M Over Inverted M

[Coinery 1,156]

I know CGS need to exercise caution but, honestly, what else could it be?

Marking in the lines of what can be viewed of the underlying letter, and then inverting the lines, we get the above! Absolutely no chance of an A being involved, as I took the lines for a 'walk' around the legend!

The only difficulty I faced is with the resolution of the images as, for example, between the 'V' of the M in the CGS image, there can be seen a clear line/point, whereas in Rob's image it doesn't appear to be so obviously there...maybe Paulus can give us a pointer at which image is most representative in this area?

Anyway, on Rob's image the lines-inverted looks just about spot on, whereas in the CGS image (if the lines are there) the spacing isn't right for the pointing (if you know what I mean), but this spread would be expected if the overpunched letter was to run between the diagonals, which of course it does!

M over inverted M for me!

Edit: of course, it could be asked 'where is the rest of the inverted M'?

Edited October 6, 2013 by Coinery

[Rob 3,152]

It was the inverted centre bit of the M in conjunction with the top right serifs that did it for me. I can't see how they came to any other conclusion.

[Paulus 1,975]

This was their response to my request that they attribute the coin as we all think they should have:

" ... although there is evidence of an underlying letter to the right of the upright of the M in MAG, the underlying letter is not conclusive, and in the absence of the remaining parts of the inverted M or any other letter being visible we are unable to attribute this as a new type."

[azda 979]

This was their response to my request that they attribute the coin as we all think they should have:

" ... although there is evidence of an underlying letter to the right of the upright of the M in MAG, the underlying letter is not conclusive, and in the absence of the remaining parts of the inverted M or any other letter being visible we are unable to attribute this as a new type."

They're just worried that they get it wrong, although its quite conclusive to me and the rest of us

[Peckris 579]

This was their response to my request that they attribute the coin as we all think they should have:

" ... although there is evidence of an underlying letter to the right of the upright of the M in MAG, the underlying letter is not conclusive, and in the absence of the remaining parts of the inverted M or any other letter being visible we are unable to attribute this as a new type."

By that logic they would have to disregard the majority of overdates and legends repunched.

[Rob 3,152]

This was their response to my request that they attribute the coin as we all think they should have:

" ... although there is evidence of an underlying letter to the right of the upright of the M in MAG, the underlying letter is not conclusive, and in the absence of the remaining parts of the inverted M or any other letter being visible we are unable to attribute this as a new type."

By that logic they would have to disregard the majority of overdates and legends repunched.

Not if they find it and decide it's an unrecorded variety = more value

[Peckris 579]

This was their response to my request that they attribute the coin as we all think they should have:

" ... although there is evidence of an underlying letter to the right of the upright of the M in MAG, the underlying letter is not conclusive, and in the absence of the remaining parts of the inverted M or any other letter being visible we are unable to attribute this as a new type."

By that logic they would have to disregard the majority of overdates and legends repunched.

Not if they find it and decide it's an unrecorded variety = more value

LOL, true.