Dilly Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Looking for info on this coin. Not one I have seen before. Thanks Quote
Rob Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 I'd say it's a die flaw rather than an inverted A. An A was produced almost invariably by using a V and inserting the crossbar manually which usually results in a thin line. The line is also usually lower down the uprights. Your crossbar is somewhat bulbous which leads me to think it isn't a die sinker's error. Quote
Dilly Posted July 1, 2012 Author Posted July 1, 2012 I'd say it's a die flaw rather than an inverted A. An A was produced almost invariably by using a V and inserting the crossbar manually which usually results in a thin line. The line is also usually lower down the uprights. Your crossbar is somewhat bulbous which leads me to think it isn't a die sinker's error. Ok, let's for the moment consider it is a die flaw... So can anyone quote which variety? I have found some fairly close matches but not this exact die. Thanks Quote
Coinery Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 I'd say it's a die flaw rather than an inverted A. An A was produced almost invariably by using a V and inserting the crossbar manually which usually results in a thin line. The line is also usually lower down the uprights. Your crossbar is somewhat bulbous which leads me to think it isn't a die sinker's error. Ok, let's for the moment consider it is a die flaw... So can anyone quote which variety? I have found some fairly close matches but not this exact die. ThanksThere are many dies made for the same year, using individual punches, so you might be searching for a little while to find an exact die match! I agree with Rob, with my primary thought on the 'blob' appearance and location of it.All is not lost, however, as I couldn't see a stop after GVLIELMVS - could just be the quality of the picture. You'd have to have a microscopic look at it, particularly as it could have just erroded/worn or been weakly struck to begin with!Welcome, by the way, how did you come by it? Quote
Rob Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) I'd say it's a die flaw rather than an inverted A. An A was produced almost invariably by using a V and inserting the crossbar manually which usually results in a thin line. The line is also usually lower down the uprights. Your crossbar is somewhat bulbous which leads me to think it isn't a die sinker's error. Ok, let's for the moment consider it is a die flaw... So can anyone quote which variety? I have found some fairly close matches but not this exact die. ThanksThere are a few options listed in Peck as follows.P687 GVLIELMVS. TERTIVS. BRITANNIA.P693 No obverse stopsP693* No stop after GVLIELMVSThere are also a number of varieties unrecorded in Peck but which are impossible to ascertain due to the weakness in the legends on both sides. It isn't the reverse die with the abnormally tall unbarred A for the last letter on the reverse.You will have to check very carefully to establish whether the stops are present or not because they can be very weak or filled.I don't have an example from either die to clarify the readings and there is no die duplicate in Nicholson. Edited July 1, 2012 by Rob Quote
copper123 Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 WOOOW nice coin - would tend to agree with the other posters but 1699 date in Ex is quite hard to find - I would say even with the weak strike you have a £50 coin there Quote
Rob Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) WOOOW nice coin - would tend to agree with the other posters but 1699 date in Ex is quite hard to find - I would say even with the weak strike you have a £50 coin there Although rarer than 1700 or 1701, 1699 isn't that hard to find an example of, certain varieties excepted. It is a much commoner date than 1698 date in exergue for example which were only struck for a three month period and then not extensively. I agree it isn't a bad example, just a shame about the weakness as you can't be certain what you have without die duplicates to compare. Edited July 4, 2012 by Rob Quote
Peter Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 WOOOW nice coin - would tend to agree with the other posters but 1699 date in Ex is quite hard to find - I would say even with the weak strike you have a £50 coin there There doesn't seem to be any control on early copper.Some dealers ask huge amounts for crap.A walk around the Midland coin fair has convinced me few dealers grade correctly and the price range is massive. Quote
Rob Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 There doesn't seem to be any control on early copper.Some dealers ask huge amounts for crap.A walk around the Midland coin fair has convinced me few dealers grade correctly and the price range is massive.A lot of W3 copper varieties are only available in crap. Even after Baldwin's basement was emptied, most remain unobtainable in better than VF with quite a lot fine or a bit better at best. Quote
Peter Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 There doesn't seem to be any control on early copper.Some dealers ask huge amounts for crap.A walk around the Midland coin fair has convinced me few dealers grade correctly and the price range is massive.A lot of W3 copper varieties are only available in crap. Even after Baldwin's basement was emptied, most remain unobtainable in better than VF with quite a lot fine or a bit better at best.Fine as in fine or fine for the series.Any currency between 1672 and 1701(1/2d) are so difficult.You can get a nice William and Mary bust coin when the date is not obvious. Quote
Coinery Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Come on Dilly, there's lots to go on here, what's your thoughts? 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.