1719-S [Reims Mint] John Law Sol.

Currency:CAD Category:Coins & Paper Money Start Price:250.00 CAD Estimated At:500.00 - 600.00 CAD
1719-S [Reims Mint] John Law Sol.
250.00CAD+ (50.00) buyer's premium + applicable fees & taxes.
This item SOLD at 2019 May 02 @ 19:23UTC-4 : AST/EDT

Buyer’s Premiums will be added on all items as per the Terms & Conditions of the sale. Invoices will be emailed out after The Toronto Coin Expo.

1719-S [Reims Mint] John Law Sol. Choice Very Fine, the obverse legend originally punched into the die as LUDOVICUS XX – a non-existent King Louis the 20th! The error was caught, and a V was punched over the last letter, and though the original X was lightly ground down, both of the lower legs can still be seen with the naked eye. A major UNLISTED type, not mentioned in Gadoury or by Smith in his article, though he does note the same error with a 1720 date (offered below). The was called XV/VX in the past, in the belief that the engraver transposed those two letters, but in describing the 1720-dated example with this same error, Smith called that improbable, and the present example seems to bear him out as the first letter is quite bold and its shape doesn’t allow for a V to be hiding under it (though there does appear to be some light work done in the die at the bottom of that letter). Mahogany fields, some light patination in the legends, but few marks from actual circulation, which makes for an extremely attractive example of this major type. Interestingly, Smith wondered if the engraver made the same mistake on more than one die – the present example confirms that hypothesis! While the dies were clearly cut by the same hand the one used here with the 1719 reverse is different from that used with the 1720 reverse, most easily seen at the highest strand of hair in relation to the first letter of the legend – here about halfway up the L, while on the 1720 it is to the space between the L and U. We also note that on this obverse die the final letter is notably double punched. We have seen no other example of this error dated 1719, and it is certainly a most important specimen for the specialist.