Rob

Not any more, I sold them about 6 or 7 years ago and they weren't high enough grade to warrant keeping images as one was only VF or a bit better whilst the other was aEF.

Both are clashed dies.

I've noticed in the past the 1820/19 has several dies. One had a particularly obvious 9 whilst another had a strong underlying 1, but the latter wasn't missing the 9 in the first place as it still had a trace - so not a 181 recut. How many obverse dies are there for the overdate?

Thanks. Certainly no obvious stop. Is there a small raised pimple which could be a guide for where it should be which could be a guide punch? Playing around with the contrast there is a circular consistently toned and stop sized patch in the right place, so possibly it could be blocked as an alternative. Rather more intriguingly, playing with the contrast brings out an 8 to the right of where the stop should be. There are no arabic numeral edge dates that I am aware of and a quick check showed nothing in L&S or ESC. Anything in the hand?

They were all hand engraved, so variations abound. Just comparing the two lines bordering the garter motto you see 15% difference in the separation giving a first impression that the lettering is a different size, but that is an optical illusion.

When the dies were hardened prior to use, it is quite realistic to expect a degree of inconsistency in the hardening process (slightly different temperatures or times). Therefore, you will most likely have a slight difference in the hardness of the two dies leading to the harder one leaving an impression on the softer of the two in the event of them coming together.

I think it is likely that more examples will turn up in the future. The collar is made up of segments, so for yours to have a missing stop after TVTAMEN I suspect that a segment from the 1819 LIX collar set with no edge stops was used. Could you get a picture of the edge for future reference and email it to me please? Then I can compare it with my no edge stops collar when I visit the bank next. Both coins are in similar grade, so we can eliminate wear from circulation in the comparison. What we need is to be able to accurately establish the position of the legend relative to the joints, edge and relative to each other in order to confirm the above hypothesis.

I think I could live with that. The tiny mark in the laurels is a real pain given the rest of it.

1820 LX crown with no stop after TVTAMEN. Not illustrated. Ex Glens 11th Dec 1968 (and not as noted in the 1997 catalogue as 12th Nov 1968, so presumably catalogued by an American) lot 128 described as mint state and a variety not recorded in ESC, where it sold for £105. Again not illustrated, this sale was the property of K Woodhouse of Shrewsbury. He had a good collection.

Thanks for the info Rob. I have never heard of these two overdates. Dracott has no mention of them. Mal Lewendon does mention a 1876 over 6 but from the Pic it seems to be a normal 6 over 6 and not a Farthing 6! The 6 over a farthing 6 is in the 'anything else' thread of the new varieties section. The 1862 over 26 I acquired from CC in 2007 (March 2007 list no.954) when I resorted to ploughing through their available coins looking for an excuse to buy something. They didn't realise as it is quite subtle needing the light to fall at the correct angle to see it and it has to be unc or thereabouts, otherwise the detail can get lost. It will never set the world on fire, but amply demonstrates the way in which dies were repaired or corrected. I know of another with full lustre (but the owner doesn't realise) So I take it that the dies were prepared without the last two digits of the date, these being added as and when the need arouse? In fact the preparation of two or three digit dates goes all the way back to Elizabethan times as the sixpence dies were produced with 159 , but due to the lack of silver minted during the anchor mark period there were a number of unused dies at the turn of the century and so these dies were recut with 1600 during cypher. The 'modern' incomplete dates potentially started with the milled recoinage of 1816 as there is a 181 halfcrown. There is also a 182 reverse (crown) and obverse (halfcrown), but it was certainly established for the Victorian silver and copper coins and perpetuated with the bronze as witnessed by the irregular spacing seen in the last two digits on many denominations. It wasn't until the 1880s that the dies were dated in full.

I paid over £50 about 6 years ago.

The idea of the last two digits resulting in mispunched letters seems eminently plausible as mistakes in both choice of punch and alignment abound. The dies were routinely repaired by filling and recutting, so anything is possible and there is no reason to restrict wrong punches to the legend only. The wide date 1876H halfpenny has a die with the 6 over a farthing 6, there is an 1862 over 26 die for example. This was the normal method of repair from the inception of milled coinage in this country until they stopped adding the last two digits towards the end of the 19th century.

I will own up to having had about a dozen of them, all contents are now sitting nicely in my mahogany cabinet.

I'm guessing the potential bidders were distracted somehow... Does that mean they will be out again for another 10 days. Nobody bid. When the item has been relisted a few times, someone buy it, then we might get a different background on the next thing. What is certain is that this was the best looking panda I've ever seen. A trip to Chester Zoo seems in order.

I think so. But im not sure. Clearly thats what appears to have happened. But it seems unlikely for example two Cupro nickel coins to strike one another leaving the impression. The impression is quite defined and also the font appears to be from something like 1922 2 french franc coin. The 9 is the giveaway. Maybe the coins were stacked up in a box some force upon the top caused the softer coin to receive the impression. Or someone lined up two coins and hit it with a hammer. After a coin has been struck I thought it would harden the metal..? It hasn't happened by accident in a bag. The hammer theory is the most likely option.

Interestingly, the ebay seller is a double d dallas. Does this infer anything?

Yeh, but it's going some when the contents of a slab are worth less than the few pence value of said slab. I would suggest that 61 of the 62 slabbed 1967 pennies are samples and that Bill's coin is the only one in a collection.

But the 1922 is a mirror image, so what (presumably) coin was used to impress the new date?

If you want to see what they should look like, this is the Nicholson collection. Lots 201 onwards dated from 1729 refer.

I wish they had split it in two with the break around 1662. That would currently be 50:50, though the new material would soon expand part two. As it stands, the size would reduce by about 100 pages, whilst part 2 will be 100 pages and growing.

I wish!! These are the images Colin88 was trying to upload earlier Take it in payment for the uploading job, and if you two can't agree on this, offer a discount and take one side only.

You have acquired this?

The link doesn't work.

Ironically, this is one example where the TPG input is likely to have little weight. People who are looking and willing to spend serious amounts for letter by lighthouse halfpennies are rarely, if ever, not up to speed on the variety.

The basic problem for both sides in this debate is a lack of trust, irrespective of whether you are for or against. The only indisputable advantage of a slab is that you can drop it without damaging the coin. Pro-slabs will argue that individuals do not grade consistently whereas a slab will provide a grade based on a defined scale. Correct, except that the slab grade is assigned by similarly fallible individuals (who wouldn't be trusted to grade a raw coin) and as a consequence, all TPGs suffer from grading inconsistency. On the odd occasion that I have bought slabs blind, about half would not have been purchased had I seen them beforehand. You are not guaranteed to get the same people grading all the coins of the same type. In the case of a CGS graded coin, I bought blind a 3/- bank token graded UNC 85 as I thought it would be ok for the collection. Silly me, or perhaps I should have realised that the coin was only 85% unc as it said on the label - couldn't live with it. Needless to say, I moved it on and am still looking to fill the gap. Although to be fair, that was the only CGS slab I've had a serious issue with which compares very favourably with the stream of misattributions and crap grading that emanates from across the pond. A raw coin can be fully examined, including the edge, which is only partially visible/invisible with a slab. Therefore to protect myself, I will always err on the side of caution and tend to mark down the price a little in order to alleviate nasty surprises when the coin is cracked out. MS65 George I halfpenny, George III proof shilling, Victoria halfcrown....etc. There are a few thousand pounds at current prices in this list and I don't like being taken for a ride. The argument that the coins were slabbed for protection and were not meant to be cracked out should be irrelevant as defects are defects whether visible or not. Although I have not had a cracked out CGS coin with hidden edge defects, it would be irrational to assume that the working practices are any different because we are all human. I too find the relationship between LC and CGS all a little too cozy. When you have an auction, the catalogue has sections for UK graded coins and foreign graded coins. The MS63, MS64 etc coins will often be graded 'we grade as EF or gEF'. It might inspire a little more confidence if they applied the same critical eye to UK graded coins. OK, I accept that's an uphill task when the same vested interests are involved, but surely that is at the core of the issue of integrity and independence? For the same people to grade, sell at auction and produce 'current price' lists for slab grades which are typically twice the going rate for raw coins is simply too cozy to do anything other than raise suspicion. If you would willingly pay twice the Spink price for a coin in a slab with a certain number, nobody is stopping you, but a reality check might be in order because you are now buying the slab in the case of registry sets rather than the coin. Competing for the highest average score may have nothing to do with aesthetics and could lead to a selection of dogs. In the case of CGS, population reports are a bit misleading given the relatively low number of coins slabbed to date (compared to the US TPGs) and can lead to misrepresentation of rarities for the 'investor'. We can't hold everyone's hand, but we can expect an objective opinion to be given. Are they trying to promote slabs as 'investments' in an advisory capacity or just as a straightforward sales pitch? The first could come unstuck legally, whilst the second as always should carry a health warning. As I haven't seen any note on the website to the effect that they are regulated by the FSA or anyone else, you have to assume that the second applies but with the caveat that they are promoting investing in coins on the LC website. This could potentially be very dodgy territory. Ultimately nothing has changed in the two camps and as always it is each to their own. If you are happy with slabs, just carry on as before. For those that don't like them, nobody forces you to buy.