Assistance with Die Study - 1787 Shillings & Sixpences

[Madness]

Never mind...

Edited October 1, 2018 by Madness

[Madness]

I've collected five varieties of 1787 Sixpences so far.  Not happy with the condition (of coin and/or die) of any of them, so will be looking to upgrade as funds allow.  

NS6 (No Hearts / Serif Type 1 / 6 Strings)

 

NN7 (No Hearts / No Serifs / 7 Strings)

 

NN6 (No Hearts / No Serifs / 6 Strings)

 

HS27 (Hearts / Serif Type 2 / 7 Strings)

 

HN7 (Hearts / No Serifs / 7 Strings)

 

The variety designations and naming scheme are just my method of identifying the examples of 1787 Sixpences that I want to collect.  The serif type relates the "7"s in the date and the number of strings refers to the harp in the Hibernian shield.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Madness

[Peckris 2]

Not sure why you're unhappy with that first one? It's rather unlikely you'd upgrade that in a hurry.

[Madness]

Yes - The first one is very nice and I'm very happy to own it.  Good extremely fine?  The die looks to have been in good shape when it was struck.  Found it on eBay and paid 60 GBP, which I'm guessing is probably better than a reasonable price.  

Edited October 2, 2018 by Madness

[Peckris 2]

2 hours ago, Madness said:

Yes - The first one is very nice and I'm very happy to own it.  Good extremely fine?  The die looks to have been in good shape when it was struck.  Found it on eBay and paid 60 GBP, which I'm guessing is probably better than a reasonable price.  

pAS for me. I can't see any signs of wear at all. That was a great price for it!

[Madness]

I'm at the stage of formulating a methodology for comparison and have been messing around with GIMP. I'd like your feedback!

The first stage of my analysis will be to categorise reverse dies by their most easily discernible features.  I consider this to be primarily the relative positioning and alignment of the date.  Hocking describes two surviving reverse matrices of the sixpences in the RM museum, the first of which is dated "17--" only and the second of which is dated "178-" only (thanks @Rob).  This suggests that the last digit or last two digits were hand-punched into the die, confirmed by the wide variation of their relative positions in my sample of about 500.  

While the figures themselves degraded with die use, their relative positions should not have changed.  

I intend to use GIMP to align the Irish shield as closely as possible to perfectly horizontal and vertical after which I'll resize the shield so that it becomes 300 pixels across.  This will provide an absolute point of reference for each specimen in my database.  A foreseeable drawback is that not all of my sample images will be of high enough quality to treat in this manner.  It's possible, though, that they would have been unusable in any regard.  Here's an experiment I did this morning:

The next stage will involve making each edited image semi-transparent and comparing the date positions two at a time, progressively developing categories which may then need to be further refined in order to determine dies.   

I will also need to ensure that each of my samples is unique.  My images have largely come from coins being sold.  If they've been sold more than once in the last ten years or so it's possible that they appear more than once in my database.  I can't have this as it will throw out my statistical description/inference of the relative number of coins produced by each die.  A comparison of toning, mottling, haymarking, die degradation and coin wear should achieve this task.  

I'm inviting criticism of my proposed methodology from anyone, especially those who've done die studies before.  

Thanks!

Nathan

Edited October 5, 2018 by Madness

[Madness]

Example overlay using the method described in the previous post:

 

The two coins compared are a September proof and the coin in the post above.  They seem to be in the same matrix family of"17--".  The first two digits of both coins are spatially equivalent as there aren't two versions of each evident.   The "8" and "7" are in different relative positions as can be seen by the ghostly overlay or "double-vision".  Obviously different dies were used to make each coin, not that an overlay comparison was necessary with a proof involved.  

[Madness]

Just won this coin at a French mail-bid auction.  There is an interesting detail in the final string of the Irish harp in the form of a scroll-shape at the bottom.  It's the only example I've identified in my database.  Fortunately I was the only bidder.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Madness

[Peckris 2]

Do you mean the longest or shortest string?  If longest, that's not the string, it's part of the female figure.

[Madness]

Let's play a game of "spot the differences":

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Madness

[Michael-Roo]

On having taken a quick shufty, here's what I've spotted.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Michael-Roo

[Rob]

Crown cushion ends vary a little. The harp strings are different and partly filled on the bottom coin, the date is differently aligned, the stops by date are a different size.

You could check to see if the Garter Star rays are from the same punch. If the central garter is not part of the same punch as the rays, it could be rotated on any die by a quarter turn or multiples thereof.

[Madness]

Thanks for playing, gentlemen!  Please make your selection from our showcase of marvelous prizes. 

The "game" was actually intended for @Peckris 2 to illustrate the scroll form at the end of the shortest string.    Only example I've seen.  

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Madness

[Peckris 2]

The two harps are different - one has a Celtic design on the main upright, the other is nearly plain.

[Madness]

1 minute ago, Peckris 2 said:

The two harps are different - one has a Celtic design on the main upright, the other is nearly plain.

What do you mean by "main upright"?

[Madness]

I've circled the feature I'm talking about:

Whether you interpret this as part of the harp's body or part of the shortest string, it's a unique representative of a die or reworked die among my database of 500 or so 1787 sixpences.  I've only identified dies for about 14% of the reverse images so far, but it appears that the strings and date-dots (in addition to some of the numerals) were added by hand after the dies had been punched as they differ from die to die.  I assume that this little detail was engraved at the same time.  Perhaps it's a bit like a kid writing "Harry waz 'ere" in wet cement.  

I was the only bidder on the example at this auction here:

http://www.inumis.com/us/vso//grande-bretagne-georges-iii-six-pence-1787-londres-a61577.html

I don't care if anyone says I overpaid.  I threw every penny I had at it so that I could acquire the coin's quirkiness.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Madness

[Peckris 2]

Yes - you've circled part of what I call the "main upright" (I'm not a musician, I don't know the technical terms!). That is a version of the Irish national emblem of a harp engraved with a Celtic design. I can see that fairly clearly from the enlarged picture you've shown. The other picture shows a plain harp.

No offence, but I think you could perhaps have done a bit more research before 'throwing every penny at it'? If it's a known variant you would then be able to look up its rarity (it may indeed be rare, but I'm not so knowledgeable as you are on these particular coins).

[jelida]

Spotting that it is the only example in a database of 500 sounds pretty good research to me! And a good buy for 100 Euro I would say, whether or not it currently attracts a premium, it probably will when you have finally published your study. 

Jerry

[Peckris 2]

100€? That's not a great deal really. And if it is truly a rare variety, then worth the gamble, especially if you're a specialist like our friend.

[Madness]

20 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes - you've circled part of what I call the "main upright" (I'm not a musician, I don't know the technical terms!). That is a version of the Irish national emblem of a harp engraved with a Celtic design. I can see that fairly clearly from the enlarged picture you've shown. The other picture shows a plain harp.

No offence, but I think you could perhaps have done a bit more research before 'throwing every penny at it'? If it's a known variant you would then be able to look up its rarity (it may indeed be rare, but I'm not so knowledgeable as you are on these particular coins).

Ha!  Every penny I had wasn't a great amount.  I paid 50 Euro below the estimate and my ceiling was 30 Euro above. 

I don't think there are any listed varieties of business strikes of the 1787 sixpence apart from with-hearts and without-hearts.  Not even the I/D Obverse is listed, and I've seen over ten of them.  A variety does not need to be officially recorded in order to exist.  I don't think it would be possible to do any more research than I have done.   

No offence taken.  

[Madness]

I don't want advice on this one.  It's the only example of this coin I've seen, whether you call it a "variety" or not.  This term is a construct that makes categorisation easier, allows the analysis of rarity, is tied to market psychology and appeal to collectors and sellers alike.  I don't care whether or not it will ever be "listed" as a variety.  It's still a variety.  Besides, I liked it, a could afford it and I bought it.  End of story. 

Criticism in this case is falling on deaf ears.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by Madness

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, Madness said:

No offence taken.  

 

1 hour ago, Madness said:

Criticism in this case is falling on deaf ears.  

? ? ? 

[Madness]

It's possible to not be offended by criticism, as in this instance. 

[Peckris 2]

11 minutes ago, Madness said:

It's possible to not be offended by criticism, as in this instance. 

There was no criticism! Shall we leave this here?

[Madness]

My mistake.  I usually welcome criticism from people such as yourself anyway as it shows errors in my thinking concerning a subject about which I know very little.