William III Crown - Thoughts please

[Sylvester]

I was about to put this on eBay, just assuming it was a bog standard worn 1696 crown. So I photographed it, looking at the photos and the coins I thought oh it's a 1698, looked in the coin book and then though, wait hang on there ain't a 1698. So I've looked at this coin every which way, in natural light, artificial light and thought hard 'the last digit is a 6', but as worn as the coin is, it certainly looks more like an 8 - however, looking at 1698 halfcrowns the 8 is a different shape to what I have here, it looks like a 6 which turns at the top and comes back to make an 8. I can't find any evidence of any overdates for these 1696 crowns, which was my next logical thought. The edge date is OCTAVO as per 1696.

The coin weighs 28.5g and is very worn. Silver ring when dropped and it travels down a magnetic silver slide as one would expect silver to. I though perhaps a forgery was the next logical conclusion.

[Sylvester]

 

Had a thought since I posted that. Could someone at the mint have punched the last 6 for the date too high and then corrected it by punching it lower, hence giving an 8 type figure, when in reality it is 6/6 (the first 6 being higher)?

 

The Obverse:

 

[Rob]

Could also be 6 over inverted 6 (9).

[Sylvester]

Hmm possibly. I can see that as well. Presumably they accidentally placed the punch upside down and only realised once it was done, so corrected it, resulting in this.

[Rob]

I had a shilling with 6/9, but it didn't make a convincing 8.

There's nothing to stop the underlying character being an 8, because a mistake by definition can be random.

[Sylvester]

I know there were a lot of production errors during the William III series, particularly around the Great Recoinage of 1696-7. The lower denominations were very much affected, particularly at the branch mints. This is somewhat unusual a crown though, but not unheard of for example the GEI variant.

Looks like that shilling you had also had some letter under the E of ET, unless it was a dig in the field, looks serifed though.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Without examining the coin firsthand, I can certainly see why you would think it was a 1698. I thought the same upon looking at the image.

Suggestions that the apparent 8 is a 6 over a higher 6, a 6 over upside down 6, etc. all bear merit. However, barring the discovery of a significantly  higher grade example to study, it is all speculation and conjecture, and the truth may never be known conclusively.

All that being said, it DOES look like an 8.