Your thoughts re this slabbed coin please?

[Rob]

This sold for $1400 hammer in the Heritage sale tonight.

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-charles-i-1-2-crown-nd-1643-44-au55-ngc-/a/3038-34717.s?x=21&y=12

Plugged or not? It looks fairly clear cut to me, but other opinions are invited.

[Coinery]

That is a very odd occurrence, and difficult to explain away. In view of the excess metal (which, incidentally, looks like Paulus' lost Aardvark PM), which surely can't be a die flaw (it's too smooth and molten-looking), I'd go for a plug!

[Peckris]

You're talking about what's at 6 o'clock? It just looks like a nasty dent on the obverse, but more like a plug in the same place on the reverse.

[Rob]

Correct chaps. Given these are always struck from discrete die pairs which are never muled and I have never seen one without perfectly formed letters in the legend, plugging looks to be the right option. A lower grade piece but with the reverse flaw at a later stage says it all. I don't think the grader put much effort into his assessment.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Rob

[TomGoodheart]

Plugged would be my opinion too. $1400, eh? Hmmm.

.

[Rob]

It is the laxity of the TPG that should be the concern. To make not too fine a point, it's bleedin' obvious.

[Coinery]

Amazed to find that's a die flaw! You learn something new everyday!

I was comparing the lettering to this chomped example, so missed out on the progressive flaw.

[Rob]

You have 4 discrete die pairs with the oval reverse shield (3B-3E). The obverses are also different in each case, but still given a single number based on the design with the tail behind the rear legs. Obverse 2 has the tail between the legs and is known for 12 discrete die pairs. Again, the obverses and reverses are slightly different in each case. The flaws appear to be where a previous die was engraved as you can discern details which agree with other dies. It is this that leads me to believe that the cylinder press theory proposed by Besly in the 1984 BNJ doesn't hold, or at least only for the obverse 2 shillings and possibly the threepences. The above and the other halfcrowns are individual die pairs used on a rocker press, and are struck from diestock that is of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown.

[Gary1000]

Agreed it looks like a plug but why would you pierce it just there as it would hang up side down and crooked at that.

[Coinery]

Agreed it looks like a plug but why would you pierce it just there as it would hang up side down and crooked at that.

Depends on whether you want to lift it up and kiss it once and a while?

[Coinery]

You have 4 discrete die pairs with the oval reverse shield (3B-3E). The obverses are also different in each case, but still given a single number based on the design with the tail behind the rear legs. Obverse 2 has the tail between the legs and is known for 12 discrete die pairs. Again, the obverses and reverses are slightly different in each case. The flaws appear to be where a previous die was engraved as you can discern details which agree with other dies. It is this that leads me to believe that the cylinder press theory proposed by Besly in the 1984 BNJ doesn't hold, or at least only for the obverse 2 shillings and possibly the threepences. The above and the other halfcrowns are individual die pairs used on a rocker press, and are struck from diestock that is of a greater diameter than that of a halfcrown.

Definitely more for your money on this forum!

[VickySilver]

Looks plugged to me as well. The OP coin looks to be rather high relief with well struck devices, but not my series.