Rob

This is a rather extreme case of rotated double strike reading GVLIELMELM TERTIVTIVS and BRBRITANIA•16981698

It's the last couple of years when they effectively stopped selling to the trade that the prices have rocketed.

It ticks the example of a 'double struck coin' box. The minting techniques and errors section is full of oddballs like this, e.g. my avatar. The gold coloured one is in Barton's Metal. As it was only used on a couple of occasions, again it was a case of grabbing it when the opportunity arose.

You haven't. It's just the two things appeared a**e about face for normality. People will pick up on anything around here. Foot in mouth is a common disease around here.

Lamination has been a problen as long as plate has been rolled. Pockets of air can get trapped leading to effects such as this brass 3d. The coin was held together at the periphery only, with the dark areas showing where the trapped air has oxidised the inner surface.

An interesting double strike and the only example I have seen of Briot's milled coinage.

OK, a starter for 10. The 1824 bare head halfcrown obverse die must have been close to disintegration when this was struck. The flaws radiate from the centre in all directions and are noticeably worse than on other 1824s I have seen.

No problem, we all do it. You're the 'go to' bloke Rob. Can you tell me: how rare is the R over O obverse? Never seen one, though Nick found one in a DNW search in 1995. There is a thread somewhere because I asked the question a while ago. It would be interesting to see what this actually is in hand because I have a 1773 with OR over O - i.e. the underlying O was cut too far clockwise and then corrected.

Oops, so he did. That's what happens when you speed read. I saw the 1734 and 3 over 1, so made the words after 1734 'over' given there was one described as 1734/3/I in Nicholson.

It isn't a 4 over 3. They are actually quite rare, more so than say the 1732/1. I can still count the number I have seen on one hand.

Truth is Vicky, there's a lot we don't know. Last week I was shown an 1887 6d with the second reverse that had the last digit a full tick to the right of all the others seen. That had to be put in by hand too as it was slightly misaligned. I think it is a case of take everything you read with a pinch of salt unless you are happy in your own mind it is true.

Somewhere on this forum is an 1870 with variable spacing, so make of it what you will.

I'm not sure it was specifically because the early coins were outsourced. Up to about 1880, the last digit or 2 digits were entered manually on the die. This is why you sometimes see a variation in the width of these dates, with the right hand digits showing variable spacing. The footnote on ESC p.135 refers. It may possibly have occurred after this time, but I have no documentary evidence to support the theory.

Not a clue. I haven't been to one of their sales for 10 years - not since an 'unc' 1905 halfcrown looked to have been in the possession of Viking invaders at some point in the past. Unsurprisingly, nor have I felt inclined to bid blind.

I have one of these - an 06-plate Cayman S that I've had from new since March 06. Nearly 90k on the clock now and I still love driving it. Much like coins - quality is indeed the key. I've never regretted pushing the boat out for the Cayman, even when it's thrown me the odd big bill. Sorry for the thread hijack Non. I love your halfcrowns. When funds allow, I'm aiming for similar ones too! Most people struggle to afford the Cayman rather than a few halfcrowns.

Sorry, I must read all the description. Didn't see the 'inverted' bit. There is a slight variation in 6 punches, but nothing that stands out as being markedly different from a 9. I would be surprised if they had distinct punches for the two. I don't have many images of 9s, but all the 6s and 9s I have fall into one of the attached. The 3rd 6 might possibly be over a corrected 8 given the shape. Given there are several punches used and that a 6 is an inverted 9 or vice-versa, I can't see how you would say one was a 6 as opposed to a 9. It is possible that more punches were used as a 6 than as a 9 given the prolific output of the new coinage, but that doesn't make them specifically 6s. Alternatively, you could take the view that all 1816s are struck as 1819s in error.

Not a clue who sold them. Sorry

I phoned him about 12 months ago and discovered what Peter has written.

Debbie, I think 9/9 too. Eric. There is nothing to suggest a 9 over 6. If 9 over 6 there would have to be an arch representing the top of the 6 loop, but all I see is the bottom of a loop. i.e. 9 over 9 as has already been said. Whether it was someone at the PCGS office having a bad day, or them relying on what they have been told, it's clearly wrong.

Sorry, cannonball pennies get under my radar. I would like an 1897 dot penny though to sell on if I can make a bit on it.

I think we will all have to agree to differ on this one. I can't agree re the Cannonball if you are referring to the W/SA halfcrown though as this appears to have had the SA removed because the die moved away from Shrewsbury(?) to a new location. The varieties I have the real problems with are those arising from general wear and tear or those where the same nominal design is employed, but due to individually punched features show slight positional differences or have used several punches. Errors, corrected errors and discrete design differences are acceptable to me. Blocked stops are not.

Ah, thanks Vicky. It appears that my login buttons were hidden. What a load of rubbish. They have taken the login fields and hidden them behind an arrow which gives no indication as to what lies below. On the plus side, it appears that both new and old login details work. On the down side, the button to logout is not where the login is found, rather it is in the same place as it was previously - where the login button sat before they messed around with the format. The login button I inadvertently found in help when searching the help files for clues on how to login still doesn't work! I think 'could do better' applies here, so I'll still leave it in Room 101. Trouble is, PCGS are not very amenable to re-education (thinking back to the wax removal service).

Do you mean Sharon or Ozzie? I presume you mean Sharon, as the only coherent half of the partnership she is the one most likely to construct an offensive statement. Not sure why the other two though.

No, I don't see anything upper left, just the CU forum logo and then the various forum tabs down the side. Tells you who is logged in at the bottom, but there isn't a login link in sight.

Upper right is where the login link used to reside. Now it seems to have disappeared and the only login I could see was in 'Help' - which somewhat ironically didn't work.........