English Copper From The Woods IDd As A William III 1695-99

bookfisher

Bronze Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
1,345
Reaction score
125
Golden Thread
0
Location
Long Island, New York
English Copper From The Woods ID'd As A William III 1695-99

Found this English Copper in the woods today. Though the date appears to be 1800s, I couldn't find an English Copper with the portrait facing right from that period. I'm hoping it's earlier. I was wondering if anybody knows what coin this is?
 

Attachments

  • copper1.webp
    copper1.webp
    25.8 KB · Views: 527
  • copper2.webp
    copper2.webp
    33.4 KB · Views: 535
Upvote 0
Re: English Copper From The Woods ID'd As A William III 1695-99

Iron Patch said:
umrgolf said:
Iron Patch said:
It's 1699. :thumbsup:

The only one i never considered :laughing7: but now that you mention it, the crude loop on the 9 is clear.. Good eyes :headbang:


It's the 3rd issue Circa. 1699-1701. The last digit is irrelevant if you can identify the 2nd, or 3rd, which seems to be the case here. So 1699 is the only possibility.

As IP has stated, it is a Type 3 issue, Right Hand on Knee, if you look at 1695-98 with the date under the bar, the right hand/arm is in a more upward position.
1699 is correct in this case, since the 16 is evident and even the last two numbers not needed for dating.

Don
 

Attachments

  • WilliamIII  Types Dates.webp
    WilliamIII Types Dates.webp
    70.2 KB · Views: 210
Re: English Copper From The Woods ID'd As A William III 1695-99

Don in SJ said:
Iron Patch said:
umrgolf said:
Iron Patch said:
It's 1699. :thumbsup:

The only one i never considered :laughing7: but now that you mention it, the crude loop on the 9 is clear.. Good eyes :headbang:


It's the 3rd issue Circa. 1699-1701. The last digit is irrelevant if you can identify the 2nd, or 3rd, which seems to be the case here. So 1699 is the only possibility.

As IP has stated, it is a Type 3 issue, Right Hand on Knee, if you look at 1695-98 with the date bar, the right hand/arm is in a more upward position.
1699 is correct in this case, since the 16 is evident and even the last two numbers not needed for dating.

Don

thanks for the clarification, never knew that :icon_thumleft:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom