as closely as possible to perfectly horizontal and vertical after which I'll resize the shield so that it becomes 300 pixels across. This will provide an absolute point of reference for each specimen in my database. A foreseeable drawback is that not all of my sample images will be of high enough quality to treat in this manner. It's possible, though, that they would have been unusable in any regard. Here's an experiment I did this morning: The next stage will involve making each edited image semi-transparent and comparing the date positions two at a time, progressively developing categories which may then need to be further refined in order to determine dies. I will also need to ensure that each of my samples is unique. My images have largely come from coins being sold. If they've been sold more than once in the last ten years or so it's possible that they appear more than once in my database. I can't have this as it will throw out my statistical description/inference of the relative number of coins produced by each die. A comparison of toning, mottling, haymarking, die degradation and coin wear should achieve this task. I'm inviting criticism of my proposed methodology from anyone, especially those who've done die studies before. Thanks! Nathan

After hearing this I'm thinking of taking up flugelhorn:

Thanks for your compliment! I built it myself for about $30 AUD using bits and pieces from Bunnings and a piece of wood I had lying around at home. Would you like me to list the parts and how I made it? I don't know much about photography, but I don't think it's really a copy stand. More of a platform that can be raised and lowered on which I lay my phone. Edit: The only tools you need are a drill, saw, chisel and mallet. If you don't have access to these I'd be happy to make one for you for the cost of parts and shipping. I could probably adapt the design to make something more in line with a proper copy stand. If you wanted to get fancy, I could also mount stands for lighting. Edit 2: Just found this on eBay https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Rocwing-Ball-Head-Compact-Photo-Studio-Copy-Stand-for-Macro-Photography/183429636554?hash=item2ab54221ca:g:d2kAAOSwPrlbmQEu Is it suitable for your purposes?

Is anyone aware of this project relating to computer-aided die studies? Any more info available that you know off the top of your head? http://numismatics.org/pocketchange/cads/