Guernsey 4 Doubles

Quote: "Mark240590"​Hmmm my 4 doubles is definitely medal alignment :S I wonder if its maybe an error coin then !

Quote: "josh-nativ-AR"​

Quote: "Mark240590"​Hmmm my 4 doubles is definitely medal alignment :S I wonder if its maybe an error coin then !

​​i have the 4 doubles 1874 in coin alignment.
​is it an error coin?
​thanks
​
​

I would be geniunely surprised to see 1874 in medal alignment. Coin alignment is normal, as is medal alignment for 1889

My 1864 and 1889 are both medal aligned.

Indeed. I'm preparing a spreadsheet with types and viarieties. 4 doubles ⅓ stems from 1864  removed recently from SCWC are by far the most confusing thing.

natbaj

I would be geniunely surprised to see 1874 in medal alignment. Coin alignment is normal, as is medal alignment for 1889

The Numista page was changed to coin alignment for 1874 years ago.

I know, rsirian. It was just to clarify and to see if maybe 1874 is indeed variable, as peculiar 1899 for 1 double.

For the record, these coins in medal alignment appear for 1864 and Heaton issues for 1885 and 1893. All others are coin rotations, verified. More or less it's the same for the other denominations of the period. But Heaton issues differ in detail than earlier issues, as shown on 4 and 8 doubles pages.

As of 1864 removed entry from SCWC (also years ago), difference between 1 and 3 petals actually does exist for that year, however it's much more subtle than on 2 doubles ‘58-’68, which is obvious as online catalogs and auctions mess them up. Removal is justified, as I'll show below. Number of pearls and even umber of lines in the CoA are the same, although lions for 3-patal version and slightly bolder.
 

One of them is actually a recut die with the right leaf slightly moved, central slightly shorter/longer and if coin is even slightly worn it's extremely hard to see the difference. Here's both combined


That's it - I am sure this is nothing new but most of us, as myself probably do not have the older local literature available.

As always - it's up to a collector what to collect, personally I collect by types and major varieties. I see 1830 and 1858 issues different,  1864 from 1868 as they're differently aligned, 1874 is different, then 1885-1911 come in two subtypes due to alignment again. But one and three petal of this one is much less than many other differences in the series ignored. Luckily no 2 doubles were made in 1864 to complicate lives of a detailed type/subtype collector as this is giving me headache - it's a tiny variety that is supposed to be meaningful but it's really not.