Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Bart9349, post: 1629975, member: 5682"]That’s funny and and just plain silly. :too-funny: Thank you, nevertheless, for your thoughtful assessment of my post. I have never claimed to be “an expert of this particular series [who] knows all of the strike issues, varieties, etc. to make such a comment.” In fact, despite having been on this site a few years longer than you, I have repeatedly stated that I’m not even a coin collector. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie9" alt=":eek:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> I might have the delusion, however, that I could possess a piddling of knowledge about the history behind the coins I study. That said… After the Re-coinage Act of 1696, Parliament demonetized the previously hand-struck silver coinage, much of which had either been clipped or forged.* This depreciated coinage would be replaced with a standardized coinage, one that was both milled and edged. The new demands from an economy transitioning from an agrarian one to a commercial one also required an abundant supply of new coinage. Finally by 1696, the expensive Nine Years War with France was also drawing to a close. This required revenue and taxes with a consistent and universally accepted coinage. This sudden re-coinage resulted in the opening of branch mints at Bristol, Chester, Exeter, Norwich, and York. These branch mints, as one can imagine, where under great pressure to rapidly produce adequate coinage for circulation despite their inadequate facilities and lack of trained workers. This resulted in several varieties of William III sixpences with numerous errors in the legend or design. Some of these errors are not typically listed. I do not know all these varieties and errors. That said, the 1697 sixpence, despite its age is very affordable and readily available. Coins with an attractive eye appeal are relatively inexpensive. One can see from the recent Heritage Auction results that this is not an expensive coin despite its age. (The second bust of the 1697 series with its sub-varieties is probably the most desired type, by the way.) <a href="http://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=0+790+231&chkNotSold=0&Ntk=SI_Titles&Nty=1&Ntt=sixpence+1697" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=0+790+231&chkNotSold=0&Ntk=SI_Titles&Nty=1&Ntt=sixpence+1697" rel="nofollow">http://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=0+790+231&chkNotSold=0&Ntk=SI_Titles&Nty=1&Ntt=sixpence+1697</a> I am not disagreeing with the grade of the coin. I have a lot respect for NGC world coins and I am confident that this coin, despite its “haymarks” and unusual (possibly suspicious) toning, warrants a grade of MS 63.  I also recognize that the possible planchet defect has no impact on the final grade. Nevertheless, I think I have the right, even as a non-numismatist, to comment on this coin’s aesthetic appeal. Although I may lack your numismatic expertise, I think my opinion is also valid.  I have handled scores of William III sixpences as I assume from your post that you have.  But our opinions differ. Sorry, this is not an attractive coin. I do apologize that my calling this coin "the world's ugliest MS 63" was a little harsh. I just did not find it appealing. And I didn’t even comment on its high price tag. guy *"As more and more coins were clipped, the face value of the existing body of coins [minted before the Re-coinage Act of 1696] came into question, raising transactions costs. By 1696 over 50% of the precious metal content of the coinage was removed." (Jones, D. War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.)[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches