TheGoldSovereign

@Yorky As you can see it's in the last image, not sure how old the book is in the first image, first edition??!

"When a planchet fails to enter the coining chamber and both the hammer die strikes the anvil die, imparting design features of the opposing die into each die face. When a planchet does enter the coining chamber it is struck with the clashed dies and will show details of the obverse on the reverse and visa versa."

On 16/11/2019 at 17:29, sovereignsteve said:

any particular years and die numbers stand out?

Hmm, nothing in particular actually no, I'll keep my eye out for some more extreme ones in future . As you can see in the above post I found one the same as Yorky, I only noticed it because of the date and die and remembered his post though, not because it was particularly stand out, though it is a little worse than most.

You must have seen before lots of lines running though the legends and dates, some time ago I thought they were die flaws but then realised when I saw a more extreme one it was the shape of her head and hair, then realised all those marks on the obverse I thought were tooling were in fact elements of the shield

On 16/11/2019 at 17:58, Yorky said:

Not hoping just wondering what the marks were? And when I looked online in the Marsh it did say none  for die 1, so everything is conflicting sometimes, like I say I’m a newbie and just wondering if anyone has seen any similar, I’ve bought and sold a few sovereigns now but not many at all, so every day is a learning curve, but obviously I’m looking for a rare one.. 😉

Well now you know what the marks are

Not sure what version of Marsh you are looking at but mine clearly shows Die 1 for 1872.

Though the site isn't complete you can check the database for coins, and always feel free to email me if you feel something isn't right, missing or you need clarification: https://thegoldsovereign.com/coin/5600-1/1872-victoria-shield-gold-sovereign-london-die-1

As it so happens I'm actually just sorting a batch of 1870s and have just come across an 1872 die 1 with the exact same die clash

4 hours ago, Yorky said:

Hi @sg86 so the square at the top is neck from the front as it has been Cast and neck has come through? I was looking at the Marsh book and for some time on the 1872 die cast number 1 it did say none in a few of the books but in the latest edition it has number 1 listed,  I haven’t seen another number 1 or a full shield back with these inclusions on them.. is there any more number 1 die cast out there? I have seen plenty of other casts.. 3 5 6 22 56.. of it is common then it just another sovereign then?? 

Yes of course there are many 1s, I have 6, there would have been around 20,000 minted, I believe that's the correct approximate figure for a dies lifetime 

I see you are hoping this is a rare coin but unfortunately it isnt at all

4 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Interesting. You say they are quite common, do you have many examples. I have only seen the odd one for sale but never had one in my hand.

Yes loads, I dont split them out though as dont really see the point, some are more severe than other so I guess they could be more interesting.

Usually you see her hair on the reverse and there are tons where you can see the harp on the obverse by her neck or in her ear.

Hi @Yorky those are both just die clashes, quite common. The top bit by the crown is vicky's neck

On 13/11/2019 at 21:26, Yorky said:

Evening all. 
I was wondering if anyone had seen an 1872 Queen Victoria young head die cast number 1? 
I believe these are rare because of the errors on them, apparently a lot of them were smelted down to cast other coins. 

Hi @Yorky, yes I have 6 of these, what exactly have you read about errors? What do you see?

Need opinions on this one!

1 minute ago, Zhorro said:

This is a superb picture - but I don't think I am going to be able to help.  I suppose it could be a small "F" but some of the top would have had to have been chipped away?

Thanks, I guess for now it'll remain an unsolved mystery! When I've got through the 100s of other errors I'll come back to the trickier ones and do some further research maybe with electron scopes!

Just now, Zhorro said:

Good question!  I was wondering if it could be a "y" but I guess you would expect the prongs at the top to be flatter (as you would also expect with a "V" or an inverted "A").

Plus the fact that a Y is never used 🤣

Look at my scope image and see what I mean by the middle bar from the F

Forgot I had an E-mount adapter for my scope, I need to find tune this as the plane is clear not 100% adjacent but for now this is the clearest I can get, I hope to be able to get closer than this in the future for error photos

If you open the image fully you can zoom right in, its 6000px

5 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

To me, it is certainly not "F" over "F".

What's your reasoning for these bars? This is what I see all the time for higher letters, this cannot be found on an A or V punch.

When a character is overpunched the letter underneath isn't complete most of the time, maybe the first punch was broken or similar, I don't think a higher F can be ruled out at all as it's the most likely scenario. The E before it was too high, the F was too high and they corrected both

I wish I could photograph properly from my microscope so you could see what i'm seeing

Even the middle part of the F has the same shape, nothing like and A or V bar which is straight.

8 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

Looks like an "F" over "V" to me (and a double "E").

They've measured the prongs and apparently too narrow for a V or an A

I really don't want to record something wrong, but I think i'll have to put a note on this coin or something

Now i've seen this error on the F recorded I believe before as F/A or something silly, quite a few of the recorded errors I've changed in my reference as I just don't agree, things like T/V in victoria which is clearly just a tilted T. What do you think, is this just an F over higher F?

Edit: added some detail from the Bentley collector who also seems to lean towards a higher F

Picture isn't my best, I'm trying to see if I can get the errors using the copystand axial lighting method but it's not working out as well as my older tripod method, just this will take a long time to keep changing the setup around per coin

Nice to get the errors on a nicer coin though, this coin actually has 3 errors.

offtopic: this coin and some others I've had has some really sticky material that ultrasonic won't remove, best method to try and boil it?

46 minutes ago, augur said:

It seems more that a different size/font was used and then corrected. 4 over 4?

Not sure how likely a different font would be used, maybe a smaller/half sov 4 yea, but i'm leaning towards it being 4/lower 4, so will record it as that for now.

On 07/10/2019 at 15:55, BullionForLess said:

Yes they're the same coin... Just maybe something wrong with Images (or maybe the camera setting is too warm on the other pic)

wrong thread

17 minutes ago, Numistacker said:

I picked up this lovely 1838 Shield Sovereign at Coinex. 

Cost something you would be willing to share? I ask because I keep getting offered 1838 and 1839 at what i consider stupid prices, now this is a proper grade so very interested to know the pricing.

Right, back to a real error, what are your thoughts on this then!?

One is clearly the recorded 4/inverted 4, but the other I cannot decide on, maybe just 4 over lower 4?

4 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

It's actually rare in my experience to see one that is doubled on the date but not elsewhere on the legend; usually seen on 3 - 5 or so consecutive letter.

I've no idea why it happens just to part of the coin face (letters, numbers) and not the whole coin. You don't see any of the face detail similarly doubled.

To be honest I've not looked for dates doubled and legends not, they just occur randomly in my experience and really not at all interesting (for me anyway), so I've not looked further than that.

I've seen 3 letters of a legend, whole legends, half legend, dates etc, so sure it's not going to be so rare just being the date

Yes I was going to say @Lindeman this isn't an error or variety it's just been double struck, very common.

Thanks, I'll go with B then 🙂

As for the error @augur this is recorded as a rotated E I believe by Marsh, but I don't agree I think it's an E over a much higher E, because I've seen the error on a different date before and you can see the top of the E but the rest looks exactly the same