Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[Richym99]

8 minutes ago, dicker said:

I have one of these. Here is another.  
 

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

Best

Dicker

Interesting. Wonder how many will come out of the wordwork.  

[dicker]

I have one that is probably AU59/MS60.

Seen another one go through auction but at a much lower grade.  
 

Suspect not super rare. 

[dicker]

Just to add - just looked at my notebook. The one that went through auction was a Douro wreck sovereign.  

[Foster88]

15 minutes ago, dicker said:

I have one of these. Here is another.  
 

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

Best

Dicker

Could that possibly be a 5 over a 4?

[dicker]

My guess is that it is 5 over 5.  Looks identical to the one I have.  
 

Best

Dicker

[dicker]

Here is my 1857....

Our coins are very similar:

- 8 appears to be somewhat undersized

- 5 is over a 5 or a 3

- The 7 in both of our coins appears to have something going on at the top left of the 7

 

Best

Dicker

Edited July 5, 2021 by dicker

[dicker]

Even the flattened denticle under the 7 is the same!

[eblend]

You guys have made me look at my 1857 coin.  The 5 looks out of alignment on mine, at least to my eyes but maybe you can tell me better.  😃

[eblend]

Oops.  I don't seem to have got the hang of posting images and words yet ... I expect you got the gist ...

[LawrenceChard]

On 09/04/2018 at 15:53, baurum said:

@ilovesilverireallydo All are common.

 

What kind of error is the following above the tail?

 

Almost certainly an air bubble.

I see similar features quite often on sovereigns, particularly older ones.

When the gold has been alloyed, it is cast into ingots, which then get rolled into sheets. Most melts and pours contain some porosity, gas bubbles trapped within the liquid, which then cools and solidifies. Although most bubbles start off as spheroids, when rolled into strip, they become bigger in area, but thinner.

Depending on size, and whether the bubbles lie close to, or reach, the surface of the blank (planchet), this can be visible on the struck coin. During striking, the gas will become compressed, but as the striking pressure is removed, and the metal is still semi-molten, will expand to form a visible bubble. If this breaks the surface, this will often produce a sharp flake. Most bubble are likely to be parallel to the surface, because of the repeated rolling, but some are at angles, or appear to be at angles, possibly because the gas has escaped at one side of the bubble.

A big clue is the smooth, rounded outline of the bubble. Ask yourself what else could cause anything similar.

[LawrenceChard]

Interesting left displacement of "M" mintmark on a 1909 Melbpurne Mint sovereign. Normally, I would expect the M to be slightly more to the right compared with this example.

 

It is not very obvious from the photos, but my quick, naked eye (and with eyeglass) inspection happened to be in comparison with a small number of 1903-M sovereigns. 

Perhaps we need to do a comparison photo with a different 1909-M, or indeed others mintmarks.

[dicker]

@LawrenceChard

Well spotted, I would not have noticed that.  Quite subtle to say the least.  
 

Best

Dicker

[TheGoldSovereign]

Good to see that this thread is doing well with some keen interest!

Needless to say I have 95% of small errors and true varieties being shared here, all will be public on my reference when I have time to image everything properly, though anyone who thinks they've something quite special please email me so I can check my records and make sure I have it. It will be much better to be a community effort as I'm sure I do not have everything out there.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by TheGoldSovereign

[Foster88]

On 12/07/2021 at 14:06, LawrenceChard said:

Interesting left displacement of "M" mintmark on a 1909 Melbpurne Mint sovereign. Normally, I would expect the M to be slightly more to the right compared with this example.

 

It is not very obvious from the photos, but my quick, naked eye (and with eyeglass) inspection happened to be in comparison with a small number of 1903-M sovereigns. 

Perhaps we need to do a comparison photo with a different 1909-M, or indeed others mintmarks.

This is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I'll have a look at my branch mint sovereigns too, although all of mine are George V.

[Foster88]

On 05/07/2021 at 10:50, dicker said:

Here is my 1857....

Our coins are very similar:

- 8 appears to be somewhat undersized

- 5 is over a 5 or a 3

- The 7 in both of our coins appears to have something going on at the top left of the 7

 

Best

Dicker

Here's another 1857 for reference.

This one is in the Coin Cabinet auction tomorrow. The 8 looks a little thin and I'm not sure what's going on with the 5.

 

[LawrenceChard]

14 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

Here's another 1857 for reference.

This one is in the Coin Cabinet auction tomorrow. The 8 looks a little thin and I'm not sure what's going on with the 5.

 

 

It is quite common to see "blocked" letters and numerals such as the "5". It is almost certainly caused by some debris (swarf?) filling the incuse space between the top horizontal and the diagonal on the die.

None of the four numerals look entirely "normal", but hey, when was the RM ever famous for production quality? 🙂

[TheGoldSovereign]

23 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

It is quite common to see "blocked" letters and numerals such as the "5". It is almost certainly caused by some debris (swarf?) filling the incuse space between the top horizontal and the diagonal on the die.

None of the four numerals look entirely "normal", but hey, when was the RM ever famous for production quality? 🙂

 

I agree, it's easy to get bogged down with small irregularities and not call everything an error, I'm personally guilty of this but this is why I've not released any of my finds to my reference until I've found a better way to categorise them. Clear overstrikes and errors only for now.

 

[TheGoldSovereign]

On 01/06/2021 at 16:13, dicker said:

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

 

 

From my reference:

 

1872    5600-49    206984        Die 49        9 in die number over lower 9    yes    aUNC    London    true    8 -    49    false            56    Gold Sovereign: Victoria (Shield) - London    Gold Sovereign - London    victoria-young-shield

[TheGoldSovereign]

On 05/07/2021 at 10:50, dicker said:

Here is my 1857....

Our coins are very similar:

- 8 appears to be somewhat undersized

- 5 is over a 5 or a 3

- The 7 in both of our coins appears to have something going on at the top left of the 7

 

Best

Dicker

From my reference:

 

1857    4021            5 over lower 5 in date            yes    VF    London    false                        40O    Gold Sovereign: Victoria (Shield) - London    Gold Sovereign - London

[TheGoldSovereign]

Following up on above, I hope to get some of my clearer newly discovered varieties added to the reference officially in the coming months so people will easily be able to check their coin against it with high res images. Stay tuned!

Edited July 15, 2021 by TheGoldSovereign

[Booky586]

I'd like some help with this one, a 1862 Shield. A lot of the characters and numbers have been restruck/overstruck, but the E and F in DEF look a bit messy as well as the number 1 in date.

 

Marsh has varieties for "F over inverted A over F" and "E over F", but I'm not sure if this is either of them, it could be something else:

Any ideas?

 

 

[GoldDiggerDave]

28 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

I'd like some help with this one, a 1862 Shield. A lot of the characters and numbers have been restruck/overstruck, but the E and F in DEF look a bit messy as well as the number 1 in date.

 

Marsh has varieties for "F over inverted A over F" and "E over F", but I'm not sure if this is either of them, it could be something else:

Any ideas?

 

 

E double struck the F is interesting and worthy of closer investigation looks like two serifs along  top edge of the F so possibly and inverted A.  A very interesting coin mate! 

[BigOwl]

1866/5 Overdate Sovereign :

There is an 1866/5 overdate sovereign (die number 11) in an auction this week. Marsh lists this as 51A with a rarity of R2.

Has anyone come across these before. Any idea what the value may be ?

The one for sale is graded by PCGS with the overdate and is AU 50.

Thanks !

[dicker]

Hi @BigOwl Sorry I don’t really track prices and I think they are very auction dependent.

What I can tell you from my records is that there are other die numbers on coins where this error occurs….
 

Best

Dicker

[Booky586]

18 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

E double struck the F is interesting and worthy of closer investigation looks like two serifs along  top edge of the F so possibly and inverted A.  A very interesting coin mate! 

Thanks for the lead. I went to the PCGS website and found a photo of the F over inverted A variety for comparison (PCGS on right), I'd say they were a match. Really pleased as Marsh has this rated as R2.