1746 lima sixpence with loads of errors

[chris 0]

hi everyone

i have recently purchased a 1746 lima sixpence and on close inspection i noticed error after error with the coin. i have seen a few of these coins for sale in the past and present but none with any serious errors on them. i have added some photos of the reverse of the coin where all these errors are situated and if anyone has any advice or comments on them i would be greatful of the feedback

[chris 0]

[chris 0]

now im not sure with this one but it seems as though there is no dots between the letter 'T'

[chris 0]

last one but im not sure that there is an error with the number '6'

[chris 0]

one other thing is the number '7' in the date also looks different from comparing 6 other coins. would they have used the an old die from 1745 but possibly re-tooled it?

[Rob 3,152]

one other thing is the number '7' in the date also looks different from comparing 6 other coins. would they have used the an old die from 1745 but possibly re-tooled it?

The first one is a flaw from the base of the F which then passes below the legend to the right.

The second is just a double cut 1.

The third could be due to a filled die or weakly punched in the first place.

The fourth again looks to be a flaw. It doesn't appear to be a 1746/5 which is a recognised variety.

I don't think there is anything to get excited about with this coin as all the evidence suggests it is struck from a worn die that may or may not have had remedial work done to extend its life. As it isn't in the best condition it is difficult to say precisely.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Rob

[chris 0]

one other thing is the number '7' in the date also looks different from comparing 6 other coins. would they have used the an old die from 1745 but possibly re-tooled it?

The first one is a flaw from the base of the F which then passes below the legend to the right.

The second is just a double cut 1.

The third could be due to a filled die or weakly punched in the first place.

The fourth again looks to be a flaw. It doesn't appear to be a 1746/5 which is a recognised variety.

I don't think there is anything to get excited about with this coin as all the evidence suggests it is struck from a worn die that may or may not have had remedial work done to extend its life. As it isn't in the best condition it is difficult to say precisely.

hhello again everyone. i have just found this photo on a coin dealers website. this coin is being sold as a 1746/5 sixpence and looks exactly the same as mine with the same errors in the same place is this dealer right or wrong?

[Peckris 579]

one other thing is the number '7' in the date also looks different from comparing 6 other coins. would they have used the an old die from 1745 but possibly re-tooled it?

The first one is a flaw from the base of the F which then passes below the legend to the right.

The second is just a double cut 1.

The third could be due to a filled die or weakly punched in the first place.

The fourth again looks to be a flaw. It doesn't appear to be a 1746/5 which is a recognised variety.

I don't think there is anything to get excited about with this coin as all the evidence suggests it is struck from a worn die that may or may not have had remedial work done to extend its life. As it isn't in the best condition it is difficult to say precisely.

hhello again everyone. i have just found this photo on a coin dealers website. this coin is being sold as a 1746/5 sixpence and looks exactly the same as mine with the same errors in the same place is this dealer right or wrong?

At first glance - wrong. I can't see the date close up, but it doesn't look to me like a 46/5. I have the 1746/5 halfcrown and I admit that as an overdate it is fairly subtle, but you can see it.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Peckris