Halfcrown list

[Nonmortuus 848]

Facebook post.

[Peckris 2 2,044]

59 minutes ago, Nonmortuus said:

Another potential 1817 variety. 

E/E/R in DEF

My example below and a member of @AJWcoins facebook group example to follow.

 

 

The E over E is of very little interest, repunched legend characters being so common. However the underlying R (or is it a B?) really does make it a very interesting variety. Is it in Davies or is it a new discovery?

Edited June 6, 2023 by Peckris 2

[Nonmortuus 848]

4 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

The E over E is of very little interest, repunched legend characters being so common. However the underlying R (or is it a B?) really does make it a very interesting variety. Is it in Davies or is it a new discovery?

I dont have my copy of Davies to hand but @DrLarry posted about this a while back. Be interesting to see what the forum thinks, is it a B or R? Im leaning towards R.

[DrLarry 441]

On 6/6/2023 at 10:26 PM, Nonmortuus said:

I dont have my copy of Davies to hand but @DrLarry posted about this a while back. Be interesting to see what the forum thinks, is it a B or R? Im leaning towards R.

yes I think I asked questions of the forum back in 2018 there are some images posted there I will have to check but I think I have another since then ,  I didn't add to the post further  

 

E over R DEF 1817 Halfcrown

By DrLarry, May 18, 2018 in Confirmed unlisted Varieties.

Edited June 17, 2023 by DrLarry

[DrLarry 441]

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by DrLarry

[Peckris 2 2,044]

On 6/17/2023 at 10:22 AM, DrLarry said:

 

I'd say quite possibly E over B ? The top picture quite clearly shows the lower loop curving left back towards the downstroke, which the R wouldn't do.

There's also something else going on above the E - something protruding above the top right hand side of the downstroke, and something to the right of the top serif which could in no way form part of an R

[DrLarry 441]

38 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I'd say quite possibly E over B ? The top picture quite clearly shows the lower loop curving left back towards the downstroke, which the R wouldn't do.

There's also something else going on above the E - something protruding above the top right hand side of the downstroke, and something to the right of the top serif which could in no way form part of an R

There are some strange characteristics,  I will look out my other examples and add them .  Larry 

[DrLarry 441]

I thought I had two others but seems I only have 3  the 4th seems to have been marked up wrong which might man it is in another envelope 

[DrLarry 441]

I thought I had two others but seems I only have 3  the 4th seems to have been marked up wrong which might man it is in another envelope or it may be that one is still in the US . 

Whether or not these new  images help I am not sure but there are the three examples one about EF one VF and the other F .  Personally I cannot make any sense of some of the protrusions above unless a letter has been rotated but even then some of the angles seem just to be "wrong" and correspond to nothing else nor the piece that comes out from the central section of the E .  I have only ever thought of it as an understruck R with the weight on the upper section because there is no negative space in the lower section to see if it is an R or a B ...  Obviously there is a lot going on and it is a busy error !  as far as I am aware 5 maybe are known one was listed in a London coins sale I believe prior to my asking the forum back in 2018 

Edited June 19, 2023 by DrLarry

[Iannich48 196]

Nice pics Larry. The first could be a double struck E over R, the second pic I have no idea what is overstruck, the third looks like E over R, the fourth is basically identical to the first pic. Just my opinions.

[Peckris 2 2,044]

8 hours ago, Iannich48 said:

Nice pics Larry. The first could be a double struck E over R, the second pic I have no idea what is overstruck, the third looks like E over R, the fourth is basically identical to the first pic. Just my opinions.

If E over R what do you think about the protrusion showing above the E downstroke, which could not possibly be an R ?

[DrLarry 441]

9 hours ago, Iannich48 said:

Nice pics Larry. The first could be a double struck E over R, the second pic I have no idea what is overstruck, the third looks like E over R, the fourth is basically identical to the first pic. Just my opinions.

Yes the 4th is the same by mistake 

[DrLarry 441]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

If E over R what do you think about the protrusion showing above the E downstroke, which could not possibly be an R ?

I am not sure it seems to be on all of them something has been done at least with 3 errors I think perhaps my thought something put on backwards or rotated .  It still has me confused after 5 years 😅 

[BottleCapDave 5]

I have spent some time creating major variety lists per reign using Google sheets. Nothing sophisticated, just reference numbers, dies id's and their descriptions etc. I will say Groom has been helpful with higher quality images and more detailed descriptions of Davies' varieties. As a newbie I have yet to pick up Rayner's book, does he include any major die varieties not listed in Davies?

[Peckris 2 2,044]

5 hours ago, BottleCapDave said:

I have spent some time creating major variety lists per reign using Google sheets. Nothing sophisticated, just reference numbers, dies id's and their descriptions etc. I will say Groom has been helpful with higher quality images and more detailed descriptions of Davies' varieties. As a newbie I have yet to pick up Rayner's book, does he include any major die varieties not listed in Davies?

Are you talking about ESC? If so, the answer is 'unlikely' - Davies is the expert for post-1816 silver, while ESC is the go-to for early milled.

[Rob 3,002]

And it's fair to say that Bull's revision of ESC was not much of an upgrade. Missing items, items added that you would normally not include as a separate listing such as giving a prooflike specimen a different number, a provenance section at the back which doesn't match the ref. no. in the main body of the book. It basically wasn't proof read, or at least not after everything had been added. I list ESC references with the Bull number followed by ESC 5th edition numbers in brackets, as at least the only fiction in that edition was the rarity attribution.

Davies is far better than Bull for varieties, with the caveat that it only covers 1816 onwards, and as you would expect is missing some later discoveries.

Every reference volume has inclusions and exclusions relative to another book. You really need to buy the lot and sort out a proper list for yourself. It isn't that difficult because the vast majority of items are present in all and correctly catalogued.

My personal view is that a concordance book would be a wonderful addition, but the chances of getting collectors to buy it are probably south of zero. It would also be gargantuan, as essentially you are trending towards an entry for every die ever produced, cross referenced to every book that has been printed on the subject.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Rob

[BottleCapDave 5]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Are you talking about ESC? If so, the answer is 'unlikely' - Davies is the expert for post-1816 silver, while ESC is the go-to for early milled.

 

Finding it rather easy to get lost being relatively new at this but once pointed out I know exactly where I am again.

I already have a copy of ESC - Bull 7th edition, had forgotten about the Rayner revisions, and yes I have found that you are correct. I bought this before buying Davies and was disappointed with the lack of 19th-20th century varieties.

Davies, Groom, and Freeman have found a new home on my bedside cabinet.

[BottleCapDave 5]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

And it's fair to say that Bull's revision of ESC was not much of an upgrade. Missing items, items added that you would normally not include as a separate listing such as giving a prooflike specimen a different number, a provenance section at the back which doesn't match the ref. no. in the main body of the book. It basically wasn't proof read, or at least not after everything had been added. I list ESC references with the Bull number followed by ESC 5th edition numbers in brackets, as at least the only fiction in that edition was the rarity attribution.

Davies is far better than Bull for varieties, with the caveat that it only covers 1816 onwards, and as you would expect is missing some later discoveries.

Every reference volume has inclusions and exclusions relative to another book. You really need to buy the lot and sort out a proper list for yourself. It isn't that difficult because the vast majority of items are present in all and correctly catalogued.

My personal view is that a concordance book would be a wonderful addition, but the chances of getting collectors to buy it are probably south of zero. It would also be gargantuan, as essentially you are trending towards an entry for every die ever produced, cross referenced to every book that has been printed on the subject.

I do agree with your view there, Rob, and so I am slowly gathering different authors. Will be looking at any revisions of Davies and Freeman. Perhaps I might obtain Gouby but to be honest, right now, I have little interest in collecting accidental die variations like dots and gradual die flaws for example. Not just yet anyway.

The rabbit hole goes rather deep and I am quite comfy nearer entrance for now thank you very much. 😄.

[BottleCapDave 5]

https://www.whsmith.co.uk/products/english-silver-coinage-original-30th-anniversary-revised-platinum-edition-newly-illustrated-througho/p-alan-rayner/hardback/9781912667765.html

Eh? First I have heard of this revision/update. It's not one of the Maurice Bull revisions and is not listed on spinkbooks.com

Edited July 11, 2023 by BottleCapDave

[Peckris 2 2,044]

22 hours ago, BottleCapDave said:

 

Davies, Groom, and Freeman have found a new home on my bedside cabinet.

A good choice of reference. If you get very interested in bronze you could add Gouby (like Freeman but with more recent discoveries).

[Sword 1,330]

On 7/11/2023 at 2:13 AM, BottleCapDave said:

https://www.whsmith.co.uk/products/english-silver-coinage-original-30th-anniversary-revised-platinum-edition-newly-illustrated-througho/p-alan-rayner/hardback/9781912667765.html

Eh? First I have heard of this revision/update. It's not one of the Maurice Bull revisions and is not listed on spinkbooks.com

There are discounts available. E.g. https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/English-Silver-Coinage-Original-Hardback/p/23844

But it's a bit of a rip off to me. The ESC (Maurice Bull) has already got to 7th edition. Is that really necessary to have new editions so frequently?

Then this is the smarten up version of the 1992 "original" Rayner's fourth edition. It has been extended to include coins from 1992 to 2022, like if anyone cares. Then it still uses the Seaby's original numbering but we have moved on to the new Bull's numbering.

[VickySilver 775]

I too am confused by this new volume, and this with TWO versions of the 7th Edition of the Bull ESC. Which now is ESC? And I am miffed by mistakingly getting the abbreviated 7th Edition as at the time of purchase did not know this. 

Another issue is that in the proofs and patterns of the 20th C. predecimal series have been in many cases mucked up.....I know, I sound the crybaby.

 

[Rob 3,002]

3 hours ago, VickySilver said:

I too am confused by this new volume, and this with TWO versions of the 7th Edition of the Bull ESC. Which now is ESC? And I am miffed by mistakingly getting the abbreviated 7th Edition as at the time of purchase did not know this. 

Another issue is that in the proofs and patterns of the 20th C. predecimal series have been in many cases mucked up.....I know, I sound the crybaby.

 

Which is why I still reference the 5th edition numbers and in the case of anything from 1816 on, prefer to use Davies.

It's making a good case for yet another revision, but this time not called ESC.

[Mr T 169]

On 7/11/2023 at 2:22 AM, BottleCapDave said:

I have spent some time creating major variety lists per reign using Google sheets. Nothing sophisticated, just reference numbers, dies id's and their descriptions etc. I will say Groom has been helpful with higher quality images and more detailed descriptions of Davies' varieties. As a newbie I have yet to pick up Rayner's book, does he include any major die varieties not listed in Davies?

The 1837 mule sixpence is one that's missing from Davies, but the coverage in Davies is generally better.