W3 No Stop After DEI?

[Coinery 1,153]

Could I possibly have your thoughts on the following four images? If I can describe what I'm seeing to support what are 2 dimentional images, it may help?

This is a W3 Shilling, and I'm wondering if this is a NO stop after DEI coin? In the second of the first 2 images I've circled what are two micro-deep (so concave) areas, the lefthand depression being fractionally deeper than the right, making me wonder whether we are looking at the result of a blocked die? All areas surrounding the 2 lower areas are lustred and untampered with.

So, does anyone know firstly whether the 'NO stop' die was actually a BLOCKED DIE, or was it a die ommitting the punched stop?

Any thoughts/instincts on the images, all elucidations gratefully received.

[Coinery 1,153]

And two more to assist!

[Rob 3,152]

The slight toning discolouration on the last picture makes me think it should have one. The flaw at this point doesn't help and may have contributed to the lack of raised feature. I guess that if there isn't one in any relief and there is no circular mark defining the limits of a stop then it would have to be classed as the no stop variety, but still wonder whether it was missing from the die or not.

[Peter 615]

The hubble telescope is a brilliant bit of kit.

When we get to such detail I would actually want a slabbed coin.So I can sue the buggers.

If a variety can't be CLEARLY i'd from say x5 I would not be interested.

So many no H 1d's appear in a poor condition....which are too worn to ID.If the coin isn't NVF chuck it in the washer/scrap silver box.

[Coinery 1,153]

Many thanks, Rob & Peter!

Today I set out to crop-up as many images of the 1700 shilling as I could, to see if I could pin-point a typical location for the stop mark.

I found around 15 with which to make a start but, at crop7, I realised I had an exact die-match for my shilling. So...I added transparency to one of the shillings and overlaid it, showing it to be in perfect alignment, and then marked off the stop location before removing the overlaid die-match which, incidently, DID have a stop after DEI.

The indentation on my coin, which falls across the small crack is exactly where there should have been a stop, meaning it's a definite die-block, which probably caused the crack, as well as the concave impression.

So, the only question left to answer is this: Is a blocked die the definition of a NO STOP in this instant? ANY information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

The top image shows the 2 coins overlaid with a circle marking the perimeter of the stop!

The middle image is a straight crop of my coin.

The bottom image shows the die (with stop) slid down, leaving the circle in position on my coin.

[Rob 3,152]

Rare coin this no stop variety in such high grade. Usually it is found paired with the no date reverse.

As to whether the 1700 no stop is a blocked die - I don't know having never seen any other examples, but given the number of no stops varieties that are only seen in low grade I suspect it may possibly not exist.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Rob

[Coinery 1,153]

Rare coin this no stop variety in such high grade. Usually it is found paired with the no date reverse.

As to whether the 1700 no stop is a blocked die - I don't know having never seen any other examples, but given the number of no stops varieties that are only seen in low grade I suspect it may possibly not exist.

Other than as a blocked die variety you mean?

[Coinery 1,153]

Do you think it would be 'regular' to approach the editor of Spink, Philip Skingley, and request their source for the NO STOP, and whether they believe it to be nothing other than a short run from a blocked die or not?

Has anyone made any similar such enquiries before and got a timely response?

[Peckris 579]

Do you think it would be 'regular' to approach the editor of Spink, Philip Skingley, and request their source for the NO STOP, and whether they believe it to be nothing other than a short run from a blocked die or not?

Has anyone made any similar such enquiries before and got a timely response?

It took me a few years of contact before I got Spink to recognise the 1920-1926 obverse as a new obverse, and to include the 1946 die flaw penny. And even then, it took a reproduced Coin News article and photographic evidence for the former (they still got it wrong!), and a scan of Gouby for the latter. I believe they will act, but it could be a long slow process for which you will need persistence.

[Rob 3,152]

Rare coin this no stop variety in such high grade. Usually it is found paired with the no date reverse.

As to whether the 1700 no stop is a blocked die - I don't know having never seen any other examples, but given the number of no stops varieties that are only seen in low grade I suspect it may possibly not exist.

Other than as a blocked die variety you mean?

What I mean is that no stop varieties are usually associated with no date vaieties. i.e there's b***** all detail in the first place. Blocked dies are the usual reason.

Do you think it would be 'regular' to approach the editor of Spink, Philip Skingley, and request their source for the NO STOP, and whether they believe it to be nothing other than a short run from a blocked die or not?

Has anyone made any similar such enquiries before and got a timely response?

You might, but it depends on whether the variety was incorporated as a result of someone informing them. Every year I put in a few suggestions, some are used and others not. You have to give the reason so the claim can be verified by a second opinion otherwise you can imagine what the result would be if all the claimed errors/varieties were included (The Elizabeth II brass 3d dated 1952 from another thread springs to mind). Whether they would keep details of the informant is another matter.

[Peckris 579]

Rare coin this no stop variety in such high grade. Usually it is found paired with the no date reverse.

As to whether the 1700 no stop is a blocked die - I don't know having never seen any other examples, but given the number of no stops varieties that are only seen in low grade I suspect it may possibly not exist.

Other than as a blocked die variety you mean?

What I mean is that no stop varieties are usually associated with no date vaieties. i.e there's b***** all detail in the first place. Blocked dies are the usual reason.

Do you think it would be 'regular' to approach the editor of Spink, Philip Skingley, and request their source for the NO STOP, and whether they believe it to be nothing other than a short run from a blocked die or not?

Has anyone made any similar such enquiries before and got a timely response?

You might, but it depends on whether the variety was incorporated as a result of someone informing them. Every year I put in a few suggestions, some are used and others not. You have to give the reason so the claim can be verified by a second opinion otherwise you can imagine what the result would be if all the claimed errors/varieties were included (The Elizabeth II brass 3d dated 1952 from another thread springs to mind). Whether they would keep details of the informant is another matter.

Informant! Makes us sound like a copper's nark..

[Coinery 1,153]

GONE, so let's see!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm wondering whether you could assist me in a small matter regarding the classification of your 2012 catalogued 1700 shilling (no stop after DEI)?

If your no-stop is defined by a blocked die, rather than there once being an actual die in existence without the stop punched in, then I have a high-grade example which I'd like to submit for auction?

I have located a matching die which, with transparency software, allowed me to overlay the two coins to confirm an exact match. My coin has a very shallow reccession in the precise location the second coin has a raised stop.

I appreciate you are very busy, but I submit 3 high-resolution images for your consideration, I will of course post you the coin for auction if you think it a likely candidate for your no-stop variety. The attached multiple image is as follows:

Top: This shows the two overlaid coins (using transparency), my coin and the die-match coin with a circle marking the perimeter of the stop on the second coin!

Middle: This is an unadulterated crop of my coin.

Bottom: This is the die-matched coin (with stop) slid down, leaving the circle in position on my coin to clarify location.

If I could just further clarify, there is absolutely no raised component in the field between the 'I' and the 'G' on this coin, merely a light and partial concaved recession where the stop would've been on the original die.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Kind regards,

[Coinery 1,153]

What I mean is that no stop varieties are usually associated with no date vaieties. i.e there's b***** all detail in the first place. Blocked dies are the usual reason.

AHH, got it!

[Coinery 1,153]

Do you think it would be 'regular' to approach the editor of Spink, Philip Skingley, and request their source for the NO STOP, and whether they believe it to be nothing other than a short run from a blocked die or not?

Has anyone made any similar such enquiries before and got a timely response?

It took me a few years of contact before I got Spink to recognise the 1920-1926 obverse as a new obverse, and to include the 1946 die flaw penny. And even then, it took a reproduced Coin News article and photographic evidence for the former (they still got it wrong!), and a scan of Gouby for the latter. I believe they will act, but it could be a long slow process for which you will need persistence.

Cheers, Chris!

[Coinery 1,153]

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much!

"Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.

 

I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.

 

Regards"

It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such!

How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die?

If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'!

As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

[declanwmagee 122]

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much!

"Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.

 

I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.

 

Regards"

It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such!

How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die?

If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'!

As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

1926 halfcrowns suffered a similar fate with the No Colon variety, as I recall!

[Rob 3,152]

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much!

"Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.

 

I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.

 

Regards"

It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such!

How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die?

If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'!

As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

In the overall context of a collection it is unlikely to have much effect as very few people have a collection that could be counted on their fingers. For any single coin in a collection, when the time comes to sell, it may or may not recoup the amount paid. Collections should be looked on as a whole rather than as individual pieces and accordingly will only register a loss if coins are routinely bought way in excess of current market values. A balanced or diverse collection will probably increase in value over time as long as long as the bottom doesn't fall out of the market across the board. With the exception of Scott , we all overpay for something along the way. The key to building a collection that will hold its value is to only do this occasionally.

[Peckris 579]

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much!

"Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.

 

I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.

 

Regards"

It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such!

How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die?

If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'!

As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

1926 halfcrowns suffered a similar fate with the No Colon variety, as I recall!

Also 1961 halfcrowns "E.F. designer initials missing reverse" - I bought an example of this in 1978, but at no great premium, so I'm not downcast! However, there are clear cut 'no stop' varieties which aren't blocked dies - the 1787 shilling comes to mind.

[Coinery 1,153]

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much!

"Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.

 

I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.

 

Regards"

It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such!

How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die?

If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'!

As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

In the overall context of a collection it is unlikely to have much effect as very few people have a collection that could be counted on their fingers. For any single coin in a collection, when the time comes to sell, it may or may not recoup the amount paid. Collections should be looked on as a whole rather than as individual pieces and accordingly will only register a loss if coins are routinely bought way in excess of current market values. A balanced or diverse collection will probably increase in value over time as long as long as the bottom doesn't fall out of the market across the board. With the exception of Scott , we all overpay for something along the way. The key to building a collection that will hold its value is to only do this occasionally.

100% agreed! I confess to spending more than I should on certain individual coins, but this is only a recent phenomenon. I have always tried to make each coin 'individually' count, stand on its own two sides, as it were, in order that i might stay ahead!

I guess this all starts to go awry once you get collectobrain! This is the science applied to those who suddenly realise they are closing a number of gaps in their collection, and then further realise they can create an even bigger block of 'finished' coins with one or two lavish purchases! Also, it applies to those who have a 'complete' collection, except for a particular coin that 'irritates' them to the point where they'll pay double to replace it!

[Rob 3,152]

A very prompt response from Spink's, thank-you very much!

"Thanks for this which seems to confirm that the no stop after Dei variety we list for the 1700 Shilling is actually due to a worn die in which the pellet has become damaged or blocked. As such your coin should be considered as an ordinary type 1700 Shilling.

I’ll forward this to the Editor of the Standard Catalogue. And thank for your thorough research on this.

Regards"

It does beg the question whether any of the no-stop varieties should be catalogued at all, if a blocked die doesn't count as such!

How would you prove a no-stop IS an actual no-stop, as opposed to a blocked die?

If there was a significant run of coins from a blocked die, it would only then fall upon the malicious to find a die-match WITH stop present, and bring tears to an awful lot of variety collectors who have paid double the money for a 'rarity'!

As an example, if Spink subsiquently removes the no stop after DEI shilling from their catalogue, it makes me wonder about the many collectors out there who have paid a considerable sum for a coin they'll no longer be able to enjoy as a rarity, or market as anything other than a regular shilling?

1926 halfcrowns suffered a similar fate with the No Colon variety, as I recall!

Also 1961 halfcrowns "E.F. designer initials missing reverse" - I bought an example of this in 1978, but at no great premium, so I'm not downcast! However, there are clear cut 'no stop' varieties which aren't blocked dies - the 1787 shilling comes to mind.

Even then a spanner gets thrown in the works because the no stops at date reverse die ends up with the first adjacent stops on both sides blocking to produce a 'no stops at date and in the immediate vicinity' variety!

Edited October 12, 2012 by Rob