Comparing the dies

HOME ... Bibliography ... Close up images... Links ... Member contact ... #21 on ... Q & A ... Quick ID ... Swap or Sell ... Theories/Opinions ... Wanted by Researcher ... What we know

Please use your Back Button to return.

#6, 7 & 8 Reverse 5 ... obverse

The main features distinguishing the different reverses have been listed as, #6 no ball above the hand holding the scales. #7 ground slightly wider. #8 as on #6 and #7.


On all #6 (9), #7 (24) and #8 (35) pieces (total 68) I have observed, I would consider them the same.

Wellington/Peel medalet.
Does not appear to have a blindfold.
May have a ball touching the hand.
Crossbar of scales close to the arm.
Extra drapery on the right touching the ground.
Ground appears longer.		 Image from Fuld's article.
Appears to have a blindfold.
Ball or blob above the hand in a differnt position.
Crossbar of scales further away from the arm.
Appears to have extra drapery on the right.
Ground appears shorter.

No conclusions should be drawn from the above images, they are both poor in quality. It is not known if Fuld's image is from a photograph or line drawing.
However it does appear that one has been copied from the other.

Kyle's decriptions. based on Fuld's work.
No.6. Rx-raised rim with inner circle, Justice standing facing right, sword in right hand balance in left. Fuld claims this reverse does not have a ball above the balance held in left hand, their piece I expect is the product of worn dies or just worn, the example shown here has a ball. this is the only example in this series to have a straight reverse, as a result I think this a correct attribution, irregular base, straight reverse. (0°)
No.7. Rx-as on #6 except the ground is slightly wider, perhaps from an earlier die state. upset reverse. (180°)
No.8. Rx-as on #6 and #7, upset reverse.

Fuld's descriptions.

Fuld's descriptions are interesting, particularly the measurements. There is no further reference to the table in the text of the article.
"Width of ground in mm" (length) - I have observed these to be approx 9.5mm, on some pieces a spike on the left-hand end extends the ground to approx 10mm. This spike could be the result of a die crack forming or some other fault. The difference of 0.85mm maybe attributed to this.
"Distance from body of sword" - Vague and I'm not sure where the measurements are taken from. For #7 sword 6.5mm long and #8 sword 5mm long, My observations show the overall length from the tip of the blade to the ball under the hand is 5.5mm, blade length 3.5mm, tip of blade to shoulder 3.5mm and the ball to under the ground 6mm. The difference between #7 and #8 of 1.5mm is large, 3mm between #6 and #8 is very large. Could these be the result of a typographical error, as in the bottom right column which I believe should read "As 7 and 6".
"Distance from hand to balance in mm" - 0.7mm I have found to be very close on all observed pieces. 0.5mm measurement is difficult to explain, die wear generally increases the size of design features or makes them look fatter, this would decrease the measurement between the hand and crossbar of the scales, however I did not find an example that came close to 0.5mm. All would be approx 0.7mm and above.

Die flaws/faults are a good way to identify different dies, these flaws are unique to a particular die. The small raised dots to the left under the ground, a couple above the ground and to the right end, have been evident and in the same position on all examples, except for a few very worn or ones in poor condition where the dots have been hard to detect.
I would agree with Kyle's assessment "their piece I expect is the product of worn dies or just worn" relating to #6.