1819 Shilling - 9 over 9??

[Paulus]

Would people agree that this is 9 over 9 (Davies 89), not listed in Spink or (old) ESC?

[Coinery]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt for me!

[Paulus]

1 minute ago, Coinery said:

Beyond a shadow of a doubt for me!

Thanks Stu, just wanted to give you something other than pennies to look at! Not 9 over inverted 6 then? 

[Coinery]

6?

i'd say not, on a couple of points!

primarily that the underlying digit looks tilted to me, which has the back arch of the upper loop sloping rightward, explaining the bottom 'bobble' of the under-letter appearing to sit inward of the top loop (does that make sense?).

secondly, it's unlikely a six punch was to hand at a time there was a perfectly decent 9 punch in service?

[Coinery]

Pennies? What pennies?

[Paulus]

I totally agree - I asked half-jokingly because there was a post quite recently of a TPG assigning 'something over inverted 6' when the known variety was 'over 9' - from memory I think most agreed it was almost certainly a straight forward 'over 9', as I believe this one to be.

Can anyone tell me if this variety is now in the new ESC?

 

[Rob]

Yes it is, but I'm not sure why Bull (or Davies or anyone else) considers a pair of misaligned correct digits to be worthy of it's own variety number. Surely this is just crap workmanship as opposed to a genuine error or overstruck date to extend the die's life? All it does is beg the inevitable question as to the displacement required to make it an 'official' error. I can see that 'over an inverted' is also a bad day at the office, but at least it is unambiguous.

[Phil]

Most definitely - one of the most obvious examples I have seen.

[jaggy]

A rather nice example!

[jaggy]

18 hours ago, Paulus said:

Thanks Stu, just wanted to give you something other than pennies to look at! Not 9 over inverted 6 then? 

Much appreciated! I was thinking I might have to acquire a few pennies just to participate in the forum. 

[Debbie]

That looks familiar....