Quote

There's a pretty major difference between the level of detail in the hair on the 1955 vs the 1957. I don't know if this is a die state issue or a strike quality issue. Were the details missing from the die at that point or did the coin just not get hit hard enough to transfer them? Overall, looking at the rest of the coin, I think the strike was solid but the die just didn't have the details to transfer.

Common for that design, typically associated with a weakly struck coin. I always look for the dress shoulder fold and neckline/collar, and hair part when picking out coins with this effigy, if those points are not visible I'll typically walk.  Nice pics. 

On 11/27/2023 at 10:25 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Common for that design, typically associated with a weakly struck coin. I always look for the dress shoulder fold and neckline/collar, and hair part when picking out coins with this effigy, if those points are not visible I'll typically walk.  Nice pics. 

Good to know. Though I like the idea of having and seeing both. If my pictures and comments on the Venezuelan coins are any indication, I think that die and strike flaws can be interesting and add a little character. Of course, some of those Venezuelan coins have a lot of "character."

On 11/27/2023 at 4:12 PM, Revenant said:

Good to know. Though I like the idea of having and seeing both. If my pictures and comments on the Venezuelan coins are any indication, I think that die and strike flaws can be interesting and add a little character. Of course, some of those Venezuelan coins have a lot of "character."

Refreshed my memory of the problems with the, Mary Gillick, QEII portrait this morning and while the points noted can be indicative of a weak strike it seems that the main issue in causing the loss of detail was die wear. The original Gillick design was first seen on coins of G.B., AUS., CAN., N.Z., S.A., and RHO. & NAZ. in 1953, by 1954 there were sufficient complaints that the master dies were recut and the design slightly altered to help with the loss of detail, the newly altered design was used for all the previously mentioned countries except for S.A. and RHO. & NAZ.. The Gillick portrait was eventually replaced with the Machin portrait in 1964 if I remember correctly. 

If you look at the '55 proof sets the 1/2 crown and 2 shilling coins typically show loss of detail in the areas mentioned while the smaller coins, denominations, are normally crisp with full detail. This could be due to the larger diameter mater hubs and dies, for the larger size coins, not transferring fully or as well to the working hubs and dies as the smaller diameter ones? This could have been an issue with the circulating coinage as well. 

On 11/28/2023 at 6:13 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Refreshed my memory of the problems with the, Mary Gillick, QEII portrait this morning and while the points noted can be indicative of a weak strike it seems that the main issue in causing the loss of detail was die wear.

Sounds like my initial impression was correct though, which is kinda cool.

On 11/28/2023 at 4:38 PM, Revenant said:

Sounds like my initial impression was correct though, which is kinda cool.

Correctamundo. 

On 11/28/2023 at 7:13 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Refreshed my memory of the problems with the, Mary Gillick, QEII portrait this morning and while the points noted can be indicative of a weak strike it seems that the main issue in causing the loss of detail was die wear. The original Gillick design was first seen on coins of G.B., AUS., CAN., N.Z., S.A., and RHO. & NAZ. in 1953, by 1954 there were sufficient complaints that the master dies were recut and the design slightly altered to help with the loss of detail, the newly altered design was used for all the previously mentioned countries except for S.A. and RHO. & NAZ.. The Gillick portrait was eventually replaced with the Machin portrait in 1964 if I remember correctly. 

If you look at the '55 proof sets the 1/2 crown and 2 shilling coins typically show loss of detail in the areas mentioned while the smaller coins, denominations, are normally crisp with full detail. This could be due to the larger diameter mater hubs and dies, for the larger size coins, not transferring fully or as well to the working hubs and dies as the smaller diameter ones? This could have been an issue with the circulating coinage as well. 

 

Just finished the book on Gillick, I will have to go back and read the section on the portrait. I just started the Machin book, but it should be interesting as well. 

On 12/1/2023 at 5:43 PM, Zebo said:

Just finished the book on Gillick, I will have to go back and read the section on the portrait. I just started the Machin book, but it should be interesting as well. 

I haven't gotten around to reading these yet, both are sitting in my "yet to read" pile of books at home. I was thinking of reading through a couple of short works on Bolton next but may move one of these to the top of the pile.