William 3dr Shillings

[Johnshan]

Hi everyone I'm looking for some expert advice.

Has any one some good pictures of William 3rd Shilling Busts, First, Third, and Third variant. I just cant tell the difference from the pictures that I have.

I bought this one listed as first bust but I'm not sure, can you help please.

Thanks

[Rob]

That's 3rd bust variety.

Refer to the current Spink catalogue, p.374. I'll dig out some images too.

[Rob]

First of all, the 1st bust is the easy one to identify. At the back of the head, the hair forms a circle as opposed to a lot of roughly parallel strands found on the 3rd bust and variety.

4 x 1st bust shillings in varying grades in the first image and a better detail worn 1st bust example in the second showing how easy it is to see the variety even when badly worn such as this one.

[Johnshan]

Thanks Rob.

This coin has been encapsulated supposedly by CGS as EF60 !

Thanks again

[Rob]

This is a 3rd bust. Although a mistrike, the difference in hair detail is clear. The curls forward at the top of the back of the head are markedly different, and the ties are different too.

[Paulus]

Thanks Rob.

This coin has been encapsulated supposedly by CGS as EF60 !

W 3rd Shilling.jpg

Thanks again

TPGs make mistakes, I would always trust Rob's attribution over theirs On a brighter note, EF sounds right judging by the obverse, do you have a pic of the reverse?

[Johnshan]

Thanks Rob, I can clearly see the difference between them now.

Thanks for your help.

CGS need to re-train their staff, I think, or send them to Specsavers.

[Paulus]

Thanks Rob, I can clearly see the difference between them now.

Thanks for your help.

CGS need to re-train their staff, I think, or send them to Specsavers.

See various rants in the TPG thread! There is a ton of mis-attributed, over-graded, and fake stuff out there, on balance I would say TPGs help to limit it, but once slabbed it is often taken as gospel .... if you can spot a coin that has been mis-attributed there are bargains to be found

[Rob]

The detail I have pointed out is clear enough in Spink, just that people probably don't accept that it is reasonably accurate because it is a drawing as opposed to an image. Another useful tip is that the 3rd busts weren't used until 1696, so any 1695 shilling must be 1st bust

[Johnshan]

Yes I can see the difference now.

Rob is definitely correct from what I can see.

Pic of reverse attached

Thank you all for your help and thanks again Rob for the pics.

[Johnshan]

I'm looking for the slabbed errors now, and the bargains.

Regards

[Johnshan]

Rob, I've studied the drawings in Spink over and over, but just cant seem to get to grips with them. I found the pics you sent much clearer.

Regards

[Coinery]

I've not studied the full thread, but this isn't surely a CGS bust confusion, surely? Surely not?

[Rob]

http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c7%20pics/03338.jpg

The 3rd bust variety has the hair at the back of the head in sweeping roughly parallel curves. This is fairly obvious in Spink. The 3rd bust curls are not so near parallel as the variety, with 2 or 3 markedly more curved. The upper tie ribbon also points slightly up on the 3rd compared to the variety.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Rob

[Paulus]

I've not studied the full thread, but this isn't surely a CGS bust confusion, surely? Surely not?

Sounds like it! Would you be surprised Stu?

[sound]

I've not studied the full thread, but this isn't surely a CGS bust confusion, surely? Surely not?

Sounds like it! Would you be surprised Stu?

Ha, ha, ha, think Stu is making a very good point. It's not the mistake, we can all make those. It's the absolutism that is often attributed to third party graders by their adherents.

Mark