William III sixpence

[Gaz T 130]

Hi can some one give me a positive I,d please.

I think its Spink 3538,Third bust,later harp large crowns.

3.3 g    22mm across.

[Rob 3,152]

Agreed.

Is that a trace of a crossbar on the second V? i.e. an inverted A. Worth a check as it isn't recorded for the 3rd bust, but equally could be a random mark given the condition of the coin and the fact it isn't well struck up..

[Gaz T 130]

Thanks again Rob for looking.

cleaned out with a cotton bud and water, there is something  but very fine.

[Rob 3,152]

Too small to make out on screen, so inconclusive I'm afraid.

The crossbars are often added to a V punch, though I'm sure that A punches also existed at the time because you see a mixture of strong crossbars of uniform relief compared to the V section and spidery ones at different angles which have clearly been added later. 

[zookeeperz 470]

B

11 minutes ago, Rob said:

Too small to make out on screen, so inconclusive I'm afraid.

The crossbars are often added to a V punch, though I'm sure that A punches also existed at the time because you see a mixture of strong crossbars of uniform relief compared to the V section and spidery ones at different angles which have clearly been added later. 

Both have crossbars or as termed in the book inverted A's

[jaggy 528]

1697, third bust later harp, large crowns. ESC 1233. Agree with Rob on the hint of a crossbar on the second V (this is noted for second bust small crowns but not for this one). Reverse is better than the obverse which has some scratches. Probably a VF and quite a nice coin.

I had a look at both my own examples and there is no hint of a cross bar as there is on this one. So worth checking out.

[jaggy 528]

7 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

B

Both have crossbars or as termed in the book inverted A's

The one on the first V look like a scratch.

[Gaz T 130]

4 hours ago, jaggy said:

The one on the first V look like a scratch.

Thanks for the information, 

the first one is definitely a scratch. 

Will try to get a better picture with my camera Rob and thanks. 

[zookeeperz 470]

1 hour ago, Gaz T said:

Thanks for the information, 

the first one is definitely a scratch. 

Will try to get a better picture with my camera Rob and thanks. 

im off to specsavers

 

[Gaz T 130]

1 hour ago, zookeeperz said:

im off to specsavers

 

Haha I was thinking the same lol

[Gaz T 130]

Still not a very good picture but best I can manage

[Rob 3,152]

It could be a worn and broken A punch looking at the discontinuity in the crossbar.

[Gaz T 130]

Thanks Rob. 

Is it worth getting it checked out.

[Rob 3,152]

1 hour ago, Gaz T said:

Thanks Rob. 

Is it worth getting it checked out.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say get it checked out. You have done all you can reasonably do, i.e. get a good image - and it looks like a worn and broken A crossbar.

[Gaz T 130]

I was wondering if some one like yourself would need to see the coin. Do you register the coin with anyone? 

[Rob 3,152]

I don't need to see it.

[Gaz T 130]

Just noticed on my coin on the obverse legend, the second two number ones in William III have no top cross bar is this normal, they look like they have been chiselled off.

[Rob 3,152]

You can get incomplete letters due to either incompletely entered characters, a broken punch or die fill.

In the case of the latter, old worn dies will gradually fill up with metal dust which gets compacted in the recesses to give characters with missing serifs or more, or on occasion completely obliterating the feature. This is a normal feature of die wear and though it can be very useful in establishing the order of die pairs, a partially blocked die is not strictly a variety.

[Gaz T 130]

Thanks  again.

Really interesting, the chisel wedge shape makes perfect sense now.