1694 halfpenny with reverse die errors

[JLS]

I picked this coin up for a pound or two the other weekend and noticed afterwards that the reverse legend appears to have A/I in BRITANNIA. The 4 of the date is also unbarred despite being very bold. Caveat is that the coin's in poor condition. What do you think ?

Photographs: https://imgur.com/a/WAxBjXA

[copper123]

Not good enough condition to tell anything really worth £4 or so a great beginers coin

[Michael-Roo]

This one is as rare as hen's teeth.

Here's mine own for comparison. Not great, but the best I found/was willing to pay for in the past 20 years.

Comparing this with your imgur photos I think, yes, we can determine a match. 

 

[JLS]

2 minutes ago, Michael-Roo said:

This one is as rare as hen's teeth.

Here's mine own for comparison. Not great, but the best I found/was willing to pay for in the past 20 years.

Comparing this with your imgur photos I think, yes, we can determine a match. 

 

That looks like an exact die match ! 

Now I see that all of the reverse As are unbarred...not clear from my terrible example. 

Do you think this is just a later die state of coin 052 in the Basil Nicholson collection ?  (http://www.colincooke.com/collections/nicholson_part1.html) 

The legend looks pretty much identical but the 4 of the date has a partial bar. 

If so this is indeed an extremely rare coin...Peck knew of two, so we're looking at 5+ examples now ?

[Michael-Roo]

Nicholson 053.

Yes. Yours, mine, the Nicholson, all the same die.

Extremely rare but, as you say, not only two as seen by Peck when compiling. As is the way with these things, new examples appear over time. Check out past DNW sales.

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Michael-Roo

[Rob]

I've got the Nicholson coin. I remember the Peck coin going through DNW about 10 or 12 years ago. It sticks in my mind as being orders of magnitude better than mine. I need to dig up the info. And vaguely recall another one in DNW at the end of last year. That isn't exhaustive, so at least 6 or 8 to start with.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Rob

[Michael-Roo]

 

I think I remember seeing one sold though DNW some years ago which was around NEF. Surely the best extant?

[JLS]

3 minutes ago, Rob said:

I've got the Nicholson coin. I remember the Peck coin going through DNW about 10 or 12 years ago. It sticks in my mind as being orders of magnitude better than mine. I need to dig up the info. And vaguely recall another one in DNW at the end of last year. That isn't exhaustive.

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/special-collections/lot.php?specialcollection_id=790&lot_id=321787

This is the example sold at DNW recently, ex George Bates. Surprised it didn't sell for more with that portrait ! Would personally grade better than VF-...

[Rob]

Just now, Michael-Roo said:

 

I think I remember seeing one sold though DNW some years ago which was around NEF. Surely the best extant?

That will be the Peck coin. I remember passing on it as I had an example, and in any case had just decided to refocus away from shillings and halfpennies.

[Michael-Roo]

Having Peck's Monatgu 03 half penny affords me a little warm glow inside…. 

[Rob]

I've disposed of most of my 1694s having only 10 left, but do at least have some interesting varieties - I/A, GV/B, MVRIA, unbarred A's MARIA, thick flan, overstruck on Chas II, brass, piedfort and a couple patterns/proofs.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Rob

[Michael-Roo]

5 minutes ago, Rob said:

I've disposed of most of my 1694s having only 10 left, but do at least have some interesting varieties - I/A, GV/B, MVRIA, unbarred A's MARIA, thick flan, overstruck on Chas II, brass, piedfort and a couple patterns/proofs.

If your Nicholson MVRIA (I remember seeing the sale prices before they were taken down) is offered  at a sensible price I may be interested.

[Rob]

It isn't Nicholson's. It's a bit better detail than that, but hardly a thing of any, let alone great beauty.

 

[Rob]

[JLS]

While we're on this topic, do either of you possess the elusive 1699 halfpenny with the BRITANIA legend error ? I have an extremely worn 1699 halfpenny with no trace of the second N, but I'm a bit dubious because Britannia's head isn't in great shape either. It would be interesting to compare location of the dots in the legend. The only supposed example I can find online is at https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/52753 and this appears to be a misattribution. 

[mrbadexample]

31 minutes ago, Rob said:

...hardly a thing of any, let alone great beauty.

I like it. 

[Rob]

12 minutes ago, JLS said:

While we're on this topic, do either of you possess the elusive 1699 halfpenny with the BRITANIA legend error ? I have an extremely worn 1699 halfpenny with no trace of the second N, but I'm a bit dubious because Britannia's head isn't in great shape either. It would be interesting to compare location of the dots in the legend. The only supposed example I can find online is at https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/52753 and this appears to be a misattribution. 

My personal view is that the jury must be out on any BRITANIA until a well struck up head and surrounding area is seen. Every one I have seen is weak at this point.

[JLS]

51 minutes ago, Rob said:

My personal view is that the jury must be out on any BRITANIA until a well struck up head and surrounding area is seen. Every one I have seen is weak at this point.

That's interesting to know. I wonder if there is a decent one in a museum collection other than the BM...there are trays and trays of 17th century halfpennies in the Ashmolean.

[Rob]

The key is to find one with Britannia's head area well struck and in gVF or better as struck. Until you can definitely say it is missing on the die, then all must be conjecture.

[Michael-Roo]

7 hours ago, Rob said:

The key is to find one with Britannia's head area well struck and in gVF or better as struck. Until you can definitely say it is missing on the die, then all must be conjecture.

Agreed.

[Michael-Roo]

Returning to the original topic:

These are described as I over A or I over inverted V, but they're neither of these are they? That limb, showing to the right of the I, isn't a match for either.

Here's a 1700 I have which shows the same limb to the right of the T and, while we're at it, what's that going on to the left of the T?

Yes, I know it's a horrible specimen, but it's the only one I've seen apart from Nicholson's (144), and mine is a shade better than that one. Same die. Note the extra blob above the olive branch.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Michael-Roo

[Rob]

I think it's a case of deciding what the biggest issue is. Literacy was at a premium leading to many corrections. The punches are in a dire state by 1700. And with the dies being used to destruction you also see a considerable amount of degradation along the way, including a lot of detail loss at the edges and die filling. Here is another 1700 again with a fairly messy T, which although not identical to yours, would not be the first shape you would choose to represent a T.

[oldcopper]

11 hours ago, Michael-Roo said:

If your Nicholson MVRIA (I remember seeing the sale prices before they were taken down) is offered  at a sensible price I may be interested.

Nicholson's is somewhat marred by being badly double-struck. The Ashby coin was a more satisfying rendition of the MVRIA.

The thick flan 1694 (15.43g?) sold in the Bates auction went very cheaply (£180 from memory). This must be the heaviest known by some way. It sold for more at the original 1983 Glendining auction (£290 hammer) if I remember rightly - perhaps I should have gone for it.

[oldcopper]

11 hours ago, Rob said:

My personal view is that the jury must be out on any BRITANIA until a well struck up head and surrounding area is seen. Every one I have seen is weak at this point.

I've seen 4 of these 1699 BRITAN IA's - the Baldwins late 2000's sale, Mark Rasmussen list 7, SNC 1976 and a worn one sold recently by DNW in a mixed lot. DNW have also sold 2 others previously which were in no way missing the second N! (whoops!) but the more recent one was genuine. There is a characteristic flaw on the right hand side of the upright of the T - this is present on 3 of the above but not, surprisingly, on the Mark Rasmussen coin which is from the same dies on careful comparison. I think Mark's coin must have been struck earlier before the die flaw developed.

[copper123]

Yes I agree certainly looks like a die match - would still like it tio be better grade though