Leaderboard

Down the rabbit hole again! I've started to investigate the dies used to produce the 1787 sixpence with the intention of collecting one example of each die (over time). In the past three days I've built a data base of images from 171 examples, hopefully with many more to come. My target is 500 sample images and I hope this isn't optimistic. Here are a few preliminary observations about the reverse dies. There are four primary families of dies: With semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and without serifs on the "7"s in the date With semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and with serifs on the "7"s in the date Without semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and without serifs on the "7"s in the date Without semee of hearts in Hanoverian Shield and with serifs on the "7"s in the date In the overwhelming majority of instances the Hibernian harp contains 6 strings. However, I've come across the following: A. 5 examples of with-hearts/without-serif-7 coins that have 7 strings (just under 3% of sample to date) B. 3 examples of without-hearts/without-serif-7 coins that have 7 strings (about 1.8% of sample) C. 1 example of with-hearts/with-serif-7 coin that has 7 strings (about 0.6% of sample) All of the examples in group A belong to the same die. At least 2 examples of those in group B are from the same die, while the jury is out on the third example. I strongly suspect that all coins in groups A and B are from the same die. My reasoning? Firstly, the absence of the semee-of-hearts was a mistake recognised and rectified part way through the run. As with the shillings, the hearts were hand-engraved, presumably on existing dies, to correct the error. There are about three die flaws that you can see developing across the coins in groups A and B, becoming more obvious as the die ages: Die fill in two letters and the wearing of the left lower serif in "1" of the date. I'm noticing generally much more die wear on 1787 sixpences than on 1787 shillings. Given that a similar quantity of each denomination was struck, I suspect that there were, perhaps, significantly fewer dies used. This is just a hunch. I'll see if can find any records indicating the number of dies produced as this information is available for the shillings. The number of dies produced needn't be the same as the number of dies used, though. Further updates to come.

Well the near BU 1891 I bought from an e bayer in Norway has arrived. Absolute bargain, and apart from a very slight blemish on the reverse near the trident, and three negligible spots on the obverse, it's perfect. BU, but the lustre has slightly toned to a really deep orange. Despite all the hassle with paypal a few days ago, I'm really pleased. I know the 1891 is common, but scarcer in this condition:-

Here is the reverse of my coin from earlier. The date and condition of this coin must be quite scarce.

This coin sold for £280 hammer at the LCA in June 2017 as VF/NVF. I could not pay nearly £500 for it, it as not an attractive coin and you are far better off waiting for a no problems VF at the same or a little more money than giving the vendor a £150 markup the coin does not justify. Again, look at past LCA and other sales. Jerry

The date is very scarce and rare indeed in that condition. The porousness will certainly have an effect on value but I don't see why it shouldn't carry a value between VF and EF ? Nice one.

The year might be common, but that grade is rarely common, nice coin

Thanks Mike 🙂 The reason for me buying the Lot though was the one top left is the scarce one. The REV is different than any other year and one sold last week in LCA for £2600+ premium. its now on Richards site as a pattern with NO Colon after REG ,the sheild ,leaves ,stem and other differences. Not many about so was really happy to spot this one and was able to get rid of the others to help cover the cost.

Should of bought a few more of those pesky 50p's and converted them to pre 1860 cu.😢

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=311875 I was lucky to find this Lot at DNW a few months ago 🙂 If you get bored maybe have a look as one is scarce and dont think many spotted it on the day. Pete.

I'd be inclined not to trust them - probably the mint uses the cheapest plastic available.