One For Seuk

[Peckris]

Apologies for the cruddy nature of this item, and it may be too worn to identify any useful die indicators, but here's an 1816 shilling for your attention :

[seuk]

That's a coincidence - this one is B605o_B607r. The last one was B605o_B608r. That is same obverse, different reverse.

[Peckris]

That's a coincidence - this one is B605o_B607r. The last one was B605o_B608r. That is same obverse, different reverse.

Is that your own numbering system?

When I looked at them side by side I could see a lot of differences on the reverses, from slight to quite glaring.

[seuk]

Yes - my own system

[Peckris]

Yes - my own system

Awesome. Is there a system behind it, e.g. chronology, or possible engravers, or something like that? You really ought to be writing a book on this if you're not already! You will be the Freeman of Forgeries.

[seuk]

I though a great deal about the numbering system before numbering the coins - in the hope not having to renumbering them all at a later time. I may still have to renumber some of the coins when I get deeper into the study and that's a lot of boring work.

The system is - first a letter naming the group which should be equal to the engraver. Hence the problem of renumbering if I find out that more groups are simply the result of a change in punches used by the same engraver. I may still choose to keep the groups seperated if it make sence and perhaps only rearrange it a bit...
1st digit is for the year on the coin 6 = 1816 (that do cause the renumbering problem when found that a reverse have been use at an earlier date)

Next two digits are the number assigned to the individual die in the hope that no engraver have made more than 99 dies of any given year
Finally and o or r for oberse / reverse

[Peckris]

I though a great deal about the numbering system before numbering the coins - in the hope not having to renumbering them all at a later time. I may still have to renumber some of the coins when I get deeper into the study and that's a lot of boring work.

The system is - first a letter naming the group which should be equal to the engraver. Hence the problem of renumbering if I find out that more groups are simply the result of a change in punches used by the same engraver. I may still choose to keep the groups seperated if it make sence and perhaps only rearrange it a bit...

1st digit is for the year on the coin 6 = 1816 (that do cause the renumbering problem when found that a reverse have been use at an earlier date)

Next two digits are the number assigned to the individual die in the hope that no engraver have made more than 99 dies of any given year

Finally and o or r for oberse / reverse

Cool logic