| Author |
 Replies: 6 / Views: 1,622 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7947 Posts |
In another post, I showed a couple of liards from Lorraine from a lot I recently won at auction. This type (KM-81) was issued intermittently from 1706 to 1729. While examining the coins in this lot, I noticed that a 1727 had poorly formed letters R on the reverse: the tops were open, making them look more like Ks (photos at end of post). My initial elation turned to deflation when I noticed the other 1727s in the lot had similar Rs!. I then went to ebay and MA-shops and found the same thing. Every example I could find of the 1727 liard had the same malformed Rs. So, while earlier dates in the series have normal Rs, all 1727s I could find have this mistake, and at least some 1728s do (since the NGC photo is a 1728 with similar Rs). Error or not? A 1714 liard with normal Rs, followed by a 1727 with open Rs:   Edited by tdziemia
10/05/2020 9:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16834 Posts |
You can find such "non-varieties" even in more modern coin series. For example, in the Australian series, every single 1925 shilling is an overdate, 1925/23. It's a genuine "overdate", but it's not truly a "variety", since there is never a variation from the overdate for this date.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5244 Posts |
I suspect that these coins were not considered important enough to strike really well.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2637 Posts |
Somehow I can just imagine the error being brought to the attention of the mint master, and the mint master responding:
"It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. Lokkaine."
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Sweden
2124 Posts |
The engraver has obviously used the same faulty punch for all three R's (we have LIAKD too). I don't think it should be called an error, it is in some sense intentional although preferably, the punch should have had a better formed R. Not a die variety either, since all 1727 look like this. A design variety, yes. If it is neither an error or intentional, maybe it is a "don't care"? Maybe "don't care design variety"? It's a DCDV!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4618 Posts |
Arkie said... Quote:
"It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. Lokkaine." Oh GREAT, I just shot chocolate milk out of my nose and it's all over my laptop screen. Gee, THANKS! *sigh* Funny line! ANA ID: 3203813 - CONECA ID: N-5637 Clean a coin that may be worth collecting? Please DON'T! When in doubt, leave it dirty!! 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7947 Posts |
Quote:
The engraver has obviously used the same faulty punch for all three R's (we have LIAKD too) This was also my thought. The obverse legend is LEOP.I.D.G. D.LOT.B.R.IE (Leopold I, by the Grace of God, Duke of Lotharingia and Bar, King of Jerusalem), and has a correctly formed letter R. But the font may be smaller, so it would be a different punch. I've now looked at some other Lorraine denominations in my collection from the same time frame, and see the same poorly formed R on the obverse of the 1724 1/2 ecu and the 1726 60 deniers coin as well. So, truly the mint officials did not care much. |
| |
Replies: 6 / Views: 1,622 |
|
Posted 10/06/2020 05:32 am
