1739 Halfpenny. Single exergue line.

[Michael-Roo]

Is this one acceptable as an unconfirmed variety?

There is a specimen graded fine in the Nicholson collection which he was pretty certain about but he had hoped to see a better example in order to confirm it. I see both Scott and Michael Gouby also have examples but, unfortunately, the condition of each is rather poor.

My own coin is the best of the bunch (see attached). The single line is clear and I can find no trace of a second (which would suggest a filled or worn die). I'm also including here a photo of the exergue and date of one of the other 1739s I have for comparison. The double line is unmistakeable on this second coin.

I'd be most grateful for your thoughts, and would like to know if any other forum members have one of these too.

Ta.

[Rob]

I have one with one and a bit lines. The date is set high and so impinges on the bottom line, but the line isn't continuous immediately to the left or right of each of the digits, only at the extremes to both sides with just a trace between the 3 & 9.

[Michael-Roo]

I have one with one and a bit lines. The date is set high and so impinges on the bottom line, but the line isn't continuous immediately to the left or right of each of the digits, only at the extremes to both sides with just a trace between the 3 & 9.

Thanks Rob. Do you have a photo?

Also: I was just now looking at the photos I've included in my post. Do you think there's something going on underneath the R of Rex?

[Rob]

I don't have an image immediately to hand as it isn't one for the collection.

The R on yours looks to be possibly double cut given the similarity to the foot of the upright. Triple cut? You are in the best position to say.

[scott]

I saw one that matched the dies, and had traces of the 2nd line.

that single line has part of a 2nd line before the 1 in the date does it not?

[Rob]

Here's the one I mentioned earlier. It won't win a beauty contest but is well struck, so weakness of strike is not a valid reason for the missing bits of the second line.

[Michael-Roo]

Thanks for the photo Rob. Not as bad as you suggest. Nicely struck, and a different reverse die to mine.

Scott: Thanks for the note. What looks to be a scrap of a second exergue line is in fact a tiny scratch. Hard to tell from the photo but its incuse, not raised as it would be if the remnant of a line.

[Rob]

The question of the number of exergue lines raises a few points for debate.

Firstly that it was supposed to be two lines and that the 1 or 3 line reverses are errors. It is also possible that most were cut by one person, so the two lines are an identifier for an individual. Reverses were traditionally the responsibility of the under-engraver.

If 2 lines were the norm, it begs the question as to why so many dates impinge on the exergue, and also why they obliterate sections of the lower line when this happens? The later would be compatible with a reworked die. Attached is the reverse of my 1738 V/S which has a possible 8/7 on the last digit. If a digit is filled and the surface smoothed, then loss of exergue line in the vicinity of the repair is a possibility. If this is valid reason for parts of the line missing, then it must be equally valid for a completely missing 2nd line. Bear in mind the lower one is always(?) in lower relief to the top one, so would be polished away earlier in the case of a reworked date and subsequent smoothing.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Rob

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

here is my 1739

[Rob]

here is my 1739

That looks like a distinct trace of 2nd line on the LHS?

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Larger image of the reverse

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

here is my 1739

That looks like a distinct trace of 2nd line on the LHS?

Yes, a very faint mark.... I don't know what happened to the rest of the line....

[Rob]

here is my 1739

That looks like a distinct trace of 2nd line on the LHS?

Yes, a very faint mark.... I don't know what happened to the rest of the line....

I have just edited an earlier post and put down a possible idea as to why it is so - see 5 posts earlier.

[Coinery]

The single line is clear and I can find no trace of a second (which would suggest a filled or worn die).

2014-10-23 13.42.32.jpg

2014-10-23 13.16.08.jpg

2014-10-23 13.16.24.jpg

2014-10-23 13.17.26.jpg

Unlikely to be filled across its entire length, and certainly not the result of a worn die.

[scott]

coincidentally

bit rubbed and scratched but no line.

sign of what is left of a line before the 1 again?

Edited October 29, 2014 by scott

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

here is my 1739

That looks like a distinct trace of 2nd line on the LHS?

Yes, a very faint mark.... I don't know what happened to the rest of the line....

with the partial line indicated

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Is this one acceptable as an unconfirmed variety?

There is a specimen graded fine in the Nicholson collection which he was pretty certain about but he had hoped to see a better example in order to confirm it. I see both Scott and Michael Gouby also have examples but, unfortunately, the condition of each is rather poor.

My own coin is the best of the bunch (see attached). The single line is clear and I can find no trace of a second (which would suggest a filled or worn die). I'm also including here a photo of the exergue and date of one of the other 1739s I have for comparison. The double line is unmistakeable on this second coin.

I'd be most grateful for your thoughts, and would like to know if any other forum members have one of these too.

Ta.

2014-10-23 13.16.24.jpg

I see a hint of a line similar to mine also...

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

coincidentally

bit rubbed and scratched but no line.

sign of what is left of a line before the 1 again?

could be shadows, but I think I see a hint of a line on both...

You have it in hand, so I will defer to you....

[scott]

I already pointed out the line before 1, it is like the others.

the 1st one is hard to tell but the bit after the 9 isn't an exergue line, especially as i checked for Variates before uploading the picture for the 2nd one.

Edited October 29, 2014 by scott

[Michael-Roo]

Is this one acceptable as an unconfirmed variety?

There is a specimen graded fine in the Nicholson collection which he was pretty certain about but he had hoped to see a better example in order to confirm it. I see both Scott and Michael Gouby also have examples but, unfortunately, the condition of each is rather poor.

My own coin is the best of the bunch (see attached). The single line is clear and I can find no trace of a second (which would suggest a filled or worn die). I'm also including here a photo of the exergue and date of one of the other 1739s I have for comparison. The double line is unmistakeable on this second coin.

I'd be most grateful for your thoughts, and would like to know if any other forum members have one of these too.

Ta.

2014-10-23 13.16.24.jpg

I see a hint of a line similar to mine also...

Hi again.

Please see my earlier reply to Scott. The mark you indicate on my coin is a tiny scratch. It is incuse, not raised as would be the case if it were part of a second exergue line. If you compare our coins you'll also notice they are different reverse dies. The date numerals are different, as too are the positions of each of Britannia's hands in relation to the letters. The stop after the A is also further away on mine.

Fascinating stuff, and Rob's notes certainly give us plenty to think about.

[Michael-Roo]

I see slight differences to the obverses of our coins too. Compare the tie ribands and the distance between the II and the top of George's head .

[scott]

ok I have had a look again at one of my 1739's (the one with the squashed edges) and there is no sign of a second line, the marked line is also incuse on mine

[Michael-Roo]

Rob, after reading your very interesting notes regarding the reworking of dates and possible subsequent smoothing of the original exergue I went back and took another look through my halfpennies of the 1730s. Here is my 1738. Normal issue but, different numerals to yours, and no evidence of a second line! As nowhere have I found mention of 1738 'single exergue' as a recorded variety it could be this is a specimen which proves your theory.

[Peckris]

It rather looks as though earlier halfpennies often came in 'single exergue line' flavour? (Judging by the number of examples posted at random in this topic.)

The double line, especially on the later issues, is pretty clear as witness my 1750:

[Rob]

It is the intermittent nature of the second line that makes me think a bit of remedial work has been undertaken. If a double exergue line was a required feature, you would expect the engraver to be careful not to obliterate it. I am inclined to believe that dies were recut as a matter of course, meaning that recut overdated dies exist for most years and that only the quality of the work stops you seeing the overdate. It was much more cost effective to change the last digit or two of the date rather than make a new die.

There are a few differences between your 1739 reverse and the others, The curved line above the shield is notably uniform in width on your 39 compared to my 38 and 39 and is a full arc whereas the other arcs are only half as long. This is seen throughout the issue, so is probably irrelevant. The foot is also very narrow on your 39, but I am not convinced yet that it is a different punch to the 38 because there is a distinctive notch to the shin on the left which is present on all coins from 1730 onwards. The 1729 proofs and Nicholson 201 show no evidence of this notch. If the Britannia punch is the same on all coins and the exergue line is part of the same punch, any wear to the punch of uneven depth of punching to the die could inadvertently make for a single exergue line.

To check if the exergue line was an integral part of the punch, coin no. 1675 in the RM museum is a 1730 1/2d whilst item no. 400 is a reverse punch for Britannia for the same issue. Whilst it doesn't guarantee that the same punch was used in 1738-9, the presence of a double or single exergue line on the punch would at least confirm that the two things were entered simultaneously on the die and that the single line is probably due to a weak strike or has been polished away. It might be worth asking the RM museum the question, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.