1701 halfpenny - GVEIELMVS error ??

[JLS]

Recently picked up this 1701 halfpenny. The obverse legend appears to read GVEIELMVS with an E replacing the first L. Any thoughts ? Not listed in Peck. 

[Peckris 2]

 Difficult one that - if you look at the second L there is a huge top serif, much longer than you would normally expect. There does appear also to be a middle stroke on the first, but with so much corrosion wear that could be an anomaly.

On the other hand, the bottom serif on the second L is different to that on all the E's. It could be that with the L and E looking quite similar, the wrong letter was picked up and punched and it could be as you say.

The jury is out. 

[JLS]

  On 8/20/2019 at 7:33 PM, Peckris 2 said:

 Difficult one that - if you look at the second L there is a huge top serif, much longer than you would normally expect. There does appear also to be a middle stroke on the first, but with so much corrosion wear that could be an anomaly.

On the other hand, the bottom serif on the second L is different to that on all the E's. It could be that with the L and E looking quite similar, the wrong letter was picked up and punched and it could be as you say.

The jury is out. 

Expand  

The second "L" actually has a very strange shape - I compared my other 1700 and 1701 specimens and all have the usual wedge shaped bottom, even the well worn ones. Suspect I'm not going to find out what was going on with this die unless another coin with this obverse die turns up. 

[Michael-Roo]

 

Collecting these is my thing and finding the errors is great fun. Could be but, as you and Chris both say, the jury is out until another/better specimen turns up. 

Something I would draw your attention to though is the upright bar of both the disputed first L and that of the second. Compare these with that of the E, which is much thicker. If the first L was an E wouldn't the uprights be similar? Obviously, a blocked die might account for the difference, but it is something worth considering. 

Either way, on the visual evidence as it stands, were you to describe it as 'GIVEIELMVS' I don't think anyone would object.

[JLS]

  On 8/20/2019 at 8:23 PM, Michael-Roo said:

Something I would draw your attention to though is the upright bar of both the disputed first L and that of the second. Compare these with that of the E, which is much thicker. If the first L was an E wouldn't the uprights be similar? Obviously, a blocked die might account for the difference, but it is something worth considering. 

Expand  

I did some measuring using image editing software. It seems that the upright bars of all three letters are roughly the same thickness - and height. The lower bar of the second L is significantly shorter (about 10%) than the lower bar of the first L/E though.