Michael-Roo Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 An unlisted variety for 1700.I have only been able to find three examples of this one.Two are in the Dr.Nicholson collection:The first graded Good Fine/Fine. The second, Fair. Dr.Nicholson rates the variety as 'extremely rare'.The third coin is my own (pictured). Although I would rate it as Fine/Near Fine it is comparable with the Good Fine/Fine Nicholson example.The overstrike is clear and unmistakeable. Quote
Peckris Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I would personally grade that as G.Fair/N.Fair - that's not to demean its rarity, just a more realistic estimate of its condition. Quote
Rob Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) It looks like a poorly struck/defective punch T which has been reinforced with an I. The angled part claimed as an A wasn't totally convincing to me in Nicholson, though more so than this one. If an A, I would expect it to be similar in profile to the two other letters in the legend, but it looks to be different. The foot is almost at right-angles to the upright. Edited August 19, 2014 by Rob Quote
scott Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 not an A for me, the alignment of the foot is 90 degrees, looks to me like a slanted letter Quote
Michael-Roo Posted August 19, 2014 Author Posted August 19, 2014 I would personally grade that as G.Fair/N.Fair - that's not to demean its rarity, just a more realistic estimate of its condition.I'm happy to go with that. As mentioned, even though I estimated as fine/near fine, the condition is comparable to the Nicholson good fine/fine, and I've been trusting to the photos in that collection when estimating the grades of my William III 1/2ds. I guess some of Nicholson's must be over graded then. As for the likelihood of the underlying letter being something other than an A I'm happy to consider that too (again, I was going with the description in Nicholson collection for this). I would point out though there is a corresponding oblique bar to the left of the T too, which isn't as obvious in the photo as I'd hoped it would be. However, something which is obvious is that the foot of that oblique gives an elongated appearance to the foot of the T on the left side.It would be nice to nail the overstrike with some certainty. Hopefully someone, somewhere, has a higher grade example for our consideration.Fascinating stuff either way….. Quote
Peckris Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I would personally grade that as G.Fair/N.Fair - that's not to demean its rarity, just a more realistic estimate of its condition.I'm happy to go with that. As mentioned, even though I estimated as fine/near fine, the condition is comparable to the Nicholson good fine/fine, and I've been trusting to the photos in that collection when estimating the grades of my William III 1/2ds. I guess some of Nicholson's must be over graded then. I think many lower grade rarities are overgraded when it comes to sale time, it seems to be par for the course. I graded this particular coin on the loss of much detail including parts of the legend. I may have been a little harsh on the obverse, but I still wouldn't rate it as Fine. However, I'd be interested to know how others would grade it? Quote
Michael-Roo Posted August 19, 2014 Author Posted August 19, 2014 Good point P. Worth mentioning though that the appalling quality of original strike has to be considered when looking at this series. I have some examples which would grade as VF or better yet some areas have been so weakly struck as to leave those parts of the design less visible (rather than as a result of wear).Did you notice my coin and the Nicholson good fine/fine example both have the exact same little bit of extra metal/die clutter near Brit's arm in the reverse field? Not important, just interesting. They must have been struck quite closely to each other.Any thoughts regarding the underlying oblique bar and extension to the foot of the T on the lefthand side? Quote
Peckris Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I think the overstrike is the same as the Nicholson example, so whatever it is (T over A, T over slanted I) they are both examples of it IMO.(I've sent you a PM). Quote
scott Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 what you have to remember with William III is that they were poorly struck as well so grading has a bit more leeway. Quote
Peckris Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 what you have to remember with William III is that they were poorly struck as well so grading has a bit more leeway.They weren't all poorly struck, so that places the poor examples at a disadvantage or conversely the better examples at a premium. Either way, it shouldn't affect the grading which should be 'what it is', not 'what it should be given the poor strike'. Quote
Coinery Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Yes, I don't see any "A" in that over-punch! For me an "I" over a tumbled T...the A in the rest of the legend, and normally, has the thick arm to its right leg, notwithstanding the fact that the general look of the serifs are wrong!Nice coin regardless! Quote
Michael-Roo Posted August 20, 2014 Author Posted August 20, 2014 'Tumbled T'. Wasn't he one of the Whitechapel Murders suspects? I agree. The oblique leg on the right should be thicker if it were an A. It does remain though, there is a corresponding left oblique leg too. Its foot gives the effect of an elongated foot to the foot of the overlying T.Could the underlying letter be an inverted or mirrored V? Quote
Michael-Roo Posted August 20, 2014 Author Posted August 20, 2014 PS: Re: the left leg being thicker if it were an A: Would it not also be thicker if it were the upright bar of a T or an I? 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.