Multiple Compounded Error Threepence.

You just got scammed in my opinion. This is what is referred to as a vise job, where two coins are put together and hammered, which would cause the marks. But hey, I could be wrong.

that looks a lot like all of the other vise jobs I've seen

after looking at my one and your one neal
I am with markn its not a shed job impossible too do in a vice like a split planchet this has lifted of when the die has retracted and I think the next coin would have been a ripper as the die come down it would of left the piece imbedded in the next coin (just my opinion)

neal I don't think you have a worry . I sell is also a good bloke I have dealed with him before
very good seller and has a great deal of error mostly mint sport

The fact that this coin has sustained some damage on the reverse side, and more noticeably at the rims, DOES leave some element of doubt that it it is possible that it MAY NOT be a partial brokage, but a workshop job.

These could be easier to produce in smaller flan sizes. Less striking force would be needed.

I must admit, I am not quite sure about this one, until I do some experimentation for myself, to prove it or not. It should be quite easy to prove.

The coin is not a shed job. The same error is also found in ebay item 151058696357. The brokage is incuse so it isn't a lamination peel and I reckon I know how to spot shed jobs.
The only thing I can see that would cause this is if it was a full brokage that got stuck and remained in place after the other coin causing the incuse wheat stalks was dislodged. Because it was stuck the next blank could only get part way in and the striking of the dies jammed it to the coin. The flat face of the blank protected the brokage under it but the rest of the brokage was completely erased by repeated strikes. The obverse and reverse are extremely well struck up as would be expected from multiple strikes.
Eventually the stuck coins got out from between the dies and ended up in circulation. Any flaws with this theory?

Hi Shane
The threepence weighs 1.40g (spot on), a closer examination shows a perfect registration between the incuse wheat stalks and the reverse. The reverse denticles between 10 and 2 are more strongly struck and there is a small and perfectly formed high lip.
On the obverse the rim is perfectly formed between 10 and 2 but no sign of denticles.
The indent is well below the rest of the obverse and there is no distortion to the perfectly formed incused brokage.
So I've rejected my initial theory and I think it was an elliptical clip fragment that got stuck in the obverse die, was impressed with the reverse die and then impressed that as a partial brokage on this coin. I think that scenario also applies to your error coin Shane.