Coinery Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 OK, this is what I'm seeing on the Elizabeth 6d posted in Coin Aquisition by Azda!So, IMHO, a mistaken 2 for P in Posvi (I've seen number 2 clearly in the legend of 2 other coins), corrected by P (double punched).I could be wrong, as the vagarities are many, but I'd be calling it that if it were mine! Quote
Coinery Posted November 10, 2014 Author Posted November 10, 2014 Another example of 2 in legend. Quote
azda Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) Is the 2 in your 2nd picture from The same date Stewie? Its an upside down 2 in the legend? Edited November 11, 2014 by azda Quote
Coinery Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 Is the 2 in your 2nd picture from The same date Stewie? Its an upside down 2 in the legend?No, not the same date, but from a coin with a 2 in the date. My point being, that if a 2 punch is at hand, it sometimes gets used in error. Quote
azda Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) But then surely the 2 would have to be in use for it to be in Hand or avaliable? If a twice punched P was used over a 2 then i'm assuming the first strike was to hide the error and the 2nd to make the P look like a P as your other Picture does'ntt look much like an E Edited November 11, 2014 by azda Quote
Coinery Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 But then surely the 2 would have to be in use for it to be in Hand or avaliable?Your's does have a 2 in date (1592)! Quote
Coinery Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 If a twice punched P was used over a 2 then i'm assuming the first strike was to hide the error and the 2nd to make the P look like a PMaybe, or just an accidental double-strike of the P punch? Who knows he might've had the wobbles when he realised he'd just smacked a 2 in the legend?As you say, though, there would probably be some sort of attempt to obliterate it, as I'm sure a double-bounced P wouldn't reap anything like the penalty a glaring error would? Quote
Coinery Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) Is there anyone else out there seeing a 2 now I've highlighted it, or am I still alone on this? Which i don't mind, of course! ? Edited November 11, 2014 by Coinery Quote
azda Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 But then surely the 2 would have to be in use for it to be in Hand or avaliable?Your's does have a 2 in date (1592)! Lol yes i know but i was more curious of your date, plus why on the OBV of yours, but as you say its easy To mistake an E for a 2 lol, Obviously if a pile of punches were sitting around Then it Would easily picked up, but that would then beg the question as to why more errors did'nt occur Quote
Coinery Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 But then surely the 2 would have to be in use for it to be in Hand or avaliable?Your's does have a 2 in date (1592)! Lol yes i know but i was more curious of your date, plus why on the OBV of yours, but as you say its easy To mistake an E for a 2 lol, Obviously if a pile of punches were sitting around Then it Would easily picked up, but that would then beg the question as to why more errors did'nt occurPlenty did but, in the main, I'm guessing most people were especially cautious, most of the time, she was a bit of a tyrant, our Liz! Quote
azda Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 But then surely the 2 would have to be in use for it to be in Hand or avaliable?Your's does have a 2 in date (1592)! Lol yes i know but i was more curious of your date, plus why on the OBV of yours, but as you say its easy To mistake an E for a 2 lol, Obviously if a pile of punches were sitting around Then it Would easily picked up, but that would then beg the question as to why more errors did'nt occur she was a bit of a tyrant, our Liz! Sounds a bit Ian Duncan Smith Quote
HistoricCoinage Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Late to the party but I do agree that it looks to be a 2. Quote
Coinery Posted November 15, 2014 Author Posted November 15, 2014 Late to the party but I do agree that it looks to be a 2. That's two for a 2, then! Anymore for anymore? Quote
Michael-Roo Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Count me in. Three for two…..Sounds like a Tesco offer . Quote
TomGoodheart Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 LOL And yes, I can see it too. Do you know how often this '2 phenomenon' comes up Stuart? Just for a moment I wondered if it was a way of a particular die-maker identifying their work. But then correcting it seems to confirm that it was just an error .. and were I to want to identify my work, I'd probably find a subtler way .. a dot in the centre of an O or something ... Sorry, just waffling! . 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.