Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jack D. Young, post: 7678433, member: 93371&quot;]I was offered this cool TPG certified error 1733 halfpenny; seller noted it was not a regal example but a contemporary counterfeit. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318771[/ATTACH] </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Internet image of subject coin</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318774[/ATTACH]</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Internet image of a regal halfpenny</p><p><br /></p><p>The subject example was recently sold through a major auction site:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/great-britain-1733-1-2d-george-ii-halfpenny-flipover-double-struck-in-collar-good-4-pcgs/a/60203-91235.s?fbclid=IwAR1-oXQIr1xnjBL5vh09epKJjhO1WUrVT0DwPn1IVufAdHvBSTJBb7ceeJs" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/great-britain-1733-1-2d-george-ii-halfpenny-flipover-double-struck-in-collar-good-4-pcgs/a/60203-91235.s?fbclid=IwAR1-oXQIr1xnjBL5vh09epKJjhO1WUrVT0DwPn1IVufAdHvBSTJBb7ceeJs" rel="nofollow">https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/great-britain-1733-1-2d-george-ii-halfpenny-flipover-double-struck-in-collar-good-4-pcgs/a/60203-91235.s?fbclid=IwAR1-oXQIr1xnjBL5vh09epKJjhO1WUrVT0DwPn1IVufAdHvBSTJBb7ceeJs</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Excited to learn more I posted it in one of my Face Book Groups and experts confirmed it as being from the family of &quot;flat struck&quot; fakes dated 1733, 1737, 1751, 1753, and 1771; per an expert in the Group these are mostly George II&#039;s, though some come muled with George III dates. &quot;This family has a LOT of error strikes in it, with double and triple strikes and brockages known. The family is also ridiculously lightweight, usually close to half regal levels, so it&#039;s even more surprising this (briefly) got slabbed!&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>All images courtesy of the owners:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318776[/ATTACH] </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318778[/ATTACH] </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318779[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318780[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>It was also noted it was not struck in a collar as stated on the TPG label, as the coiner&#039;s equipment was primitive at the time. And we can&#039;t even be sure it was an &quot;error&quot; without knowing the coiner&#039;s intent since so many &quot;mint errors&quot; are seen in this family!</p><p><br /></p><p>Responses to my question of where this was coined the response was &quot;Definitely England, and definitely far after the date they bear. Likely 1790s. Dies and planchets may have been made in Birmingham, but they could have been sold to smaller coiners pretty much anywhere in England. This family hasn&#039;t had plates made for it yet, and that will tell a lot. If there are a great number of dies that pair together then it would be more likely to have happened in one mint. But if there are a lot of dies that pair only with one or two others, then that would suggest this &quot;cottage industry&quot; method of coin production&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>An unfortunate unintended result of my Group post was the TPG&#039;s interest in it as I was told he contacted the current owner through the previous seller and applied pressure to either send the coin back to them or remove it from the holder prior to selling it (to me).</p><p><br /></p><p>No need to look up the cert, the TPG nuked that as well...</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1318784[/ATTACH] Best, Jack.[/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