Michael-Roo
-
Posts
1,509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
51
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Everything posted by Michael-Roo
-
Ah, Scott, but you DID want it. And, as our No.1 'go to guy' for early milled error coins I'm sure it was the odd looking B which attracted you too. If you look closely, there seems to be something crossing at 45 degrees underneath the B. Anyhow, I'll report back when it arrives. -
Ha! Yes. Dead parrots etc. The underlying form is very sharp though, whatever it is.
-
I see what you mean. But, for it to correspond with the faint exergue across Britannia's legs, whatever's going on underneath the B would surely be way off from that position?
-
Thanks, and you're quite right. I'm a big fan of the early milled copper and, just for the hell of it, I bought this off ebay recently. Not great, I know (LOL). Listed as 1699. Its 1st bust, but definitely not the 1699 mule as the last digit of the date, although unclear, is not a 9 (maybe a 5?). Look at the B though, what do you think?
-
Thank you Rob. If you do, I'd certainly have it from you. I had wanted to know if he'd listed an example of a William III halfpenny with the B of Britannia struck over another letter, most probably an R.
-
I know the archive is no longer on the Colin Cooke site, but does anyone know if it is still available anywhere else? I've had no luck searching for it. Thanks all.
-
!
-
Great obverse ghosting in the reverse field too. I love that.
-
please help - I can't ID this coin
Michael-Roo replied to newcollector1979#'s topic in Beginners area
A Roman bronze, I think, but so badly corroded it would be hard to tell exactly. -
Happy Birthday!
-
EF (or slightly better) for the first. GVF for the second?
-
Wise words, as always. Thanks Rob. One thing I would add: the underlying upright is much more evident when viewed though a loupe 'in the hand' than it is in these rather poor overly enlarged photos.
-
As is the case whenever the possibility of a new variety is suggested this example is what we have to go on for now. Maybe another, clearer, example will surface as a result of this post.
-
A darker photo for comparison…...
-
Here's another close up of the 1672 date together with the same area from the 1671 coin. The underlying upright certainly appears to sit in exactly the same position as the 1.
-
Interesting. I've checked. If we discount what appears to be an extra bit, behind, and to the left of the foot of the 2 then what looks like an underlying upright IS in exactly the same place as the 1 on the 1671 pattern. The 7 is the same on both coins too.
-
Good point Scott, but I suppose there's always the chance something else was entered in error first? Think of all the various letter overstrikes we see in early milled copper which have been made to correct spelling mistakes.
-
Its a George III copper halfpenny. This type was produced between 1770 and 1775.
-
Great. I'd not come across this before. Is the overstrike any clearer on your example? What do you think the underlying number may be?
-
Hi all. Today, for the first time in a long time, I've been looking through my farthing trays. I hadn't noticed before but one of my two 1672 loose drapery coins seems to have something going on underneath the 2 in the date. Photos attached.
-
The photos all feature different backgrounds too. Odd, as most ebay sellers tend to use the same set up each time they photograph a coin. This might not be of any consequence, but it could mean the images have been collected from more than one source.
-
Happy birthday, Geordie!
Michael-Roo replied to HistoricCoinage's topic in Nothing whatsoever to do with coins area!
Happy Birthday! -
I wouldn't think so. Only worth a few pence. Interesting colour though!
-
Spink value for 'Fine' grade is £3. Yours is less than fine. The coin's value has also been reduced by it having a disfiguring counterstamp in the reverse field. Not worth anything at all I'm afraid. Sorry Patinap!
-
…..which only a mother could love…….
