1758/7 Sixpence

[Hussulo]

Hi, I was looking at a coin that I have in closer detail. It is a 1758/7 George II sixpence, but on closer inspection the O in GEORGEOUS has an open top which makes it look like a V. Is this a common error or listed error?

[Rob]

Hi, I was looking at a coin that I have in closer detail. It is a 1758/7 George II sixpence, but on closer inspection the O in GEORGEOUS has an open top which makes it look like a V. Is this a common error or listed error?

I don't think there are any lists of miscellaneous die flaws, infilled dies or other minor varieties for old silver or at least not in general circulation although individuals may keep one. The problem is there are so many minor variations that it probably isn't worth noting.

[Hussulo]

Hi, I was looking at a coin that I have in closer detail. It is a 1758/7 George II sixpence, but on closer inspection the O in GEORGEOUS has an open top which makes it look like a V. Is this a common error or listed error?

I don't think there are any lists of miscellaneous die flaws, infilled dies or other minor varieties for old silver or at least not in general circulation although individuals may keep one. The problem is there are so many minor variations that it probably isn't worth noting.

Thanks Rob, kind of what I thought. The reson I asked was while flicking through Spink. I noticed 3435 William and Mary Halfcrown The E in ET broken top error or GVLIELMVS E with broken top error is listed as Extremely rare. So I guess my question is how come those errors are recognised where as other minor variations arent?

[Rob]

Hi, I was looking at a coin that I have in closer detail. It is a 1758/7 George II sixpence, but on closer inspection the O in GEORGEOUS has an open top which makes it look like a V. Is this a common error or listed error?

I don't think there are any lists of miscellaneous die flaws, infilled dies or other minor varieties for old silver or at least not in general circulation although individuals may keep one. The problem is there are so many minor variations that it probably isn't worth noting.

Thanks Rob, kind of what I thought. The reson I asked was while flicking through Spink. I noticed 3435 William and Mary Halfcrown The E in ET broken top error or GVLIELMVS E with broken top error is listed as Extremely rare. So I guess my question is how come those errors are recognised where as other minor variations arent?

Historical. Most of the errors are there as a result of being included in Peck, Freeman or ESC. This isn't a real error but is due to a weak strike. This fact was acknowledged in the Adams sale and the coin didn't sell. Whilst it is interesting from a collecting point of view to see all the die variations based around the perfect item, it is not going to add value in the same way as a recognised mistake by the engraver which is a genuine variety. So all of these missing serifs to letters or simply an old die suffering from infilling are a reflection of the passage of time in die use; missing colon dots would have a place if you could link the die to an example held by the mint which is unambiguously missing on the die, but otherwise should be treated as just a blocked die. That's my point of view.

Most if not all of the recent varieties introduced into the half crown sections of Spink were instigated by Colin Adams. It also gives credence and an uplift to the desirability (and value) of the variety if it has "official" recognition. but you will not get Spink or anyone else to include 20 varieties of one coin in a general reference book, or at least variations that are not errors.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Rob

[Hussulo]

Hi, I was looking at a coin that I have in closer detail. It is a 1758/7 George II sixpence, but on closer inspection the O in GEORGEOUS has an open top which makes it look like a V. Is this a common error or listed error?

I don't think there are any lists of miscellaneous die flaws, infilled dies or other minor varieties for old silver or at least not in general circulation although individuals may keep one. The problem is there are so many minor variations that it probably isn't worth noting.

Thanks Rob, kind of what I thought. The reson I asked was while flicking through Spink. I noticed 3435 William and Mary Halfcrown The E in ET broken top error or GVLIELMVS E with broken top error is listed as Extremely rare. So I guess my question is how come those errors are recognised where as other minor variations arent?

Historical. Most of the errors are there as a result of being included in Peck, Freeman or ESC. This isn't a real error but is due to a weak strike. This fact was acknowledged in the Adams sale and the coin didn't sell. Whilst it is interesting from a collecting point of view to see all the die variations based around the perfect item, it is not going to add value in the same way as a recognised mistake by the engraver which is a genuine variety. So all of these missing serifs to letters or simply an old die suffering from infilling are a reflection of the passage of time in die use; missing colon dots would have a place if you could link the die to an example held by the mint which is unambiguously missing on the die, but otherwise should be treated as just a blocked die. That's my point of view.

Most if not all of the recent varieties introduced into the half crown sections of Spink were instigated by Colin Adams. It also gives credence and an uplift to the desirability (and value) of the variety if it has "official" recognition. but you will not get Spink or anyone else to include 20 varieties of one coin in a general reference book, or at least variations that are not errors.

Thanks for clearing it up for me Rob. I am always learning new things in this great forum.