Here’s an example in the bottom right of one coin that didn’t correlate with the template. It has larger rings on the ‘chains’ too. BCW state there’s only one portcullis punch, meaning either they are wrong or the ‘no mark’ coin is suspect? OR they refreshed the bolts as the punch broke up and started to spread?
Ah, yes, I see what you mean!
I found a template I made up for the portcullises whilst looking out your coin. Very useful for spotting some of the counterfeits.
I notice the cypher over anchor is still the only overmark missing in the halfpenny section of BCW’s 2021 memorial update. Amazing that they’d never come across one…hens’ teeth and all that!
I ended up in balance of all things thinking this was wrong and left well alone. There was a time I would’ve bought it, simply to find out…but not any more.
A decent enough example of this rare mark. Only 60,000 ever produced (BCW), divided between PM O and PM Anchor, so few and far between today - roughly the weight of 3 bags of sugar were minted.
Paid around half the price you would for a common variety, so delighted really
Yes, I’m thinking to cast such a sharp shadow (if it is) that the lighting would have to be really bright, and it doesn’t look to be, when taking the exposure of the coin’s surfaces into account?
What’s your thoughts of these seller pictures, shadow or thick? When looking at both sides, it appears the shadow/thickness continues around the entire coin?
A really good example of what I mean by balance and even wear in this £350 offering of the same coin from eBay. Even though some of the bust is better, I know which is the better coin by far!
Just had another closer look…I can’t see any tooling myself? Where in particular do you mean? At £200 I did buy it with hearts in my eyes, so always easy to miss these things
Yes, it’s just so well balanced, nothing more worn than the other, and enough of a bust (again even wear) for the grade that it makes a really pretty picture for me! Plus, as you say, the beginnings of a nice old tone