Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[Allgoldcoins]

6 hours ago, PNE said:

Hi all,

 

I have a 1875 S shield gold sovereign, it seems to have a mis-strike on the V, could someone tell me if it is a common issue with this coin please? As you may guess, quite new to this lol

thanks in advance 

Hi

Its not what is called a variety, the striking is simply poor as it was on many of the Shield sovereign legends, I have shown your coin in negative below and a 1880s Shield sovereign which has an inverted 'A' in Victoria instead of 'V' 

In general you are looking for either a wrong digit or numeral being used, this is most often seen with a correction such as the correct digit or numeral being struck on top of the incorrect one. The 1880S is quite rare as there was no attempt to fix the error, so one can assume the mint completely missed the error.

[PNE]

10 hours ago, Allgoldcoins said:

Hi

Its not what is called a variety, the striking is simply poor as it was on many of the Shield sovereign legends, I have shown your coin in negative below and a 1880s Shield sovereign which has an inverted 'A' in Victoria instead of 'V' 

In general you are looking for either a wrong digit or numeral being used, this is most often seen with a correction such as the correct digit or numeral being struck on top of the incorrect one. The 1880S is quite rare as there was no attempt to fix the error, so one can assume the mint completely missed the error.

Hi Allgoldcoins.

 

Thanks for the information really appreciated. I do have an 1880S but unfortunately its not a shield and doesn't look to have any mis strikes either, that I can see.

I have attached an 1898 which has what looks like a scuff and indentation on, I guessing this is not any kind of mis-strike? Just asking so I don't go and buy anymore in this condition,

 

Thanks

[Robda1986]

Someone has listed a shed load of shield backs on ebay if anyone is looking for one guessing they have taken the £3 deal

[aussiesilver]

I think i have found what i believe to be a 1885/3 overdate Half Sovereign. I will hopefully upload a good pic when i can find a good camera

Are these a rare coin, i could not find a lot of info whether this coin actually exists

[jultorsk]

53 minutes ago, aussiesilver said:

I think i have found what i believe to be a 1885/3 overdate Half Sovereign. I will hopefully upload a good pic when i can find a good camera

Are these a rare coin, i could not find a lot of info whether this coin actually exists

Sure the variety exists. Usually encountered in somewhat poor nick. See:

https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/victoria-1838-1901/1885-3-1-2-sov-s-3861/4008?sn=951108&h=pop

 

[aussiesilver]

Thanks Jultorsk, seems not that many graded and may not be that rare due to a Heritage Auction back a few years ago

[dicker]

Hi All,

What do you think of this date on a 1875  Sydney sovereign (Shield).    To my eye, the date sizing looks a little off.....  Either the 7 is somewhat larger of the 5 is somewhat smaller.  Objective opinions - I am more than happy to be wrong!

[dicker]

Next up are is this interesting example.

Both images are from 1878 Sydney Shields (each one different)

Its relatively minor, but there is definitely something going on with the A (A over A?)

Best
Dicker

[dicker]

Also....minor again, but two examples of oddities with 'M's.

Both are 1856 London Shield's

 

 

[dicker]

1876..this one is more interesting to me at any rate.  Not sure what is going on with the die number.....

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by dicker

[dicker]

And this one - 1856 and looks like it might have unbarred A's

Caveat - the coin is filthy the bars could be hiding in the dirt - I don't clean coins (ever) so this may have to remain a mystery!

 

[sovereignsteve]

11 hours ago, dicker said:

 To my eye, the date sizing looks a little off.....  Either the 7 is somewhat larger of the 5 is somewhat smaller.  

7 is definitely too big. the 5 looks small as well but may be an illusion due to the large 7

7 hours ago, dicker said:

something going on with the A (A over A?)

yes i would say so

[sovereignsteve]

6 hours ago, dicker said:

Also....minor again, but two examples of oddities with 'M's.

Both are 1856 London Shield's

M over M

you see these a lot, the engraver was correcting errors. missed the alignment the first time

there was a theory that sometimes apprentices were let loose on these die stampings and either had to correct the errors or someone did it for them

training exercises I guess

6 hours ago, dicker said:

1876..this one is more interesting to me at any rate.  Not sure what is going on with the die number.....

looks like the 9 was grossly misaligned the first time

[sovereignsteve]

6 hours ago, dicker said:

And this one - 1856 and looks like it might have unbarred A's

Caveat - the coin is filthy the bars could be hiding in the dirt - I don't clean coins (ever) so this may have to remain a mystery!

looks like a genuine one to me

[Allgoldcoins]

6 hours ago, dicker said:

Also....minor again, but two examples of oddities with 'M's.

Both are 1856 London Shield's

 

 

Although it won't help with every coin you could try viewing coins in negative colour mode, I have copied 2 of yours below, it can often make some clearer to see:

 

[dicker]

Thanks all!

[dicker]

8 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

M over M

you see these a lot, the engraver was correcting errors. missed the alignment the first time

there was a theory that sometimes apprentices were let loose on these die stampings and either had to correct the errors or someone did it for them

training exercises I guess

looks like the 9 was grossly misaligned the first time

Yes there is also something going on with the 4.  Looks like 4 over a partial 4.   I suspect the engraver started rather too high on the 4 - but that doesn't really explain the peculiar 9!

Best

Dicker

[GoldDiggerDave]

15 hours ago, dicker said:

Next up are is this interesting example.

Both images are from 1878 Sydney Shields (each one different)

Its relatively minor, but there is definitely something going on with the A (A over A?)

Best
Dicker

Double struck, I see lots like this. 

[GoldDiggerDave]

14 hours ago, dicker said:

And this one - 1856 and looks like it might have unbarred A's

Caveat - the coin is filthy the bars could be hiding in the dirt - I don't clean coins (ever) so this may have to remain a mystery!

 

This is interesting, worth getting it cleaned conserved to see if they are unbarred A's.

[GoldDiggerDave]

On 10/05/2021 at 09:24, PNE said:

Hi Allgoldcoins.

 

Thanks for the information really appreciated. I do have an 1880S but unfortunately its not a shield and doesn't look to have any mis strikes either, that I can see.

I have attached an 1898 which has what looks like a scuff and indentation on, I guessing this is not any kind of mis-strike? Just asking so I don't go and buy anymore in this condition,

 

Thanks

1898 looks ex jewellery 

[dicker]

Many thanks all. 

It is fascinating looking at Shield Sovereigns using a relatively inexpensive microscope.  It does however prompt a lot of questions!

Best

Dicker

[dicker]

Just an interesting engravers error on this 1878 M.

The engraver has done something quite unusual to the bottom of the M's legs!

[GoldDiggerDave]

6 minutes ago, dicker said:

Just an interesting engravers error on this 1878 M.

The engraver has done something quite unusual to the bottom of the M's legs!

Keep em coming! More die break then deliberate engraving to me.   Great photos! 

[dicker]

And an inverse of the die 'over die'

 

Thanks for the suggestion Steve!

[dicker]

Yet another 1856

Both A's from GRATIA.  

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