| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,330 |
|
|
New Member
Australia
11 Posts |
Apologies for not posting for so long: my internet was disconnected for seventy-seven days! Here is a Sarawak cent dated 1895H I found. It could be a hitherto unknown date (unlikely) or it could be a simple slip-up in the Krause catalogue, where it doesn't appear. Does any one know more?  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5246 Posts |
That date is not listed in Numista either.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Partial pictures suggest it looks genuine enough for it not to be a fantasy.
I would like to see pictures of full coin, but I don't think my mind will change.
It would be a good idea of reporting to Krause Publications, even if they have no record of it. You may well find a (-) in the value listings after they publish it, because they may not have any other supporting information on this date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Looks like an altered 3, same as the rest of them. Always rough/problem coins bearing this date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
695 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2180 Posts |
A Numismatic History of the Birmingham mint says no 1895-dated Sarawak coins were produced, but 1/4 and 1/2 cent pieces dated 1896 were struck in 1895.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
IMHO, it's not even an altered 3, it's just a normal fancy 3. The overall slanted shape, the huge upper left serif, and the thin and somewhat obscured diagonal line (plus a conveniently placed bit of dirt and/or toning in the gap on the left side) makes it look a bit like a 5.
Check out other online examples of Sarawak cents dated 1893 to see what I'm talking about: the 3 just normally looks that way.
(Admittedly, it's possible that in hand it looks more like a 5; with the sheer amount of dirt and the imperfect photo, it's hard to tell one way or the other.)
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
@ january1may: I believe that you are correct.
I had a look at a few
Google Images 'Sarawak 1893H Cent', to confirm.
|
|
New Member
 Australia
11 Posts |
Thanks for all the responses so far.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Can we have regular pics of the entire coin?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
Quote:
Thanks for all the responses so far I stand by my answer: this is a regular 3 (likely not even altered), with conveniently located bits of dirt making it look kind of like a 5. As it happens, the new photos are, if anything, worse than the original pic in the OP, but the diagonal line of the 3 does look somewhat clearer. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
24885 Posts |
In the right position .  |
|
New Member
Australia
11 Posts |
This coin has been in my collection since around 1968, but I don't remember how I obtained it; probably either from the Charing Cross coin market in London or from an agreeable antique shop in Amsterdam. It is still kept in the original paper packet, inscribed by whomever I got it from. I may be wrong but the style of the first "8" looks continental, and I have never seen an "H" written like that before. I know little of photography, but add as requested complete (but not very satisfactory) pictures of both sides of the coin, which can be zoomed. The coin itself is in Extremely Fine condition.    |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
Looks genuine. I agree with january1may that it's not actually an altered date but a normal 3, just gunk altering some of our perception :)
Edited by Numismat
06/08/2018 06:01 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Hole is off center, too close to bust. Interesting, shows up on bust side only.  |
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,330 |
|
Posted 06/04/2018 07:55 am
