Madness

Rrr...oll up! Rrr...oll up! You too, ladies and gentleman, can take a short ride in a fast machine! The price of entry, you ask? A mere, solitary guinea! Hopefully the process of my eBay return will be similarly short, but not too rough.

I still haven't received the partial refund from the seller of the guinea. Have just opened an eBay case against him, requesting that he either accept a return for a full refund, or provide a partial refund, in which case I'll retain ownership of the coin until I can sell it (probably for bullion value). A sorry story of silliness, silliness of the "un-researched purchase" variety. I intend to never let this happen again.

I have another theory in regards to the formation of the funny line on the "I". Doing a bit of hobby woodwork and home renovations there are times when I find it quicker to repair a gouge in wood with wood-filler (or "builder's bog") rather than replace the entire section. After the filler dries I sand it back flush with the surface and in most cases all is fine. Occasionally, though, when I sand it back I discover that I hadn't entirely filled the gouge and there is small depression remaining, often running along the edge of the gouge. The surface is smooth, but the defect is still obvious. Can you see where I'm going here? Whoever created the die might have initially punched a "D" instead of an "I". Rather than throwing it away and starting again he used some "filler" for the curve of the "D"and filed this surface back to form an "I". However, the curve of the "D" wasn't perfectly filled and left a small thin depression along the side of the edge. When coins were made using this D, this imperfection showed itself as a very narrow curve that's slightly inconsistent in depth. Do you think this hypothesis has any credibility? Is anyone aware of dies being repaired by some sort of filling agent?

My guestimate: Obverse - GVF Reverse - VF

You're saying that it's ill considered speculation on the part of the Mint Museum employee to make those comments? Could you please provide evidence to confirm or deny your speculation in regards to the odd marks in the "I"? Can you think of any examples of similar marks in lettering on legends? This would be extremely helpful. Thanks! Edit - By the way, who is Hocking?

@Rob Have you followed the link to the Mint Museum website and read their comments? "What is particularly interesting about the portrait punch illustrated here is the area of damage to the front of the bust and that the tool was nevertheless still identified in contemporary inventories as serviceable. One explanation is that, with an engraver spending perhaps as much as a month making such a punch, it may have been more practical to complete the portrait by hand on the die by repairing those missing elements of the neck and drapery than to have to start all over again with a new punch."

[in reference to this image:] I've found an image of an older portrait punch to illustrate Rob's speculation. Has helped me visualise things better. Source: Royal Mint Museum website The comments made re its continued use are illuminating.

Can anyone recommend a work on eighteenth century typography?

This is the chain isn't it: Matrix -> Punch -> Die ? I guess then that the matrix would need to be the hardest of them all. Did engravers do the the bulk of their work directly on a matrix? Eg. Bust of George, but not the lettering? I assume, then, that they did something to the matrix after the engraving to make it harder.

That's really useful information, thanks @Rob. So in relation to the second example you think the following has happened? 1. A letter "D" punch broke 2. Mint staff removed some remaining metal from the "D" punch to transform it into an "I" 3. Subsequently a die was made using this bastardised letter punch I wonder why just the curve of the "D" remains? Too sloppy to clean it up properly?

Crap. That's an expensive book. Can someone summarise it please in 200 words or less?

What would cause the two strange lines on the letters below?

@Rob It seems as though you know a lot about this topic. Could you please point me in the direction of some non-BNJ resources that would help me learn about eighteenth-century minting tools and techniques? Thanks!

The relative consistency of the fishtailing is remarkable then.

Thanks @1949threepence. I've started my own catalogue here of BNJ that is searchable by author, title and subject with a direct link to the relevant article. Started at 2014, but have only gone as far back as 2007 so far.

I follow their argument. However, I've noticed late eighteenth-century coins with a mixture of bifurcated and non-bifurcated verticals in legend-lettering on a single side. What would cause this? Uneven pressure during the strike?

I previously linked this BNJ article by Dyer & Gasper concerning late eighteenth century minting processes. Here are a few points I found interesting: 1. They attempt to determine the manufacturing techniques by examining the coins, dies, punches and matrices. This suggests that there are no detailed contemporary accounts of same. I imagine the Tower Mint wanted to keep things close to their chests! 2. Proofs and patterns were minted using a collar whereas circulation coins were not 3. The square letter bases we see on proofs of the time result from the use of collars. The bifurcation we see on letter and number fonts is a result of the manufacturing technique, not the use of a different font. Because no collar was used to restrict the outflow of the metal, it oozed out the bottom of the letters on the dies thus producing the fishtails. They claim to have experimentally verified this. Point 3 seems very odd to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what they say. Does anyone have anything to add to this?

My job in real life is trying to keep this thread on topic.

🤢 🤮 I wonder if a jeweler would buy it... Up-cycle it again.

I'm thinking of selling my guinea on eBay as it's not really in a condition worth collecting. This will then free up money to spend on other coins/books/resources. Can you please take a look at how I plan to list it? Auction starting at $449 AUD (approx 260 GBP) "1794 George III 'Spade' Guinea Ex-mount, but neatly de-soldered. Please examine the supplied images to determine grade. Delivered in a Lighthouse Quadrum Intercept square coin capsule and shipped with insurance." Do you think I should mention that it has been polished or just leave that for the buyer to determine based on the images? I don't want to mislead anyone in the same way that I was misled. By they way, I'm still waiting for that partial refund from the seller.

The inkling of an idea in line with my obsessiveness and my inability to see the forest for all the tress: To collect as many varieties of the 1787 shillings and sixpences as I can reasonably afford. There are many more than just the "semee-of-hearts" and "no-semee-of-hearts" varieties, so I should be kept busy for a while. Is this a detour in my quest to acquire Proclamation Coins or a re-assessment of the direction my collecting will take? Only time will tell. It's sure going to be an interesting ride, though.

I love The Far Side @mrbadexample