Half

I'm not convinced about the limited amount of wear having much infuence on the interiors of the "8" or "9" even allowing for the inside edge to be slightly bevelled - images of similarly worn coins appear to have larger interiors and I have not ( in ten minutes) been able to trace any currency examples with an 8 or 9 similar to Bruce's specimen. However, an 1879 proof does seem to have slightly thicker 8s and 9s to currency examples. In Bruce's specimen, the "7" is also thicker than normal, but some variety in this character does exist in currency specimens, so why not thicker 8s and 9s. Perhaps useful to check the size and weight of the coin.

For 1693 halfcrowns with the 3 of the date correct (second busts, third shields, QVINTO edge), the latest version of English Silver Coinage by Bull indicates that there are two types depending on the stops ▪️: ESC 860 with a ▪️ after GRATIA and the ▪️ after HI moved to before REX (i.e. after a crowned cruciform shield); ESC 861 with a ▪️ after GRATIA and no ▪️ between ET and REX. While examples of coins without a ▪️ after GRATIA exist, my query is about the “no ▪️ between ET and REX”. Has anyone ever seen an example? The only combinations I am aware of when the 3 of the date is correct are: reverse HI (crown) ▪️ REX ▪️ ET ▪️ (crown) REGINA, obverse GRATIA ▪️. reverse HI (crown) ▪️ REX ▪️ ET ▪️ (crown) REGINA, obverse GRATIA. reverse HI ▪️ (crown) REX ▪️ ET (crown) ▪️ REGINA, obverse GRATIA. reverse HI ▪️ (crown) REX ▪️ ET ▪️ (crown) REGINA, obverse GRATIA.

I think that your coin does have a high ▪️ after the HI - stops next to a crown are often located high (look at the ▪️ after ET and after REGINA). In contrast, the attached coin has a high ▪️ before REX and after ET, but a normally located ▪️ after REGINA.