Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[EdwardTeach]

When did the Royal Mint start using copper to alloy gold sovereigns with?

[Hotdog]

Chards have posted this before on their web site: -

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/analysis-of-alloy-content-of-gold-sovereigns/180

[Booky586]

On 01/08/2021 at 19:39, Hotdog said:

How are coins with for e.g. "F" over an inverted "A" produced or corrected? Would a batch of coins with inverted "A"s be produced in error and then re stamped with a corrected die? If so how would the original faulty coins be aligned prior to re-stamping? Are they manually corrected with and individual single letter punch, or some other process?

I'm not entirely sure of the production of dies and how errors and faults are corrected, if there are any experts out then please comment. Any links to printed material would be helpful.

I've found a little more info on the F over Inverted A Variety though. Here's an extract from The Bentley Collection Auction Catalogue by Baldwins (credit to Steve Hill, the cataloguer) with an insight into how the error may have been formed:

There's a wealth of knowledge to be found in these archived auction catalogues that are available online in PDF format to download. This extract is taken from auction catalogue 79, but take a look at the others, especially 73 and 76:

https://www.baldwin.co.uk/auction-archive/

Edited August 13, 2021 by Booky586
Grammar correction

[Booky586]

1860 with very tired obverse lettering. There's a few missing serifs in VICTORIA DEI and an unbarred A in GRATIA.

[dicker]

Something slightly odd with the E and the F on DEF as well!

[Booky586]

5 hours ago, dicker said:

Something slightly odd with the E and the F on DEF as well!

Thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't spotted it. Here's a close up.

[BiigT]

Hi all, I've just received an 1872 young head shield sov from the most recent TCC auction. I always have a quick look for detail and errors and happened to find this overstrike on the die number. Is this common? I don't expect it will do anything in respect of the value, but it would be nice to know for sure

[dicker]

Hi @BiigT

If you look earlier in the thread, I have posted the same error - 4 over 4 and 9 over 9.

I don't know how common this is, but it is not in Marsh or Bentley. I have seen this one go through LCA in 2015.....

The one I have does not appear to have R over B, but definitely has 4 over 4 and 9 over a lowered 9.

Best

Dicker

 

[AnthonyLinc]

Got an interesting 1872 shield back sovereign. Apart from the pimple on Queen Victoria's face, the letter D E I and A looks odd....

Edited September 13, 2021 by AnthonyLinc

[LawrenceChard]

On 01/08/2021 at 19:39, Hotdog said:

How are coins with for e.g. "F" over an inverted "A" produced or corrected? Would a batch of coins with inverted "A"s be produced in error and then re stamped with a corrected die? If so how would the original faulty coins be aligned prior to re-stamping? Are they manually corrected with and individual single letter punch, or some other process?

 

On 02/08/2021 at 14:42, Hotdog said:

I found some answers to my question above at: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint-made_errors#Overdates_and_overmintmarks

Your question shows a basic misunderstanding of the coin production process, which as you will be aware is in multiple stages and sub-stages.

Broadly, you need to think about "Die Production", which is a whole complicated process in its own right, and "Striking", which is very simple.

First "Die Production". I do not know the precise process, or every detail of it, but in any case die production has evolved over millennia, and parts of the process would have changed during the reign of Victoria, so someone with intimate knowledge of modern day die production would probably not know the fine details of the process used at any given period in the past. Similarly Victorian die-sinkers would probably understand modern processes if they could see them, but would undoubtedly be impressed, and possibly astounded, at some of the technological changes. Die production has always been a relatively labour intensive and expensive part of the overall coin production process. If you imagine the cost of a pair of dies as being around £1000 in terms of today's money, you will not be far out.

Each die would be made from an annealed piece of steeel, The main "device" (Victoria's portrait) would be stamped incuse into the die using a puncheon, which would have been of hardened steel, but with the design in relief. The lettering, date, etc, would then be hand punched into the die using individual letter punches, obviously prone to error due to lack of concentration. If the die-sinker noticed his error in time, he could attempt to correct it by over-punching it with the correct letter. As we all know, this process in usually not perfect, and can be detected, but only be fairly careful examination. The alternative would be to scrap the die, and start again. This would be relatively expensive. Once the whole design is present on the die, it then needs to be hardened, after which no further changes can easily be made.

The actual striking of coins, by bashing them between two dies, is a relatively simple, quick, cheap, highly mechanised (for most of the last 4 centuries) process. The cost of this part of the whole process is in the order of a fraction of a penny per coin.

Coins with an "F" over an inverted "A" were all made from dies, or most likely a single die with the "F" over an inverted "A".

There were probably none of the specific coins under discussion ever made with just an inverted "A". If any were produced, it is highly likely that they would have been undetected before leaving the mint and entering circulation, and some would have been spotted by now. I am aware that inverted "A"s do exist on quite a few dates, and I have not checked whether any exist in the place of an "F" on the date under discussion. 

What we can safely assume to be true is that no such error coins ever underwent a process of attempted correction by restriking them with a correct die. If this was to happen, it would be quicker, simpler, and more effective to melt them down, and replace them with new coins struck from the correct dies.

You ask "...how would the original faulty coins be aligned prior to re-stamping?" As you have imagined, it would be such a fiddly, time consuming, process that it would not be attempted, or even considered. It would also be ineffective, in that many of the "corrected" coins would show clear evidence of double striking.

"Are they manually corrected with and individual single letter punch, or some other process?". No, absolutely not. Even if someone attempted this, try to imagine how you would end up with a raised letter. Punching would only produce an incuse letter. Other methods do exist, but would be even more time-consuming. A highly skilled engraver could push some of the metal around to form a different letter, but it would be detectable, or a new letter could be transplanted into place using brazing or soldering, after first grinding or scraping away the incorrect letter. These processes are occasionally used by fraudsters to change a common date such as an 1962 (British) penny into a rare 1969 penny. I have seen an example, and written about it elsewhere.

The Wikipedia page partially explains matters, but assumes some knowledge of the production process.

 

[dicker]

I noticed this on eBay.

Pricey for an MS62 but has a 4 over 4 die number.

Best

Dicker

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1872-Gold-Sovereign-PCGS-MS62-Victoria-Shield-Great-Britain-Die-4-/124682052980?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=710-127635-2958-0

 

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/39088009

 

[Simmoleon]

I bought an 1850 sovereign and noticed it has a double die on all the lettering but no idea how they created the 8 in the 1850 - it seems to have something under the top loop of the 8 and what looks like lines through the top and middle parts of the 8. All the other letters are clearly mirrors of the correct letter but that 8 is just odd

Edited October 9, 2021 by Simmoleon
Posted without completing the post

[Hooper]

Hello, I have a modest stack of gold sovereigns dating back to 1910, they have been bartered for in pubs bought online always as bullion.  I have managed to figure out that cleaning them is bad, but should I be looking for imperfections.  Does it effect the value?

[James32]

they have been bartered for in pubs??

bullion is bullion and will always be worth melt/spot value no matter the condition. 

obviously you will achieve a small premium over spot if in decent to good condition. 

as for imperfections can you be a little clearer on what you mean? Lower value/higher value?

[GoldDiggerDave]

19 minutes ago, Hooper said:

Hello, I have a modest stack of gold sovereigns dating back to 1910, they have been bartered for in pubs bought online always as bullion.  I have managed to figure out that cleaning them is bad, but should I be looking for imperfections.  Does it effect the value?

Bartered in pubs, where do you drink mate?    We think we are doing well when theres a meat raffle on! 

[Hooper]

Yeah public house, man walks into a bar in Liverpool in the 70's wearing a sovereign.  He has little money, my dad offers him X amount.  I find it in a jewellery box 25 years later and like a cheeky little magpie I now have sold the ring kept the coin and bought a half sovereign and started stacking.

I was just wondering as so much attention was being paid to the coins imperfections if it was a niche that coin collectors pay a premium for..

 

[Hooper]

WOW..  Before the rise of the Chav, people used to wear these around... and not just Del Boy...

 

[GoldDiggerDave]

If it's been in Jewellery it's likely to be bought for 95% of spot, I've seen some under weight and sold as scrap.......Or you could be lucky and get a key date even if these have been in jewellery or have wear can fetch a premium.  

[dicker]

It really depends on the “error”.  Marsh is a good guide for where errors raise the value of a Sovereign.  
 

Best

Dicker

[Hooper]

16 minutes ago, dicker said:

It really depends on the “error”.  Marsh is a good guide for where errors raise the value of a Sovereign.  
 

Best

Dicker

A book I actually want for Christmas... Thanks

[dicker]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GREAT-BRITAIN-Victoria-1863-AV-Sovereign-NGC-MS66-Mint-Error-S-3852-Fr-387-/185217075399?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l6249&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0
 

[dicker]

[dicker]

It’s not the first time I have seen errors like this but the one on the left is fairly spectacular.   I have heard of but not seen a Sovereign minted in lead.  No idea if this is folklore or true, I will disbelieve until I see one.  

[Typsygypsy65]

Hi I believe I have found a die half planchette to a brocade coin please advise thankyou please may I add a photo from my phone 1872 st George side

Edited December 31, 2021 by Typsygypsy65
Added image

[dicker]

That is a queer fish if ever I saw one.  I can’t help but others may have an opinion if clearer photos are submitted.