Author Topic: IOHN WILKINSON token attribution  (Read 451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mrbadexample

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
IOHN WILKINSON token attribution
« on: May 09, 2017, 02:45:29 PM »
I know Figleaf likes a challenge... >:D

I recently acquired this condor token: IOHN WILKINSON IRON MASTER 1787. I have found it particularly difficult to attribute using the Dalton Hamer reference due to the unfortunately placed die break and associated cud of metal at the end of the word 'MASTER'.

I think I have narrowed it down to two possibilities which I won't disclose yet as I don't want to influence anyone else's suggestions. I've attached the relevant pages from the reference.

Many thanks,

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 860
Re: IOHN WILKINSON token attribution
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2017, 12:15:17 PM »
Indeed, you can't know if there is a dot or not and what it is aligned with. So I used other characteristics. I first looked at the date. The 1 is below the centre of the support at left. That immediately cuts down the options to DH 340, 352, 357 and 367.

It ain't 340, because the R in MASTER is too close to the frill on your coin.

It cannot be 352, because the spaces between the words don't fit. To see this, note how the I of IRON is exactly in the same place while the final N in Wilkinson is further advanced, compared to the illustration in DH. If that doesn't convince, the right bar of the N in IRON points to the tip of the nose on your coin, to the bridge of the nose on the coin in DH.

I don't think it is 357. It is the same as 352 except for the queue.

That leaves 367. I can see no reason why it would not be 367. That would imply that there is no dot at the end of the legend.

An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline mrbadexample

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: IOHN WILKINSON token attribution
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2017, 10:10:06 PM »
Peter, thanks for taking the time to do that. I had narrowed it down to 352 or 367, but having read your post I agree that the lettering corresponds to 367.

Sometimes it helps to have a second opinion. :)