1694 halfpenny with reverse die errors

[Michael-Roo]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

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.

Absolutely Rob. Look at the obverse Ts on this 1700. And what's that under the IV, an O?

 

[oldcopper]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

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.

That's one of Nicholson's GVLIEEMVS reverses unless I'm mistaken - the better one.

I don't think fully struck up Britannia heads exist on the 1701 coins, and are very rare on the 1700 date. Even Nicholson's no stops obverse 1701, possibly the best known 1701 (except the silver proof in the BM/Peck plate coin which has a fully struck up head) has a flat head and corresponding weak cuirass.

[JLS]

8 hours ago, oldcopper said:

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.

https://imgur.com/a/pRH1zi7 

Here's my suspect 1699 BRITAN IA halfpenny - was very dubious to me before due to the wear but it does seem to have a "flaw on the right hand sight of the upright of the T" so let me know what you think !

[Rob]

Is there any way to see it without clicking on links to access imgur, i.e can you not just post a picture in the normal way?

[Rob]

10 hours ago, oldcopper said:

That's one of Nicholson's GVLIEEMVS reverses unless I'm mistaken - the better one.

Correct.

[JLS]

44 minutes ago, Rob said:

Is there any way to see it without clicking on links to access imgur, i.e can you not just post a picture in the normal way?

Here you go - just can't resize pictures on my phone. 

[Rob]

Hm. You wouldn't want to stake your life on a decision one way or the other. I'm staying on the fence.

[oldcopper]

14 hours ago, JLS said:

https://imgur.com/a/pRH1zi7 

Here's my suspect 1699 BRITAN IA halfpenny - was very dubious to me before due to the wear but it does seem to have a "flaw on the right hand sight of the upright of the T" so let me know what you think !

The flaw is about halfway up and appears as a small sticking out "branch" at right angles. You can see this very clearly on the Baldwin coin (Auction 50, lot 332) and the May 1976 SNC item 3996 (also sold Spink Coin Auction 14 lot 311 and Glens 30/4/86 ("Lancashire Collection"). However, and I must apologise as I was writing from memory previously, both the Mark Rasmussen example (List 7, item 175) AND the DNW specimen (21st Feb 2018, lot 370) don't have this flaw. [I said the DNW one had the flaw last time]

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=305672

I can't see the flaw on yours, but that doesn't rule it out as described above.  But the two 9's aren't touching in the DNW specimen and they are in yours, so your coin is from a different die. I'll relook at the other's illustrations and will get back to you.

[oldcopper]

18 hours ago, JLS said:

https://imgur.com/a/pRH1zi7 

Here's my suspect 1699 BRITAN IA halfpenny - was very dubious to me before due to the wear but it does seem to have a "flaw on the right hand sight of the upright of the T" so let me know what you think !

Just checked the other examples - as expected the 2 9's aren't touching so yours is from a different die and thus is more doubtful as a BRITAN-IA.

The BM doesn't have a specimen but instead have a cut-out photo of a reverse of this type with Peck's acknowledgement written on the back that he agrees that the variety is valid.

As for the 1697 missing N variety, the fact you can clearly see a faint N on the Peck plate coin indicates not one of Peck's finer moments! The obvious reason is uneven "camber" (is that the right word?) of the 2 dies giving a weak patch top left reverse when brought together.

The one in the Bates collection resold early 2019 also showed part of a faint N (as do all others provided they're not too worn). So this variety shouldn't be classed as a missing letter variety:

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=326816

[JLS]

4 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Just checked the other examples - as expected the 2 9's aren't touching so yours is from a different die and thus is more doubtful as a BRITAN-IA.

Yeah - I doubt there are two "BRITAN-IA" dies out there somewhere...although I guess you can never know with the poor quality of the copper coinage at the time. Thank you for the thorough analysis. I'm very happy to have picked up the 1694 without paying much for it. 

 

 

[Rob]

35 minutes ago, JLS said:

Yeah - I doubt there are two "BRITAN-IA" dies out there somewhere...although I guess you can never know with the poor quality of the copper coinage at the time. Thank you for the thorough analysis. I'm very happy to have picked up the 1694 without paying much for it. 

 

 

Assume nothing. The 1817 shilling is known for an I/S in HONI error. The same is known for 1820, but from a different die. And while we are on halfpennies, here is a GV/B 1694 W & M, followed by 3 1701s with the same error. If you can make a mistake once, you can do it again. I've finished too many emails off with amny thnaks to suggest otherwise.