Elizabeth I Sixpence

I agree with everything that is expressed in the link.

Fakes abound, and it is definitely worthwhile to check for authenticity,
when all of the facial features of Elizabeth 1 are depicted as shown on this coin.

I notice that only the last two digits on this coin are visible, but it appears to be mostly unclipped.

Still, it would turn out to e quite valuable, if it proves to be authentic. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this series, and have to rely on the expertise of the dealer, from whom my two examples of Elizabeth 1 coinage came.

The facial features as shown on this coin are way superior to those on my two examples.

I think this coin has a chance of being graded in the XF range. This 1574 graded XF45 sold for $650 recently.
https://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotv...dd118f3994f4

I would guess a deeper search would find more examples at the major UK and US auction houses, and give more data on the possible value.

This one loses a little for the incomplete date , but unmarred portraits of Elizabeth get a pretty good premium best I can tell, so if the ebay price isn't at least 250 pounds, I would be very suspicioius. AND this does not look to me like a coin that was unearthed.

If the moderators move this thread to the UK section, I think you will get comments from more members here who know UK coins well.

If authentic, I think you got a great deal.

Looking again, maybe there has been a bit of clipping compared to the coin in the link I posted? Still, the portrait is lovely, and the condition is great for that price.

My wife has an ELizabeth shilling on her "want list." I will need to save up quite a bit more for that.

Good VF with a weak strike

Coins of this era were hammered and thus weak strikes common.

Lots of detail, but flattening on the Queen's hair strands.

For the era and type, it is a very good example - however I am slightly unsure about its genuinity.

If it was uneartherd with a detector - its too clean, either it was not unearthed by a metal detector or it was cleaned afterwards. This story leads me to suggest it could be a fake.

Elizabeth coins are made out of good silver (.916 fine at least) and will not be magnetic, a 6d should weigh around 3 - 3.5 grams. (I am assuming you are not American and use metric weights).

Coin was hammer struck both sides. Could have been struck on the reverse last against a die which could have been punched harder on obverse side.

Other solution, the die with the date and left side of shield had worn off through repetitive strikings. This could have been the 10,000th coin struck with the same die.

Hand hammered coins used a very crude and basic technology and quality control was near zilch (Moneyer assizes were common in this era). Better quality coins in the UK only come with milled coins in the 1660s and the coins you are referring too, maybe machine struck ones that are perfectly round and well centered - made generally after the early 19th century (1816 in the UK)

That's how I got educated (about what little I still know about numismatics) ... by asking questions out here that to me sounded silly, but that I expect helped others learn. too




When I have asked a similar question about uneven amounts of detail on a hammered coin, I was told by a knowledgeable CCF member that we must remember that planchet preparation was also done by hand, and a thin spot on the planchet means the coin will take less of the die detail at this spot. That spot with the missing numerals in the date corresponds (I think) to the area of weak detail at below the left edge of Elizabeth's ruffed collar obverse (90 degrees closckwise from that edge notch reverse would be 90 degrees counterclockwise on the obverse). So, maybe this was a thin spot on the planchet? I think modern coins have planchets punched from sheet that is machine- rolled to tight tolerances, so the strike is uniform.

It is easy to find hammered coins from around this time graded in AU to MS range by NGC or PCGS, where part of the coin is completely lacking in detail (i.e, flat). So, as judged by the TPG, those flat areas are not wear ... they are "as struck," and due to an issue in the coining process.