Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 3224636, member: 75937&quot;]I have two examples of this issue in my collection. I just picked up an &quot;upgrade&quot; from the latest Frank Robinson auction and it&#039;s the normal example of this one:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]840295[/ATTACH]</p><p>Although the coin is worn, all of the devices are clear, and it doesn&#039;t appear to be a reworking of an earlier issue. I bought it because I was never quite satisfied with this one, which was struck on an irregular flan with some of the legends off the flan. Moreover, there was something off about the reverse, which I had taken as post-mint damage (gouges of some sort). However, now that I have examined it closely, I see that the coin is a restrike and some of the undertype is still visible, especially on the reverse:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]840296[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Does anybody recognize what undertype it might have been?</p><p><br /></p><p>Top coin: 2.37 g, 17.5 mm, 11 h.</p><p>Bottom coin: 3.37 g, 17.6 mm, 1 h.</p><p><br /></p><p>Refs: RIC 580; BMCRE 85-89; Cohen/RSC 198; RCV --; Hill 379, 394; CRE 397; Sulzer 1866-67.</p><p><br /></p><p>Your thoughts and comments are welcome! Post your overstrikes, Venus Felix coins or anything you feel is relevant!</p><p><br /></p><p>And for fun, here&#039;s the listing from the catalog of the Sulzer collection from 1777!</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]840298[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in