Coinery

Sorry, and re-reading your post, what do you think of the E?

Thanks! What I meant by base, wasn't bottom of the letter, but where the entire outer 'outer'-edge of the letter joins with the field, which you wouldn't see in a 2d picture, if you know what I mean? The reason I persist in this point is some of the pictures I've seen of round-backs are sometimes 'flecked' for want of a better word, whereas the angle-backs are mostly really triangular behind. I completely get your perspective on this, using the diagrams and plates, but it leaves me still somewhat confused and unconvinced. There appears to be an inbetween state, which buggers things re a simple classification?

Thanks, Rob. What's throwing me is the base of the E where it meets the flan, possibly the best indicator of a punches' true shape, is very much round. Are your thoughts angle-backed for both letters? Cheers in advance. Crazy thing is it's only a £3.20 coin, but it's an important journey on this new path of mine.

Which does weigh in favour of damage, rather than design?

Clive, I made a response of gratitude to this post, shortly after you made it! Lord knows what happened to it? Maybe I hit the wrong button or something on my phone? Anyhow, many thanks for that...perfect!

Any thoughts on this? The E is taken from the obverse of a Class 11 Edward Penny looks like a round-back to me? Can I have some views/agreeances (or not) with this please? The C is from the Reverse of same which, in view of some of the 'proper' angle-backs (or pointed back by some), looks more rounded than angled. Any thoughts on the C in partictular? The obverse fits no other North classification except 11a2 (which presents with a round-backed E). The reverse lettering is of the same style as the obverse, I just need some expert eyes on this C Round-backed or Pointed/Angle-Backed C? Angle-back would make it a mule (I'm guessing you can mule within classes?), a round-back would make everything right for type. HELP!

321713487023

Wow! Already £25 and £18 with postage! Why? How? 291419056878 291419061211

Chris will be along shortly I'm sure.

And, of course, there's Chris and his book! That could also be a good place to start, IF you can get some really decent close-ups to consider it properly?

I personally think you 'may' have stumbled on something there! Where you go from here is all about the time you want to put into it? What about trawling the CGS files, getting some serious-quality close-ups of the different types, and then maybe approach someone like Davies or, if you can convince Rob there's something going on, get him to help you through a BNS article perhaps? I'd happily take some super-macro close-ups if you can get any coins to me?

Are we all bored now? lol, I will attempt to get better pics!Can you confirm with a loupe?

That's very nice, Scotsman! I'm guessing you are photographing at an angle to get the best out of the detail/depth on the coin? Have you tried taking a photo directly above the coin, and adding an artificial light-source at an angle instead? It achieves the same depth-of-field result, but allows you to look at the coin head-on! It also means the entire coin can be photographed in focus, which is a near-impossible feat when photographing at an angle (ie increasing the distance/depth of the coin) with macro.

Are we all bored now?

It would certainly depend on that profile of the '99 Rob I agree. Big shadowless pictures!

Is the '99 tongue straight-edged, ie sloping fully upwards to the top lip? Or is it more pointed in profile? The shadow makes it hard to tell.

Which rules out a broken die in my opinion. This is surely an intentional design adjustment, possibly for the purpose of some kind of audit or other?

That could be shadow on Paul's first example? If not, and you're right, Rob, then surely that would rule out accidental damage, as the 1900 example would've required the missing part of the die to partially repair itself, for want of a better word? Just to really mix it up, could the different sloping mouths (if it's not a shadow) make for three intentional reverse dies? No tongue, down-sloping tongue, up-sloping tongue? Or should I say, matrix?

Which does look like a broken die then! Unless a die was subtly altered as some kind of mint study or experiment?

I can't see that as being two punches to be honest? Which horse is the norm on the early dates? Even if a broken die; with such a transforming and notable difference, I'd bet it would go into the books as a variety! Lesser differences are fought for in the auctions all the time. But, as is mentioned, replication and statistics would be an interesting starting point.

Not mentioned in Davies either, don't know why I left it out earlier as I had checked it! It's probably nothing, looking at images online some 'appear' to have an open mouth and others do not, milling and weight check out.Surely if some have an open mouth and some do not, that would surely make for a variety, especially as the old coinage of Victoria is moving into the precision age of milling? Less obvious details make for a variety. Even as a 'clog' it would make for a variety, if you've already spotted a number of other open-mouthed horses in a brief Internet search?

It's hard to prove based on the dies and other evidence we have, but 10cf is definitely one I take to be the start of Edward II's coinage if I were to be specific. Can anyone point me in the direction of the specific text/articles that discuss the 10cf edward I/II cross over?

Good spot, Paul! I can only presume 2 things, as it doesn't look suspect to me? What's the milling and weight like? I'd say it might be a clog in the die, OR, maybe you've found something new! I don't recall reading about an open-mouth horse before. Haven't you got the silver bible, Paul? I didn't see Davies in your list? I'm not home to check mine at the moment!

Thanks, TG, here's the plate coin.

I've been looking at this Type 28 farthing 221728810973 purely as an attribution exercise (it's got too many flan cracks for me), and was thinking the fleurs must be struck on the band individually? I've never got this impression from reading any of the literature? If you compare this coin's crown against the plate coin in withers' farthing book, it can be clearly seen that the gaps between the outer fleurs and the central fleur is much less on the plate coin!