Leaderboard

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3204634?fbclid=IwAR3MsYR7p0c1dD7qMnhKG6UEXPe3-79-XoACS6zWQ-akKIG1OdnyZEsF9JE

I agree with above: on first reading of it, I thought this might be a nice matte like the 1902 (sans the wiping) but instead they parade out a pink monstrosity. Also, is it just me, or do the features of George look a bit different, and uglier and cruder?

That's a tongue in cheek nothing wrong. Having listed what is wrong with them, it is somewhat contradictory to then say they are good.

The important point to remember in my opinion is that it is always assumed that the well punched digit is the intended one, however, it is not guaranteed that the intended correction is punched in greater relief than the original. A clear case of this is the GEOE shilling. Nobody is going to change the final R to an E. I believe that the GEOE was punched in, but the intended correction wasn't deep enough giving the appearance of E/R. This is quite easy to justify if the die has been hardened. I can certainly show an example of a hammered coin where the overmark struggled to reach the same depth using numerous blows and there is no reason to expect a die for the milled coinage to be any different. If the above is added to the list of permutations of die sinkers' errors and corrections, you are led to conclude that virtually everything is possible. e.g. Sometimes the date starts too far to the left or right, the correction leading to apparent overdates.

I'd prefer it if you did halfpennies, in similar detail to your pennies. Thanks.

A less well known Monty Python sketch and one of my favourites - if nothing else because the Ozzies tried to get it banned!

Does it talk?

The 6th scientist made no comment...