Martinminerva

London Coins Auction 128 (Jul 2010) Lot 1738. Thanks for that info, Nick! £140 hammer price for the Unc specimen there sounds like quite a bargain someone got! Anyone got another??

In Peter Davies' British Silver Coins book, he declares that all 1898 Victorian sixpences have the date in larger figures than all the other veiled head years. Indeed, until now all those I had ever come across had the larger figures, though I do vaguely remember reading somewhere that at long last a specimen with small figures had turned up (anyone remember where that was?) Well, another one has turned up - please see the images. Interestingly, as well as the smaller digits, the 1 of the date is over a bead, rather than a space as is usual on the larger figured specimens. Worth recording?

Getting quite common now lol.....Your example has some old cleaning MartinP, or do we call you Mr Platt? Not convinced it does, actually - in the hand it seems more like just genuine circulation wear and thus rubbing to the high spots. I don't understand the Platt reference at all, I'm afraid... Who's that?? Ain't me!

?? Dracott, not heard of this reference before David Coin News, April, May and July 2004. Quite interesting and detailed study! Cheers.

I have since tracked down and obtained the Dracott articles and can now spot reverse C# with ease! (narrower lighthouse, P and E of PENNY in particular closer to the linear circle etc.) I have also recently obtained a specimen of the pairing 7+C#, which makes two of them known now, and it is in pretty decent condition - pictures attached. I also know of 4 more examples of the 8+C# pairing, which brings their total to at least 9. Do both pairings now warrant some sort of official recording somewhere? I wonder how many more specimens of either pairing are out and about, but as yet unidentfied?

I am afraid I am showing my ignorance here, but how does your Reverse C# differ from Freeman's Reverse G? Can you give me any specific pointers for me to be able to use your two detailed scans to differentiate them from what I believe I have in my collection which is the common Reverse G? Thanks.

I have recently come across this 1855 groat on which the final 5 seems quite clearly to be over a 3. As far as I can tell, it is unrecorded. I am aware of specimens on which the final 5 is double entered over a lower 5 (indeed I have one of those too), but this specimen seems unequivocally to be over a 3 as the diagonal down-bar is very evident. The lower "bulb" of the 3 is clear too, and different in shape and position from the double entered 5 that seems more common. Do you think this IS a 5 over 3?? Does anyone else have one in better, clearer condition? Does it merit being recorded as a hitherto unknown variety?

Indeed it is, most pronounced on the 9 which is over another 9. The same is true of my specimen. Also there is a die crack running up through the 9 to the head on both specimens. Perhaps the combination of these flaws means that the die was discarded before many specimens were struck?

I've seen another. Alex Anderson had one slabbed by CGS in UNC at the Harrogate Coin Fair recently, but I don't know what grade number it was given. That was obvious too from a distance. I've tracked this one down - It is currently for sale by Certified Coins Investments Ltd (www.cci-uk.biz), slabbed by CGS as Unc 80, on sale for £625. Their website doesn't currently have an image of it available, unfortunately. So how many do exist, and what might my one be worth in its rather sorry condition, albeit as only currently the second recorded? The image is now available on their website. Obviously much better than mine, but are these the only two known so far?

I've seen another. Alex Anderson had one slabbed by CGS in UNC at the Harrogate Coin Fair recently, but I don't know what grade number it was given. That was obvious too from a distance. I've tracked this one down - It is currently for sale by Certified Coins Investments Ltd (www.cci-uk.biz), slabbed by CGS as Unc 80, on sale for £625. Their website doesn't currently have an image of it available, unfortunately. So how many do exist, and what might my one be worth in its rather sorry condition, albeit as only currently the second recorded?

Mentioned in just about all the reference books and CCGB is the 1843 britannia groat with the 4 over a 5. I've been looking out for one for ages to no avail, yet catalogue values give it little or no premium over the plain 1843 groat. Does it actually exist? Has anyone got one? Can anyone post a picture of one? Replies awaited with interest.

Here's a new overstrike that I've not come across before: The coin is a George III sixpence of 1819, but with the first T of BRIT clearly struck over a B. The coin is only in fair condition, but the overstrike is very visible. Has anyone come across this before, or maybe check your sixpences to see if another specimen is out there! Does it merit being recorded as a hitherto unknown variety?

On further research, I see in the Coincraft Catalogue of 1995 that there is reference number "WMSH-025 1693 shilling with 3 over inverted 2". Is this it, then? That might well answer why there is no extension of the underdate to the right of the 3, as the inverted 2 (picture attached for comparison) would not have one! So how rare are these? My one and those two on ebay, but I expect there will be many more? Can anyone provide a picture of a high grade one to answer things conclusively?

Would you believe it - there's 2 of them currently on ebay, both in better nick, and both looking very much like the 3 is over a 6!!! Paste these into the web browser: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...=ADME:B:SS:UK:1 http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...=ADME:B:SS:UK:1 Perhaps it is not so rare a variety, and perhaps it deserves recording?! I'll try and paste pictures in too...

It is hard to be certain about the scale of the under-strike, if any, due to the poor condition of the coin, but it appears to be of the right proportions to be a 6 or a 0. I attach a larger photo of the figure and a scale drawing of what I believe is visible. The outlined part is the actual 3, and the solid black is what may be the underdate. Like you say, this is very clear to the left, where a curved (and raised – so incuse on the die) limb peters away to little or nothing, but to the right it is much less obvious. I honestly can’t tell if my solid black part to the right is just part of the curve of the 3 and so purely conjecture and imagination on my part, or part of the curve of a 0 or a 6, mostly erased from the die. The little indent is interesting, though. How wide is your 3 at this point, compared to mine if you enlarge it to the same scale? That might help ascertain if there is anything there. Like you, I would plump for a 6 rather than a 0 from the fact that that digit occurs in the date already, and the fact that the 6 is pretty much the same as a 0 in size and shape but for its little tail. We really need to find a much better condition one, if possible! Is there anyone out there with one?

Here's another picture of the 3 on mine, which might just hint at something on the RIGHT hand side of the 3 - there appears to be a little gap halfway up the bottom curve where the original 0 or 6 might leave the course of the 3 over it, but has been almost entirely erased from the die before the correct digit was puched or cut in, but that may well just be imagination or a nick on such a worn coin. It would be very interesting to see if someone has another specimen similar, but in much better condition...

I would say it's not over 6 or 0. The 6s are almost the same size as a 0 with a tail attached. If you compare with my 1693 which is better but not brilliant, you can see the 3 is essentially the same shape. It appears on my piece that both the 6 and the 3 have been made up from more than one cut. The 6 has the loop closed with a thinner section and the top half of the 3 is in higher relief than the loop of the 3 although this is not obvious from the scan. However, you have inadvertently highlighted a variety I wasn't aware of. The square blocks surrounding the Lion of Nassau are positioned differently on the two pieces. Yours has an extra block bottom left, and mine has an extra block just right of 12 o'clock. I don't know which is more common so will have to check. Thanks for this. Very interesting what you point out about the squares around the central lion. Clearly then there is more than one distinct reverse die being used, but I also notice that the bottom part of your coin's 3 is significantly shorter than my one, even not counting the spurious "overstrike" bit. The bottom limb on my 3 extends to exactly below the central bar, whereas yours stops quite a bit shorter. I wonder if other members have specimens of either 'squares' variety, and whether there is consistency with the style of 3, and indeed the possible overdate?

I have acquired a William & Mary shilling of 1693, on which the 3 appears to be struck over a 0 or more likely a misplaced 6, given that 1690 shillings were not struck. I know a rare 9 over 0 version exists, but has anyone come across a 3 over 0/6 such as this? The condition is not brilliant – less than fair, so do any of you out there have a better one to confirm the overstrike and indeed the final digit? Any comments?