Charles II, 1677 sixpence. G over O in MAG?

[Coinery 926]

Looking quickly I'd say it was. What's the relevance in knowing there were at least 2 1677 reverse dies?

[Coinery 926]

8 hours ago, jaggy said:

This is a 1677 sixpence from the DNW site with a well defined G. To me, it looks like a different die to my 1677 when I compare the two coins.

http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=140135

Clearly a different die, Jag!

[Coinery 926]

Well, personally, I thought I put a lot of effort into this post, and raised some pretty valid points, at least in my humble opinion? 

Yes, they may have partially contradicted Rob's original hypothesis, but it doesn't make it off-limits to anyone else! Even a first timer could look at the evidence presented and make some comment?

Frustrated? Yes!

My time wasted? Yes!

Do it again? No!

 

edit: alcohol? No, not this time!

Edited January 28, 2016 by Coinery

[jaggy 528]

32 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Well, personally, I thought I put a lot of effort into this post, and raised some pretty valid points, at least in my humble opinion? 

Yes, they may have partially contradicted Rob's original hypothesis, but it doesn't make it off-limits to anyone else! Even a first timer could look at the evidence presented and make some comment?

Frustrated? Yes!

My time wasted? Yes!

Do it again? No!

 

edit: alcohol? No, not this time!

I for one appreciate the work you did. 

My view is that the 1678 over 7 and my 1677 come from the same die. And that is the die that gives the G over O or D which is the only variety listed in ESC for 1678. There are two varieties listed for 1677. A 'regular' 1677 (see photo above) and a G over O or D. Consequently, my feeling is that the coin I own is a G over O or D. 

[Rob 3,003]

Taking all the above into consideration, I think they must have repaired the flaw in the same way as they sometimes filled dates and recut them, (e.g. my 1675/3/2 halfpenny, where the first modification was to fill the 2 and recut the 3, whilst the second simply added a sideways spur to the right side of the 3 at about half height). The flaw doesn't reach the edge of the coin, so the die is essentialy intact on the 1677. If it had split to the edge it may well have been terminal. The width of the flaw is no greater than a letter upright, so it is quite possible to effect a repair in this way.

Try as I might, the flaw shows no hints of being repaired on the 78. I was hoping for a change in surface, visible when the contrast is adjusted. The full set of harp strings on the 78 in comparison to the 77 and the crown cushion suggest was extensively recut, particularly given the strength of the two arcs on all the shields compared to the 77, which seem a bit weak on the 77.

As for the G over O, the same die albeit repaired covers the problem of accurately reproducing a compound letter. I would go for O rather than D based on the images.

No you haven't wasted your time, you have answered a question.