Charles II, 1677 sixpence. G over O in MAG?

[jaggy 528]

Been looking back at my Charles II sixpences after last night's discussion with Paulus. As I examined my 1677 with the benefit of a blow-up photo which I did not have when I bought the coin in 1992, it occurred to me that it might be the G over O variety (ESC 1516A). I would appreciate the thoughts of others on here.

[Rob 3,152]

G over O, or the more likely G over inverted G? It looks like there might be some evidence of an inverted G at top left.

Inverted letters should be the first point of call IMO given the engraver has gone to the trouble of selecting a punch.  It's much easier to place the correct punch upside down than to choose the wrong one in the first place. A bit like the OAROLVS legends found on small silver in Chas.II which is a C over a rotated C, thus giving the impression of an O.

[jaggy 528]

51 minutes ago, Rob said:

G over O, or the more likely G over inverted G? It looks like there might be some evidence of an inverted G at top left.

Inverted letters should be the first point of call IMO given the engraver has gone to the trouble of selecting a punch.  It's much easier to place the correct punch upside down than to choose the wrong one in the first place. A bit like the OAROLVS legends found on small silver in Chas.II which is a C over a rotated C, thus giving the impression of an O.

Except that it is very similar to the 1878 - 8 over 7 - which ESC lists as G over O or D:

[Rob 3,152]

I agree it does look to be the same style, so could it be the conventional way of entering a G at that time given the dies are different? It is so similar that it could be a single punch. The upright of the G looks to be hand entered on the 1678, but to get it so reproducibly misplaced is unlikely. What do the obverse Gs look like at this time?

[jaggy 528]

1677 Obverse. The G is well defined:

[Rob 3,152]

I feared that might not give too much info because the obverses can be used year on year, whilst the reverses need to be worked on if they are to be used with the following year's date. What do 1676 and 1679 reverses look like, and do all reverses for these two years show the same feature?

[jaggy 528]

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

I feared that might not give too much info because the obverses can be used year on year, whilst the reverses need to be worked on if they are to be used with the following year's date. What do 1676 and 1679 reverses look like, and do all reverses for these two years show the same feature?

I don't have either a 1676 or 1679. However, my 1674 Reverse has a well defined G.

There is a 1676/5 in the DNW archive where the G is also well defined:

http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=113626

Also in the DNW archive, 1679 is less well defined and more like my 1677 and 1678.

http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=146844

[Rob 3,152]

Can you find a good G from 1677 onwards? It would help to know when the dies were derived from a master and not just punched into the working die. Was this method employed from 1662 onwards, or introduced later? Gut feeling is later based on the uneven legends seen in the recoinage of 1695-8.

[jaggy 528]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Can you find a good G from 1677 onwards? It would help to know when the dies were derived from a master and not just punched into the working die. Was this method employed from 1662 onwards, or introduced later? Gut feeling is later based on the uneven legends seen in the recoinage of 1695-8.

Yes. 1681, 1682 & 1683 are all good.

It is the similarity between 1677 & 1678 that makes me think it could be a G over O because we know that these exist for the two dates and because ESC only lists this variety (plus the G over D) for 1678.

[Rob 3,152]

Maybe the mint didn't have a serviceable G punch in 1677? Any later sixpences with defective Gs on the obverse - suggesting the die was made in these this year? So far we have the odd letter only on dies dated 1677, so maybe it was a punch used in an emergency until they could make a new one? The upstroke of the G looks like a later addition, so G over ? cannot be ruled out. I just find it surprising that the letter could be made from two punches with such reproducibility of displacement of the second.

[jaggy 528]

ESC lists the variety for 1677 and 1678. The 1679 I found in the DNW archive looks like it may have existed in 1679 as well. However, ESC does not list the variety for 1679. 

There are several 1677 sixpences in the DNW archive that have a good G and quite different to mine. This is one of them:

http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=150295

Unfortunately, I could not find an archive or image for a G over O for comparison purposes.

[Rob 3,152]

I suspect that the G is either a defective punch, or a composite made from C and the downstroke. The profile of the top of your rev. G is very similar to the style of the C seen on the obverse of the last attachment. Alternatively, if the punch is badly worn then you might see a progressive thinning of the letter as this process develops.

[jaggy 528]

4 minutes ago, Rob said:

I suspect that the G is either a defective punch, or a composite made from C and the downstroke. The profile of the top of your rev. G is very similar to the style of the C seen on the obverse of the last attachment. Alternatively, if the punch is badly worn then you might see a progressive thinning of the letter as this process develops.

I suspect you are right. The absence of any good examples of G over O at either the London Coins or DNW archives suggests that the variety is rather rare. I will err on the side of caution until I can run a valid comparison.

[azda 979]

On 17. Januar 2016 at 9:20 PM, jaggy said:

Yes. 1681, 1682 & 1683 are all good.

It is the similarity between 1677 & 1678 that makes me think it could be a G over O because we know that these exist for the two dates and because ESC only lists this variety (plus the G over D) for 1678.

In Theory The G over O Must have happened near the year change or thereabouts as There is a 1677/8 with The Same problem, if You want to call it a Problem that is.

[Coinery 1,153]

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

[Coinery 1,153]

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?

[Rob 3,152]

39 minutes ago, Coinery said:

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?

No they aren't. There is a flaw on the shield at 9pm on the 1677 that isn't present on the 78, and the lines between the crowns and shields are better on the later coin. That's why I said they were struck from different dies earlier in the thread

 

[Coinery 1,153]

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!

[Rob 3,152]

I think the die would have to be polished heavily and essentially have a full recut to change it that much. Not saying it can't be done, but it would require a good hand to put the detail back exactly where it was before.

[Coinery 1,153]

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.

 

[Coinery 1,153]

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?

[Coinery 1,153]

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?

 

 

 

 

[Coinery 1,153]

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Coinery

[Coinery 1,153]

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?

Edited January 27, 2016 by Coinery

[jaggy 528]

This is a 1677 sixpence from the DNW site with a well defined G. To me, it looks like a different die to my 1677 when I compare the two coins.

http://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/catalogue-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=140135