Cracked die?

[Coinery]

I'm thinking C1 HC's and Mary are on the winter cards for another numismatic adventure?

Where does the literature begin for the HC coins?

Morrieson's BNJ articles on the Bristol, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth, Coombe Martin & Lundy. Besly BNJ, York & Truro/Exeter. Allen BNJ, W/SA + Vincent supplementary data. Lockett BNJ, Truro & Exeter. Then combine all these articles with hundreds and hundreds of sales catalogues, sylloges, Bull, Charles I halfcowns etc.

Thanks, Rob, I'll be taking a look!

[Rob]

I'm thinking C1 HC's and Mary are on the winter cards for another numismatic adventure?

Where does the literature begin for the HC coins?

Morrieson's BNJ articles on the Bristol, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth, Coombe Martin & Lundy. Besly BNJ, York & Truro/Exeter. Allen BNJ, W/SA + Vincent supplementary data. Lockett BNJ, Truro & Exeter. Then combine all these articles with hundreds and hundreds of sales catalogues, sylloges, Bull, Charles I halfcowns etc.

Thanks, Rob, I'll be taking a look!

Sorry, I also forgot Lyall's Chester article in the 1971 Circular

[Coinery]

On the question of diestock diameters being potentially larger than the denomination, this rather desirable Shrewsbury shilling from DNW 79 says it all.

The obverse is nearly all on the flan. There is no way the reverse would ever fit on a shilling sized flan, being barely able to fit a halfcrown. But it is definitely a shilling rev. die because of the 3 line declaration.

The second coin that sprang to mind was the Oxford 1645 F7 halfcrown. Again, the obverse is full, but the reverse is too big. Neither of these are double struck which would be a potential explanation for off flan detail. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the bar end was a greater diameter than the denomination norm, and was engraved too large in error.

A whole new grading challenge! A lot of these must have slipped through as 'clipped' I'm thinking. I'm presuming this is a phenomenon consistent over a number of flans, and they've been on the button, weight wise?

Could it be that the engravers were expecting larger flans, but the silver was just coming through too thick?

[Rob]

On the question of diestock diameters being potentially larger than the denomination, this rather desirable Shrewsbury shilling from DNW 79 says it all.

The obverse is nearly all on the flan. There is no way the reverse would ever fit on a shilling sized flan, being barely able to fit a halfcrown. But it is definitely a shilling rev. die because of the 3 line declaration.

The second coin that sprang to mind was the Oxford 1645 F7 halfcrown. Again, the obverse is full, but the reverse is too big. Neither of these are double struck which would be a potential explanation for off flan detail. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the bar end was a greater diameter than the denomination norm, and was engraved too large in error.

A whole new grading challenge! A lot of these must have slipped through as 'clipped' I'm thinking. I'm presuming this is a phenomenon consistent over a number of flans, and they've been on the button, weight wise?

Could it be that the engravers were expecting larger flans, but the silver was just coming through too thick?

There are 3 decent examples of the 1645 F7. Mine (ex-Lockett 2460), Carlyon-Britton (1921) lot 337 and Morrieson 534. All are well centred, but missing the reverse periphery. Attached is a less desirable example off Lloyd's site, which although off centre on the reverse, is still too big.

[Coinery]

On the question of diestock diameters being potentially larger than the denomination, this rather desirable Shrewsbury shilling from DNW 79 says it all.

The obverse is nearly all on the flan. There is no way the reverse would ever fit on a shilling sized flan, being barely able to fit a halfcrown. But it is definitely a shilling rev. die because of the 3 line declaration.

The second coin that sprang to mind was the Oxford 1645 F7 halfcrown. Again, the obverse is full, but the reverse is too big. Neither of these are double struck which would be a potential explanation for off flan detail. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the bar end was a greater diameter than the denomination norm, and was engraved too large in error.

A whole new grading challenge! A lot of these must have slipped through as 'clipped' I'm thinking. I'm presuming this is a phenomenon consistent over a number of flans, and they've been on the button, weight wise?

Could it be that the engravers were expecting larger flans, but the silver was just coming through too thick?

There are 3 decent examples of the 1645 F7. Mine (ex-Lockett 2460), Carlyon-Britton (1921) lot 337 and Morrieson 534. All are well centred, but missing the reverse periphery. Attached is a less desirable example off Lloyd's site, which although off centre on the reverse, is still too big.

Great coins...it doesn't take much to get me whoring with a different monarch or denomination! Thanks again, Rob!