Martinminerva

Here's another picture of the 3 on mine, which might just hint at something on the RIGHT hand side of the 3 - there appears to be a little gap halfway up the bottom curve where the original 0 or 6 might leave the course of the 3 over it, but has been almost entirely erased from the die before the correct digit was puched or cut in, but that may well just be imagination or a nick on such a worn coin. It would be very interesting to see if someone has another specimen similar, but in much better condition...

I would say it's not over 6 or 0. The 6s are almost the same size as a 0 with a tail attached. If you compare with my 1693 which is better but not brilliant, you can see the 3 is essentially the same shape. It appears on my piece that both the 6 and the 3 have been made up from more than one cut. The 6 has the loop closed with a thinner section and the top half of the 3 is in higher relief than the loop of the 3 although this is not obvious from the scan. However, you have inadvertently highlighted a variety I wasn't aware of. The square blocks surrounding the Lion of Nassau are positioned differently on the two pieces. Yours has an extra block bottom left, and mine has an extra block just right of 12 o'clock. I don't know which is more common so will have to check. Thanks for this. Very interesting what you point out about the squares around the central lion. Clearly then there is more than one distinct reverse die being used, but I also notice that the bottom part of your coin's 3 is significantly shorter than my one, even not counting the spurious "overstrike" bit. The bottom limb on my 3 extends to exactly below the central bar, whereas yours stops quite a bit shorter. I wonder if other members have specimens of either 'squares' variety, and whether there is consistency with the style of 3, and indeed the possible overdate?