azda Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible O Edited January 9, 2012 by azda Quote
Gollum Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible OLooks like it to me, nice catch Azda Edited January 9, 2012 by Gollum Quote
Gary D Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible OLooks like it to me, nice catch AzdaLooks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be. Quote
Peter Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Hang in there DaveThat looks like a corker.Love it. Quote
Peckris Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix? Quote
Colin G. Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible OLooks like it to me, nice catch AzdaLooks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be.I agree it certainly looks like a die flaw/crack has extended between the curves of the C to form an "O" shape. This is based on the assumption that the style of the O is different.However having said that it could be argued to be an "O" if you can prove the C on a same denomination without the overstrike is also a different shape which it appears to be on the comparison. Are the photos of two coins that are the same denomination? or are they different denominations from the same maundy set? Quote
azda Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible OLooks like it to me, nice catch AzdaLooks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be.I agree it certainly looks like a die flaw/crack has extended between the curves of the C to form an "O" shape. This is based on the assumption that the style of the O is different.However having said that it could be argued to be an "O" if you can prove the C on a same denomination without the overstrike is also a different shape which it appears to be on the comparison. Are the photos of two coins that are the same denomination? or are they different denominations from the same maundy set?The possible error is a 3d 1680 the other a 2d 1678. I've scoped the possible error. Sideways O? IE, the fatter sides of a normal O being top and bottom other than left and right (if you get what i mean lol) Quote
azda Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible OLooks like it to me, nice catch AzdaLooks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be.From my scoped picture Gary, you can clearly see that it does'nt thin top and bottom, it's clearly fatter Quote
azda Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix?This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal? Quote
Peckris Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix?This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal?Something would have to cut into the die at that precise point - seems too much of a coincidence. Quote
Colin G. Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix?This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal?It wouldn't add metal, it would be incuse on the die. Therefore a die crack that is incuse would result in a raised link between the curves of the C. I agree it could well be a sideways O but you would need to look at the letter styles on a coin of the same denomination to be more certain.I have seen die cracks in all shapes and sizes and that have made all manner of things look like they have appeared, but you need to be certain. Quote
azda Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 On the face of it, it looks a clear error. I'm not sure how a damaged C could put extra metal into the mix?This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal?It wouldn't add metal, it would be incuse on the die. Therefore a die crack that is incuse would result in a raised link between the curves of the C. I agree it could well be a sideways O but you would need to look at the letter styles on a coin of the same denomination to be more certain.I have seen die cracks in all shapes and sizes and that have made all manner of things look like they have appeared, but you need to be certain.You need look no further than the O in CAROLVS on the same coin Colin Quote
seuk Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 To me it looks like C on O (or perhaps an inverted C). If the error were discovered after the first strike it would probably explain why the line is thin.Here a similar example of a danish error coin - K over misplaced N in Skilling: Quote
Colin G. Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 You need look no further than the O in CAROLVS on the same coin ColinSorry Dave I mean you could do with another 3d so that you can see what a normal C should look like. It may help determine whether it is a rotated C or whether we could discount a C altogether Quote
just.me Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I think C over inverted or rotated C. The Os are more oval rather than round. Quote
azda Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 I think C over inverted or rotated C. The Os are more oval rather than round.Which would explain no gap in the letter C. Quote
Peckris Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I think C over inverted or rotated C. The Os are more oval rather than round.Which would explain no gap in the letter C.Quite a blade, that King Oar Quote
HistoricCoinage Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Quite a blade, that King Oar But he hasn't got an oar, he's Oaralus times 2.A very interesting coin, Azda. Quote
Peckris Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Quite a blade, that King Oar But he hasn't got an oar, he's Oaralus times 2.A very interesting coin, Azda.Sorry, that's total rollocks Quote
ski Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Sorry, that's total rollocks B over R i think Quote
Rob Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 C over another C rotated about 120 degrees. I had a better one on the site for about 3 years @ £45 without any takers until a year ago. Either no interest or no viewers - take your pick. Quote
Peckris Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Sorry, that's total rollocks B over R i think Bowlocks Edited January 9, 2012 by Peckris Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.