1699 Halfpenny error?

[rooneydog 9]

Is this a stop ?

[scott 145]

that's the problem with this date, the stops are all over the place.

[speedbird 0]

Could be, though in the hand and under strong magnification it just looks like pitting, and I see Mr Roos has a faint mark similar to mine though I would have thought we would have seen the remains of something bolder, all very confusing, I think I may well keep it.

[Coinery 1,254]

Clogs and pitting are a massive issue unless you have a couple of examples from the same die! I proved this for myself with a supposed no-stop 1700 shilling by finding another example of the same die with only half a stop, ie before the full clog! It's on here somewhere!

[Rob 3,228]

Is this a stop ?

1699.jpg

No, I wouldn't think so. The reverse stops seem to be reasonably consistent in their position, unlike the obverse stops. This is probably due to there always being sufficient space after the final A to position it level at approximately halfway up the letters. There is some slight lateral variation, but nothing excessive.

The obverses on the other hand are very busy with a lot of letters to cram into the available space. As a consequence you see wildly displaced stops after both GVLIELMVS & TERTIVS in an attempt to fit the stop in the remaining space. The OP is a good example of this. You also see an unambiguous no stop after TERTIVS because the S is touching the truncation, or even missing letters in the case of the TERTIV obverse die.

[scott 145]

are they?

oh hold on look what i found

[scott 145]

and a high dot

[scott 145]

even higher dot

[Michael-Roo 783]

What was it Speedbird was saying about straying off topic?

Bottom line is: Nicholson 128.1699 date in exergue, without a stop after Britannia, is extremely rare with only a handful of examples known.

[Joseph Lee 0]

Ive never seen a stop that close to a shield before, Robs probably right. Die comparison is surely the way to go and often proves something. But as i often say with my coins ! going to need a better or clearer example to be sure.

But consider this as a positive i thought the same as the other owners of this die type NO STOP REVERSE which it probably is, but were going have to wait for a better example to appear they nearly always do.

Joe..

[Nordle11 564]

I enjoyed having a read on your website JL, but I can't help but comment that it's plagued with spelling errors which lets it down a bit

Whack it through word's spell check, I'm sure it would clear up most of the spelling for you!

Good that you've put on some advice though, it's always nice to see.

[Rob 3,228]

Another interesting observation is that the 5 coins listed above - Speedbird's, Mine, Michael's, Joe's and the LCA coin are all from different reverse dies. That's a lot of dies with the error. Probably more than you would expect given the stop is obviously supposed to be there, even allowing for the appalling quality control at the time.

[Coinery 1,254]

Another interesting observation is that the 5 coins listed above - Speedbird's, Mine, Michael's, Joe's and the LCA coin are all from different reverse dies. That's a lot of dies with the error. Probably more than you would expect given the stop is obviously supposed to be there, even allowing for the appalling quality control at the time.

Unless all 5 dies were produced by the same engraver, who really didn't realise a stop should be there?

[scott 145]

if there are 5 dies then there should be far more then just 5 and I have one above as well, (2nd one on this page), there should be many tens, if not over 100 examples.

Edited August 26, 2015 by scott

[Michael-Roo 783]

That's a good point Scott.

Unfortunately, the coin you've uploaded is much too corroded for a firm attribution to be made from a photo.

[scott 145]

i checked it when i got it, for a good while. it has no dot.

i posted those ones because the dot isn't in a set position, on those, by a good noticeable margin

Edited August 26, 2015 by scott

[Michael-Roo 783]

Could be, though in the hand and under strong magnification it just looks like pitting, and I see Mr Roos has a faint mark similar to mine though I would have thought we would have seen the remains of something bolder, all very confusing, I think I may well keep it.

This tiny mark is incuse

Edited August 26, 2015 by Michael-Roo

[Coinery 1,254]

if there are 5 dies then there should be far more then just 5 and I have one above as well, (2nd one on this page), there should be many tens, if not over 100 examples.

But, according to Rob, and I'm only reading between the lines, he was suggesting there looked to be at least 5 reverse dies here in this thread, if I'm interpreting this correctly?

Now, if he's correct, we can only suppose 2 things...5 obverse dies, or not all of you have the variety you are claiming?

Edit: correction reverse dies

Edited August 26, 2015 by Coinery

[scott 145]

yes but 1 example each of 5 dies is unrealistic.

the rarity should be more common, we have 6 different examples here, anything with that sort of rarity is usually one one single die

[Coinery 1,254]

OK I'm confused now! I can't follow the point...when we say one example of 5 dies, I'm sure there are plenty more, but all so worn or rusting below ground that we can't include them.

This very much makes the point that, with so many coins of this period either clogged, poorly struck, pitted, or plain unidentifiable, it's difficult to catalogue a definite variety without a high-grade example to die match it. The fact there are already 5 different wannabes all vying for a single variety says it all to me?

[Coinery 1,254]

Could be, though in the hand and under strong magnification it just looks like pitting, and I see Mr Roos has a faint mark similar to mine though I would have thought we would have seen the remains of something bolder, all very confusing, I think I may well keep it.

This tiny mark is incuse

1699-01.jpg

And interestingly, this was the only giveaway on my 1700 hopeful no-dot shilling, which had a slight incuse flaw where a stop should be. After stumbling upon a perfect die-match with a partial stop, I concluded that when the clog gets big enough it will bulge and produce an incuse mark on the coin, as it did on mine, leaving also a tiny stress crack, which you'd expect.

[Michael-Roo 783]

Could be, though in the hand and under strong magnification it just looks like pitting, and I see Mr Roos has a faint mark similar to mine though I would have thought we would have seen the remains of something bolder, all very confusing, I think I may well keep it.

This tiny mark is incuse

1699-01.jpg

And interestingly, this was the only giveaway on my 1700 hopeful no-dot shilling, which had a slight incuse flaw where a stop should be. After stumbling upon a perfect die-match with a partial stop, I concluded that when the clog gets big enough it will bulge and produce an incuse mark on the coin, as it did on mine, leaving also a tiny stress crack, which you'd expect.

Interesting point Stu. However, the little dig on my coin is much lower in the field than one would expect to find a stop?

[Coinery 1,254]

Haven't forgot you MR, just a little preoccupied at the moment, but I'll get there!

[Michael-Roo 783]

Haven't forgot you MR, just a little preoccupied at the moment, but I'll get there!

No worries Stu, looking forward to hearing from you.

I have newly discovered Nightmares In Wax photos to share too!

[Coinery 1,254]

Haven't forgot you MR, just a little preoccupied at the moment, but I'll get there!

No worries Stu, looking forward to hearing from you.

I have newly discovered Nightmares In Wax photos to share too!

Superb, will be back at ya shortly!

You should share it all on here, by the way, everyone would love it!