Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[Allgoldcoins]

1 hour ago, dicker said:

Yet another 1856

Both A's from GRATIA.  

First one has a broken bar, the second looks like poor engraving!

 

I have seen quite a few broken bar 'A's its the die that has broken, the Royal Mint obviously didn't feel its was worth taking the Die out of production.

[dicker]

Just now, Allgoldcoins said:

I have seen quite a few broken bar 'A's its the die that has broken, the Royal Mint obviously didn't feel its was worth taking the Die out of production.

Yes, agreed.  I have see more broken bars on the earlier Victoria Sovereigns. I think on the 1870’s the design changed slightly and I can’t recall seeing many after this date.  
 

Best

Dicker

[Foster88]

Not an error or overdate, just another variety.

It wouldn’t win any beauty contest but I’m just putting here for reference.

The 1889 Melbourne mint jubilee head, 1st variety rated R3 by Marsh (133). Mintage: 54,652.

Just 15 graded by PCGS

Already graded by PCGS as AU53 so not the best example, due to arrive with me on Tuesday.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Foster88

[drakesterling]

8 hours ago, Foster88 said:

Not an error or overdate, just another variety.

It wouldn’t win any beauty contest but I’m just putting here for reference.

The 1889 Melbourne mint jubilee head, 1st variety rated R3 by Marsh (133). Mintage: 54,652.

Just 15 graded by PCGS

Already graded by PCGS as AU53 so not the best example, due to arrive with me on Tuesday.

This is a genuinely scarce variety. 

[Foster88]

1 hour ago, drakesterling said:

This is a genuinely scarce variety. 

That’s very interesting to know and thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Is it as scarce in the grade of this one being PCGS AU53?

[drakesterling]

Scarce, yes, not ultra rare, but still extremely collectable.

[dicker]

Fully appreciate that die cracks are not errors but interesting to compare the following I's in Gratia.  Clearly a weak point - I have many similar examples but just interesting to see this on two Sovereigns minted close together in time but at different mints.

Picture 1 - 1872 London - a small die crack starting to appear

Picture 2 - 1873 Sydney - big die crack in there same place

 

 

[GoldDiggerDave]

4 hours ago, dicker said:

Fully appreciate that die cracks are not errors but interesting to compare the following I's in Gratia.  Clearly a weak point - I have many similar examples but just interesting to see this on two Sovereigns minted close together in time but at different mints.

Picture 1 - 1872 London - a small die crack starting to appear

Picture 2 - 1873 Sydney - big die crack in there same place

 

 

I love die cracks, I've got a few 1871 SB's with almost the same die crack diagonally in the 1 in the date.  It would need one hell of a database but it would be great to see first strike sovereigns and pictures of the coin throughout the life of the die set.  

[dicker]

2 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

I love die cracks, I've got a few 1871 SB's with almost the same die crack diagonally in the 1 in the date.  It would need one hell of a database but it would be great to see first strike sovereigns and pictures of the coin throughout the life of the die set.  

I agree, I personally find it fascinating to look at the die cracks across coins and mints. 
 

While I find fault in the engraving of Victorian Sovereigns, it is quite remarkable that anyone can engrave to the detail of the lettering, given it is so small. It might be easier today with high quality microscopes, but actually it is quite an achievement.

Best

Dicker

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, dicker said:

While I find fault in the engraving of Victorian Sovereigns, it is quite remarkable that anyone can engrave to the detail of the lettering, given it is so small. It might be easier today with high quality microscopes, but actually it is quite an achievement

I believe the main engraving is done in plaster considerably larger than a sovereign (maybe a foot in diameter) and then reduced by a transfer reducing machine.

When the lettering and dates are punched in I'm not sure, nor what size die they are dealing with at that stage.

[GoldDiggerDave]

15 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I believe the main engraving is done in plaster considerably larger than a sovereign (maybe a foot in diameter) and then reduced by a transfer reducing machine.

When the lettering and dates are punched in I'm not sure, nor what size die they are dealing with at that stage.

I've had one of those plaster mouldings in my hands, W.W Victoria young head...........priceless.   

[dicker]

This time - not an error but a 1873 London Half Sovereign, with a Die number not in Marsh.  

(I don't think there is anything special about this - there are many die numbers that are not recorded in Marsh.

Note: I have another Sovereign in the vault that has a die number that is not in Marsh.... it cannot be uncommon to find Sovereigns with un-recorded die numbers.

Best 

Dicker

 

 

[Richym99]

Any thoughts on what is going on with the 5 in this 1857 shield sovereign?

Purchased in the most recent @CoinsOfTheRealmAuctions 

[dicker]

Looks to be something hiding behind the 5....  I cant guess what it is though!

Best

Dicker

[Richym99]

1 hour ago, dicker said:

Looks to be something hiding behind the 5....  I cant guess what it is though!

Best

Dicker

Looking at it again, I'm wondering if that isn't a partial double strike on the 5, the first being lower and very slightly to the right.

[Arganto]

It looks like the 8 would have been in line with the ghost of the double struck 5

[Allgoldcoins]

On 16/06/2021 at 12:10, Richym99 said:

Any thoughts on what is going on with the 5 in this 1857 shield sovereign?

Purchased in the most recent @CoinsOfTheRealmAuctions 

I have a huge number of overstrikes and legend error sovereigns on file, not all have been catalogued, I think in truth Coins of England got fed up with them all.

This coin is 5 struck over lower originally misaligned 5, you will note that the attempted correction still leaves the 5 slightly too high and out of line. You will also note that this is a broken 5, again something not uncommon with a number of late 1850's sovereigns.

I am always interested to see these, they have not all been recorded, and the more we look the more anomalies we are finding.

[Allgoldcoins]

I wanted to follow on from my post above as varieties, errors and general anomalies on sovereigns are something I have followed for many years.   I have too many on my PC to count, some have previously been recorded and some have not, the Bentley collection also saw a number of oddities pop up. These examples shows the type of thing I am looking for and show how subtle some of these differences are. 

This 1st coin has an extremely wider date with large space between the 18 51, you will also note another very subtle difference between this 1851 and the normally seen coin :

This is the same coin, and you need an eagle eye to spot the variations from the standard portrait, the ponytail terminates with 2 strands of hair, this is unusual as the normal coin terminates with just 1 strand. If you take a close look at ponytails on shield reverse sovereigns you ill notice several different arrangements of the ponytails.

Just to show that anomalies are not just confined to the early shields, here are 2 different date arrangements for the 1879-S neither of which are recorded :

The Large Date with extra big and bolder digits :

 This can be compared with the small narrow date 1879-S notice this one has something protruding from the 1st digit '1' IN DATE 

I would be really interested to see and collate more of these types of anomalies. It is possible to find errors, and difference in almost every year of the Victorian sovereign.

Please upload to this thread anything you have, and I will tell you if I have seen it before.

[KevjustKev]

Any known errors or varieties with Gillick head Sov's? Had a look about, can't find anything.

[Allgoldcoins]

1 hour ago, tallthinkev said:

Any known errors or varieties with Gillick head Sov's? Had a look about, can't find anything.

Not one I have seen or known to have been catalogued, but never say never they could be out there

[Foster88]

4 hours ago, tallthinkev said:

Any known errors or varieties with Gillick head Sov's? Had a look about, can't find anything.

I don't think there are.

As a guess, by 1950's and 60's advancement in coin production had moved on and coins were much more uniform and precise and as they were intended to be.

I'm no expert but I suppose by the period of the Gilick sovereigns, gone were the days of the individual engraver.

Perhaps @sovereignsteve or @LawrenceChard could shed some light on this?

Edited June 25, 2021 by Foster88

[AgAuEire]

A really interesting one in the Coins of the Realm auction.

https:///bidlive.coinsoftherealm-auctions.com/lots/view/4-2V9RUN

[KevjustKev]

Four Gillick different 1958's. Can't see anything first off, but then again the more sets of eyes, there could be a difference

[Richym99]

On 16/06/2021 at 17:49, Richym99 said:

Looking at it again, I'm wondering if that isn't a partial double strike on the 5, the first being lower and very slightly to the right.

Just spoken with Steve Hill who has confirmed that it appears to be a 5 over 5. Helpfully pointed me towards an example that was auctioned by Baldwins as part of the Bentley collection in 2013 (lot 999). Looks like I got a lucky auction strike. 

[dicker]

I have one of these. Here is another.  
 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/133787468509

Best

Dicker