Coinery

I do also think however that anything with numismatic content should have an individidual thread...main reason being... Searchability to benefit both Chris' page hits from search engines, and also for our own searches within the forum. Obviously, a 1900 sixpence is as lost in coin acquisition of the week as it is in Burt's Latest Deals. Which is why, if we have a 1900 sixpence with a query V over N, we should perhaps run an individual thread, so that the web and ourselves can find it again in the future! Good for Chris and good for us!

I'm not adverse to a little personalisation, I have to say (just sayin' ) ...mostly on account that I'm probably the guiltiest of them all. From an SEO point of view the coin aqu. thread is as useless as chocolate on a hot day anyway.

I'm thinking the same thing to be honest, but stick to the idea that a more worn example could elude to it! Many thanks for taking a look in the good book for me. I don't have this one catalogued as punctuated in my own notes...I think I'll be leaving it that way, but would love to see the coin/coins that the variety was/were recorded from!

Well, personally, I thought I put a lot of effort into this post, and raised some pretty valid points, at least in my humble opinion? Yes, they may have partially contradicted Rob's original hypothesis, but it doesn't make it off-limits to anyone else! Even a first timer could look at the evidence presented and make some comment? Frustrated? Yes! My time wasted? Yes! Do it again? No! edit: alcohol? No, not this time!

Clearly a different die, Jag!

Looking quickly I'd say it was. What's the relevance in knowing there were at least 2 1677 reverse dies?

Looking at some of the other images, provided they are also from the same die, I'm wondering whether the truth of it all lies in it being nothing other than a low G corrected by a higher G?

G5 is a fabulous reign for coins, I love it!

And the 78/77 http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/six1.html https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=324&lot=23963 this has turned out to be quite an interesting coin from a die-development point of view, with the addition of crown cushions, as well as the overdate. However, in the absence of any other coin (and I haven't been able to find one yet) with the 9 o'clock 'flaw' I'd be inclined to consider it might be post mint? edit: conclusively so if any of those 78/77 coins also match the OP die.

Another... http://roderickrichardson.com/coins/coin-details.aspx?id=2928 another... http://m.ebay.com/itm/331753594375 haven't been able to find the 9 o'clock 'flaw' replicated anywhere as yet?

Have there been any breakthroughs on this yet Chris? I mention it just in case you were under the impression that it was resolved?

Just to add, Dan, if you hold that coin level at a window in good daylight, and then tip it slightly, you'll see all those areas the camera has picked out in gold in full colour. quick tip...artificial light when looking for hairlines, daylight for lustre.

I'd say the same. You've got to remember, that you can get 'toned' aUNC and near full-lustre aUNC too. For the more recent coinage I've always thought it desirable to get the big-lustre pieces. there is a 'grey' period in toning, where a BU coin becomes a beautiful, shimmering, toned, beauty. I like both these ends of the spectrum, not so much the tonal transition period. it's an OK coin, Dan.

And just to over egg the pudding, here are the two coins side by side with some of the many points of interest, positioning of punctuation, alignment of legend with interlinked Cs, point of shield alignment with garter, etc. Also of note, the top edge of milling (on both coins) is laid diagonally, and doesn’t begin to stand upright until M of MAG. There are at least 2 new additions to the overdated die. Crown cushions have been applied, along with the 8, and possibly (though the earlier coin could have weaknesses here) an improved/unclogged star. This leaves one major issue...the flaw at 9 o’clock. I propose two possibilities 1) that the skill level of the die-sinkers is sublime, and they affected a wonder fill and re-cut of the crown? This does have some reasonable evidence, in that the crown jewels are of a different style to the other 7 crowns, suggesting some reworking? 2) that the flaw is not actually a flaw at all, but a post production solder spillage, attempt at jewellery perhaps? Thoughts on the flaw anyone?

OK, so I say again, with 100% certainty this time, that the reason the over-letters look uncannily similar is because they belong to the same die. Below is an image of the two coins with transparency applied and slightly offset, to demonstrate how clearly an imperfect device would show up if not in perfect alignment. The picture below that is of the two coins, with the same transparency, but slid exactly over the other. I think the evidence is conclusive, every single tooth also aligns, which you can especially see down the right edge.

I saw both those problems. However, given the unbelievable alignment of milling, and the other devices, etc. and the fact that the jewels on the 9 o'clock crown of the 8/7 coin are completely out of sorts with all 7 of the others (I was open to a repair of that significant flaw), the proposal still holds water for me. The star would be a bread and butter improvement for a die that was going to be overdated, surely? the alignments appear more than a happy coincidence to my eyes, even now! I'll overlay them tomorrow and see what turns up! maybe we underestimate the die-sinkers ability to effect a repair? i will satisfy myself, one way or the other tomorrow!

Hey, chaps, I've found a die-match for the two reverses! They are both posted at the start of this thread, the reason the two errors look the same! i've only eye-balled it here on the phone, but overlaying it would be pretty conclusive I'd say. Even the milling lines up. using the information from both G overs, might be enough to expose the truth of the matter?

I quite like the G over inverted G hypothesis myself...for both coins.

I've always found that the acetone evaporates from the surface so fast that it leaves a smear at its periphery. Hard to explain but if you put a small drop (only as an example) onto the field of the coin, it (I'm guessing) forces any surface residue/grease to the periphery of the acetone 'bead' and then quickly evaporates to leave a circular ring/smear in its place. Of course, putting a flood of it on the coin replicates this to a greater degree, at least in my experience. i genuinely salute you if you can pull it off, I'd love to be able to. I've long since given up with decontaminating high-mirror proofs, preferring to leave them to someone else, you perhaps? no, I have one very strict rule with mirror proofs, and that is I have to like them as they are, or walk on. don't get me wrong, I'm brave enough to play around with anything currency, and always do, even with hammered. Though with hammered it's generally nothing other than an exercise which says 'I love you, coin'!

I 100% agree with this! Leave the proofs alone unless you like what you see...you'll never artificially make a better coin of them. Lovely phwoar coin, by the way. I do hate the fragility of proofs, you can never EVER touch them. You can't even degrease them with acetone, as it smears horribly. maybe some of that stuff from over the pond might do a better job? ?

What a difference a re-shoot makes!

A lot of the stops/no stops of even modern coinage are spurious it's true...would be interesting to see the coin that Withers used to mark this punctuated Canterbury variety. Makes me wonder whether it might be a flattened example of the raised dot I have in this coin? I wonder if they used a coin from the North collection for this? Anyone for a quick browse in SCBI 39 for me? He couldn't have had too many Canterbury Class 11s around, maybe I can match dies?

It has slowed me up, TG, I've gotta say! ...crack me up, Mr P!

But I still manage!

This is how it is still looking on an iPhone!