Coinery

Weight is pretty well spot on. From the pictures I can’t put it down to be honest. I think the obverse looks a little odd, but I wonder whether that’s only the bust punches being a little bit positional. It could be nothing more ominous than the crown being high...it’s much lower on the head of the other coin posted, which would transform the entire aesthetic.

Is it genuinely unique? Are there mint documents to support that, or is it simply that it’s the only one found, or the first coin pressed?

Why isn’t it being snapped up by the elite, the royals, the Arabs, the museums? Surely it’s a must-have for one of those? Especially for a collection that will never sell, it will get its price again one day, if not before.

As a penny completist you’ve got to have it, haven’t you! For those deep-pocketed penny collectors who are running out of things to buy...I can see this going nuts. Is it truly unique? How is that?

Well that’s phenomenal I must say! 😲

Ah, yes, doh! Thanks, Non

How on earth did you manage to get so many pictures into one post, I often give up trying to put 2 images into my posts. 😲

I think Spink would catalogue this variety at 8/5 simply because it is the only logical way to list it. To call it 5/8 would suggest it was a coin intended for use in time travel. I think the common assumption would be, as with Rob’s GEOE coin, that no-one would intend to change a correctly entered digit/letter. It would be difficult to trace whether these things happened accidentally (as in Colin’s valid suggestion), except in die studies (if you’re lucky enough to find an identifiable feature such as a developing flan crack pre and post the error.) so, unless proven otherwise, Spink would have to sensibly call the variety 8/5

A very rational idea, as logical an explanation as any. I guess that same rationale applies to the time the die was first cut too. I think the interesting point to clear up, though, is the idea that when an error occurs, it’s assumed the highest device (the one in greatest relief) is the first entered, when in fact it’s only about which device has been struck the hardest/deepest that has it sit on top of another letter/number/device on the actual coin. Diaconis talks about 5/8 and 8/5 but they are in this example one and the same (with only how hard the punch was struck to differentiate) when all the points are explored into how the 5 happened there in the first place. The 8 could’ve been first on the die and then unintentionally recut at a later date with a deep strike of the 5 (meaning to recut the 5 but using Colin’s suggestion), putting it in higher relief on the milled coin. Or, when the die was first made, a 5 was accidentally entered where the 8 should be, and was subsequently recut/repaired with a lighter strike of an 8, still leaving the 5 in higher relief on the milled coin. A bit wordy, I’m not sure everyone is grasping the concept.

I have to say I feel really happy with that date error. I can’t see any foul play, even when I’m trying to seek it out...not that I’m any expert, of course.

In reality it all depends on how hard a device has been punched, the deepest appearing as the digit on top, regardless of which one was entered first.

Looking even closer it appears there might be delamination (and break away) between what could be an independent obverse and reverse casting?

Just rechecking the photos, it looks groat-sized or Matteo has very small, lady-like, hands?

Interesting, but wouldn’t you cast copies from a real coin, rather than go to all the troubles of making up punches and getting the legends ‘spelled’ out all wrong?

Most of the people who lived by groats in that period couldn’t even read, let alone decipher legends and fonts. As an aside, it was only a couple of hundred years later in the Jacobean period that they were uncertain enough of the previous monarch’s coinage that they felt the need to scratch Elizabeth’s shillings with X often XII so they weren’t mistaken for other denominations (my theory anyway). Also, how many of the later generations (say the Elizabethans) would recognise a genuine 200 year old groat from a forgery, when there are coin collectors today that make that mistake over and over again on eBay? We’d have to consider that the OP coin (if it’s a contemporary forgery) may even have been made to fool an Elizabethan audience? I feel pretty certain it would’ve stood up even in early medieval England anyway...just thinking out loud.

Exactly so...I also remember that video on here.

I wonder if it’s a contemporary forgery? It looks to be masquerading as a London coin if the LON in the outer quadrant of the reverse is taken into account?

@Sword Shocking!

I’d question that, Dave, the monarch was definitely seated on a throne for that date, and that denomination!

Wow, never knew that!

Agreed, I’ve sold raw coins to enthusiastic collectors that I wouldn’t want back for half the price I sold them for. A common feature of being new to the hobby that grates.

More effort is made in packaging meat for supermarkets, Craigy! Sword’s disclaimer taken from a TPGC’s Ts & Cs speaks volumes for me.

I think you’ll be fine. This is the best feature of slabbing, that the coins are carefully decontaminated on arrival at the TPGC to remove all detrimental pollutants, before sealing them up in a perfect vacuum, preserving them in a fixed state for all time.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂