1750/46?

[Paulus]

One of the things I have difficulty with is identifying these over-date types, I was told this was a 40 over 46 variety, would anyone like to comment?

[Peckris]

Looks like a 50 to me - not 40 or 46. And a straight 50 rather than an overdate. The enlargement seems too big to be particularly useful - it shows an awful lot of rough metal surface which contains too much bobbly inconclusive artefacts, that's my opinion anyway. Any chance of a smaller enlargement?

[Paulus]

Looks like a 50 to me - not 40 or 46. And a straight 50 rather than an overdate. The enlargement seems too big to be particularly useful - it shows an awful lot of rough metal surface which contains too much bobbly inconclusive artefacts, that's my opinion anyway. Any chance of a smaller enlargement?

Thanks Peck, hows this?

[Peckris]

Looks like a 50 to me - not 40 or 46. And a straight 50 rather than an overdate. The enlargement seems too big to be particularly useful - it shows an awful lot of rough metal surface which contains too much bobbly inconclusive artefacts, that's my opinion anyway. Any chance of a smaller enlargement?

Thanks Peck, hows this?

Yes that's better (for me anyway). There is a suspicious bulge on the right hand side of the 0, but I'm struggling to place it with an underlying 6. I can't see anything of a 4 under the 5, but you never know with some of these overdates - they're flaky to say the least.

[azda]

I'm going for a straight 1750 from the pics. I think Rob has a 1750/46 on his site, don't quote me tho, take a looksy.