Your Thoughts.........

[azda 979]

5/5?

[pies 33]

looks like a 5 over 6 to me

[Peckris 579]

5/5?

Yes, that looks a distinct possibility, probability even.

[Coinery 1,152]

Christ, Dave, is that one for the Mile-High Club?

I'd say it's beyond doubt! Another hole in the series I'd say!

Without looking to see if it's in the series, of course!

Edited October 7, 2012 by Coinery

[Peckris 579]

Christ, Dave, is that one for the Mile-High Club?

I'd say it's beyond doubt! Another hole in the series I'd say!

Without looking to see if it's in the series, of course!

No, it's not in the series. It's like my 1887 sixpence pattern and 1964 'missing I in GRATIA' sixpence - interesting finds, but not (yet) recognised varieties. Good spot though, Dave.

[azda 979]

I'm inclined to agree with pies here, in the centre of the 5 between the middle point of the 5 and end of the 5 there is a distinct join between those to points, and inside the 5, in the centre again on the right there is a protrusion. Only problem with that theory is that if it were a 6 it does'nt join all the way round

Anyone else see this?

Edited October 7, 2012 by azda

[Coinery 1,152]

I'm inclined to agree with pies here, in the centre of the 5 between the middle point of the 5 and end of the 5 there is a distinct join between those to points, and inside the 5, in the centre again on the right there is a protrusion. Only problem with that theory is that if it were a 6 it does'nt join all the way round

Anyone else see this?

No! I did look at that when Pies said! That bulbous end on the bottom loop wouldn't be on a 6! It also looks too much like a 5 to be a 6 IMO

[Rob 3,152]

5/5, but the underlying digit was so far adrift it was in danger of dating the coin to the previous millennium. It isn't a 6 because that looks like the 9 without the blob on the end of the tail. This one isn't at the end of a downwards curve.

[Accumulator 52]

Interesting coin Dave. It's certainly not the copper 1860/59 which is well known and very sought after. That leaves 5/5 as the most likely option. One of our members, Chingford, is very knowledgeable on this series. You could send him a message.

[Colin G. 147]

5/5, but the underlying digit was so far adrift it was in danger of dating the coin to the previous millennium. It isn't a 6 because that looks like the 9 without the blob on the end of the tail. This one isn't at the end of a downwards curve.

I agree 5 over 5 there if you offset the top bar by the same distance as the bottom loop they will match.

[numidan 0]

5/5, but the underlying digit was so far adrift it was in danger of dating the coin to the previous millennium. It isn't a 6 because that looks like the 9 without the blob on the end of the tail. This one isn't at the end of a downwards curve.

I agree 5 over 5 there if you offset the top bar by the same distance as the bottom loop they will match.

I tried the same thing and I agree with Colin that they match.

The question I have, why is the lower 5 not as thick as the complete higher 5?

[Colin G. 147]

5/5, but the underlying digit was so far adrift it was in danger of dating the coin to the previous millennium. It isn't a 6 because that looks like the 9 without the blob on the end of the tail. This one isn't at the end of a downwards curve.

I agree 5 over 5 there if you offset the top bar by the same distance as the bottom loop they will match.

I tried the same thing and I agree with Colin that they match.

The question I have, why is the lower 5 not as thick as the complete higher 5?

When the digit is recut it causes metal displacement which narrows the gaps that would have previously existed... well that is my logical explanation

[Peter 615]

Looking at it about 20x I will go with 5/5.Nice spot Dave.

[VickySilver 830]

NIce! I also agree with the 5/5 as the parallel top of the "under' 5 looks just that, and can not see a complete curve of a 6 below either.

[numidan 0]

5/5, but the underlying digit was so far adrift it was in danger of dating the coin to the previous millennium. It isn't a 6 because that looks like the 9 without the blob on the end of the tail. This one isn't at the end of a downwards curve.

I agree 5 over 5 there if you offset the top bar by the same distance as the bottom loop they will match.

I tried the same thing and I agree with Colin that they match.

The question I have, why is the lower 5 not as thick as the complete higher 5?

When the digit is recut it causes metal displacement which narrows the gaps that would have previously existed... well that is my logical explanation

Thank you Colin. Upon reflection, I decided to estimate the 5's highest points of the relief and this is what I came up with.

[Coinery 1,152]

Thank you Colin. Upon reflection, I decided to estimate the 5's highest points of the relief and this is what I came up with.

nicely done!

[azda 979]

Wow, 95 downloads of the initial picture. Generated some interest then? lol

So for my next trick, i've just spotted a Marsh 46A..............For those unfamiliar with Marsh then it's Spink 3852F.............Wallets out for the Sovereign boys............€6000 estimate which is'nt too bad

Edited October 9, 2012 by azda

[Peter 615]

Before Peck picks you up....it is too

[azda 979]

[Peter 615]

I'm burning the midnight oil tonight.My instructions tomorrow are dog walking plus it is my youngest daughters birthday...15 I will have to cook but will try and steal a few coin hours Dave I know its not your first language but you must try harder.

I'm watching the food channel on freesat.Those pigs deserve to die early (and not the Porky ones)

[Chingford 166]

5/5?

Very nice example,

others examples I have seen have the 5 looking like it is slowly slipping downwards, closing the gap between the loop and top bar,

seems to happen on a few of the 1850s dates, also Halfpennies, 53 and 55 come to mind.

I have seen them listed as 5/6 on Ebay but definately 5/5 as Numisdan very good images/overlays show.

I'll post some images of other examples later tonight

John

[Hussulo 6]

Yup I'd say 5/5 as well. Nice one.