William III Crowns

coinkat

Well, I am confused... There are three different Bust types for this series, but it looks as if there could be four. There is the first bust that appreared in 1695 and 96. In 1696, there was a second bust that appeared that is recognized in Coincraft (2000 EDITION). And according to Coincraft, the second bust is different that the third bust that appeared only in 1700.

Spink (2006 EDITION) on the other hand, has a first bust for 1695 and 96. I am okay with that. For the Spink second bust, they referenced and have a portrait of William III that has hair flowing over the bust in front and is basically unique. That bust is not in Coincraft. Spink references the third bust as being the same bust that was used for some issues of 1696 all of 97 (which is a very rare date anyway) and 1700. Well, I think Coincraft is right and there is a difference between the obverse used in part of 1696 and 97 in contrast to that of 1700. While this may read alittle like an Abbott and Costello monolog, it seems that there really were four busts used in this series from 1696-1700, with the second bust identified by Spink as being quite rare.

Aethelred

William III or bust?

coinkat

I tell ya... I get no respect... this is my numismatic contribution for the week and it is bust... and not the bust that is featured on US coinage 125 years later. I guess someone learned something more important along the way...and it wasn't me

coinkat

Text

Well, it looks as if NGC is in the Spink camp on this. I have attached a third bust example that is on ebay

Sylvestius

I'll get back to this... i'm at work currently.

coinkat

Here I am trying to assemble valuable numismatic information and share insight into a very perplexing mystery and Sylvestius... you tell me that you have to work. Its okay... I won't tell anyone...

Sylvestius

Right sorry for the delay there;

First things first. William III is the classic case of an open field. There's tons of minor varities and possibly major varities out there just waiting to be discovered. Due to the amount of provincial issues, errors littered here there and everywhere and the fact that in 1696 they had a massive recoinage it means the area is pretty huge for such a short period. In fact there is a plethora of stuff there both discovered and undiscovered. Such as 1697 sixpences without obverse stops, yes they exist.

Now i should add that in this period it's the halfcrowns that get all the attention, due to the fact that they are more affordable.

Now i can't locate my Seaby's anywhere so all i've got at present is the Coincraft 2000 but i believe the answer to your question lies in the Coincraft.

The Spink's Second bust would it be dated 1696 by any chance? Check out the Pattern section of the Coincraft catalogue, it lists a 1696 William III crown but gives no details of it. Could this be the Spink's coin?


I tend to agree with Coincraft myself.

coinkat

I apologize to those that were under the assumption that this thread was dull, boring and nearly at a end... WRONG!

I have continued with my numismatic investigation into this controversy and I am now in a position to firmly offer the following:

The bust used for the 1700 Crown which is the so-called third bust cataloged by Spink is not the same as the other bust used for the 1696 Octavo Crown. It is clear that Coincraft got it right. I personally inspected a 1700 Crown graded MS63 by NGC and a raw 1696 Octavo Crown in a high circ grade that is a second bust according to Coincraft (ed 2000) and they are clearly different.

However, what remains to be investigated is whether this 1696 second bust was used in 1700 making two bust varieties for 1700... and whether the 1700 bust was used in 1696 which would account for 4 bust varieties for 1696. Amazing... isn't it?

coinkat

Well, another piece of the puzzle has been found... I looked at an catalog and found a picture of a 1696 crown with the third bust used in 1700. The crown was offered as a proof.

lordmarcovan

<< <i>William III Crowns >>

Yes, please.

1jester

Coinkat has discovered more than we ever cared to know about Billy the third. Give yourself a DPOTD for this thread, sir!

coinkat

1jester:

This still has some twists and turns as well as some further numismatic investigation that needs to completed. Wait until we go back to Charles II...AGAIN...