Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[1853DEE]

Thanks for replying, i was wondering why the 4 was so much thinner than the other numbers 

[Booky586]

10 hours ago, Belmont said:

I have this 1861 half sovereign in hand (NGC graded). I wonder what everyone's thought on that 8:

I found one more example like this in PCGS holder.

Well spotted, a very nice overdate with an 8 over a smaller 8.

The PCGS image has a die clash, more obvious on the reverse. I wonder if yours has the fault?

[Belmont]

2 hours ago, Booky586 said:

Well spotted, a very nice overdate with an 8 over a smaller 8.

The PCGS image has a die clash, more obvious on the reverse. I wonder if yours has the fault?

Yes, the clash is there, also the die cracks too. They were clearly produced with the same die.

[AndrewSL76]

On 08/12/2023 at 20:17, Booky586 said:

What do you think @GoldDiggerDave, is this a Roman 1? Expensive shield at £645 if it isn't.....

Just an update. The person who bought this contacted me to ask for help with grading. I examined the coin and felt it was probably just about worth sending to PCGS.

PCGS have just released the grades on that submission and this is recognised as the Roman 1 variety and it was graded as AU50. I think that is a fair result.

[1853DEE]

Hi
does anyone know why the 4 is so different from the other numbers? and is it the angled 4 variety? thanks 

[Booky586]

10 hours ago, AndrewSL76 said:

Just an update. The person who bought this contacted me to ask for help with grading. I examined the coin and felt it was probably just about worth sending to PCGS.

PCGS have just released the grades on that submission and this is recognised as the Roman 1 variety and it was graded as AU50. I think that is a fair result.

The original photo was a little blurry and the error wasn't too clear so a nice result for the buyer. Just had a look at the PCGS population and there are only 4 of this type. 

Edited March 21 by Booky586

[AndrewSL76]

4 hours ago, Booky586 said:

The original photo was a little blurry and the error wasn't too clear so a nice result for the buyer. Just had a look at the PCGS population and there are only 4 of this type. 

Yes, it is the fourth, with three higher! Not a bad coin. Here are the true view images:

 

Edited March 21 by AndrewSL76

[AndrewSL76]

I have also just submitted an 1828 w/o tuft half sovereign to PCGS for grading. The date was double stamped with some falling away from the coin. I took a picture before I sent it but for the life of me I cannot find it. Will look again later and upload if I find it. Otherwise, will update when the grading results are back. Should be in around 20 working days as I sent with a batch for express service.

Cheers.

EDIT. Just found image!!!

 

Edited March 21 by AndrewSL76

[Esjayc]

1913 half sovereign (not my photos...a coin that I've seen online).

Is that a die crack by St George's head, or is something else going on here?

Not sure what to make of this - both the 'error', and authenticity of the coin itself? I appreciate it can be hard to judge from a photo.

[Esjayc]

Here's my 1870 half sovereign (die 4), Marsh 445A (R4)

Identifiers (as per Marsh, other online sources also referring to 'Marsh 445A' in their descriptions) - coarse beading around edges, no shield dot on centre line, 98 denticles obverse, 101 denticles reverse, I in REGINA pointing between two denticles, bust slightly to left, nose pointing between T and O in VICTORIA.

[Sovhead]

1845 Sov….who can spot what’s wrong????

[jultorsk]

3 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

1845 Sov….who can spot what’s wrong????

Second I in BRIT

[Sovhead]

Just now, jultorsk said:

Second I in BRIT

👍🏻 a no.1 backwards 

[dicker]

1 hour ago, Sovhead said:

👍🏻 a no.1 backwards 

This is common.  It is a broken denticle and if you take a look back to the very first Victoria Proofs you will find the same issue.

Some nut jobs on eBay claim it’s a backwards 1.  It’s not.  

[Sovhead]

3 minutes ago, dicker said:

This is common.  It is a broken denticle and if you take a look back to the very first Victoria Proofs you will find the same issue.

Some nut jobs on eBay claim it’s a backwards 1.  It’s not.  

Why does the top of it flick up like a 1 ?

[dicker]

My guess here is that it was a screw up on the hub.  I have a map of this error across Sovs   It is not consistent across years interestingly….

Similarly there are a a sub set M Halves that have a very similar issue - which have L cousins with the same problem.  Again my guess is hub being the origination for this problem.

 

 

[Esjayc]

1982 half sovereign. Not sure what may have caused this 'smooth' impression, near the '1' in the date...?

Looking carefully, it's also visible on part of the ground, near the broken spear of St George.

The obverse looks normal, and it's not an ex-mount/ex-jewellery.

Any thoughts?

[paulmerton]

1 minute ago, Esjayc said:

1982 half sovereign. Not sure what may have caused this 'smooth' impression, near the '1' in the date...?

Looking carefully, it's also visible on part of the ground, near the broken spear of St George.

The obverse looks normal, and it's not an ex-mount/ex-jewellery.

Any thoughts?

It could plausibly be a strike-though error.

[Esjayc]

I recently picked up this 1872 Shield (Die 90). Is this a 'double strike' on 'DEI GRATIA'? The date is affected too. 

G in GRATIA seems to be affected the worst (photo).

Seems to be a little extra material on the reverse's rim at the base. Don't know if that's a factor. Slight die crack before G.

If it's a double strike, what causes that, and why is Victoria's portrait not affected (to my eyes at least)? If it's not that, what has caused this? Sorry for my ignorance here - I am hoping and wanting to learn.

I've seen other 1872 Die 90 coins and they don't have these issues. So I'm curious and hoping I can come away from this post enlightened 🙂

(Obv/Rev photo is the seller's image from the auction)

 

[Booky586]

On 16/04/2024 at 17:40, Esjayc said:

I recently picked up this 1872 Shield (Die 90). Is this a 'double strike' on 'DEI GRATIA'? The date is affected too. 

G in GRATIA seems to be affected the worst (photo).

Seems to be a little extra material on the reverse's rim at the base. Don't know if that's a factor. Slight die crack before G.

If it's a double strike, what causes that, and why is Victoria's portrait not affected (to my eyes at least)? If it's not that, what has caused this? Sorry for my ignorance here - I am hoping and wanting to learn.

I've seen other 1872 Die 90 coins and they don't have these issues. So I'm curious and hoping I can come away from this post enlightened 🙂

(Obv/Rev photo is the seller's image from the auction)

A double strike would be seen across the full coin, all of the details would be repeated. Because it's occurred across several characters having the same offset I would think it's a die fault, probably some type of hub doubling. There's not much info on die production for Sovereigns of this period so there's a bit of speculation involved based on more modern coin production.

https://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies/

Obverse and reverse dies wear at different rates and the obverse dies weren't numbered. It's possible that other 1872 die 90 reverse coins will have been produced with different obverse dies.

[Esjayc]

12 hours ago, Booky586 said:

A double strike would be seen across the full coin, all of the details would be repeated. Because it's occurred across several characters having the same offset I would think it's a die fault, probably some type of hub doubling. There's not much info on die production for Sovereigns of this period so there's a bit of speculation involved based on more modern coin production.

https://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies/

Obverse and reverse dies wear at different rates and the obverse dies weren't numbered. It's possible that other 1872 die 90 reverse coins will have been produced with different obverse dies.

Thanks for this info Booky 🙂!

[refero]

That s one of my favourite thread on the forum, especially when it comes to shield sovereigns. They are sooo fascinating. And thanks for sharing all these little treasures.
My personal idea tho is that when it comes to shield varieties, there are just few of them, namely 

- narrow shield (1838 and 1843)

- 1859 ansell 

- 1863 with the no. 827 struck at the basis of queen’s neck on the reverse 

where as variety i refer to an intentional deviation from the original / standard pattern.

All others (there are dozens) are curiosity, errors, overdates, double struck, die cracks etc etc and ideally every single shield sovereign in our collection can be unique per se, without necessarily bearing an extra value 

Edited April 21 by refero

[Sovhead]

4 minutes ago, refero said:

That s one of my favourite thread on the forum, especially when it comes to shield sovereigns. They are sooo fascinating. And thanks for sharing all these little treasures.
My personal idea tho is that when it comes to shield varieties, there are just few of them, namely 

- narrow shield (1838 and 1843)

- 1859 ansell 

- 1863 with the no. 827 struck at the basis of queen’s neck on the reverse 

where as variety i refer to an intentional deviation from the original / standard pattern.

All others (there are dozens) are curiosity, errors, overdates, double struck, die cracks etc etc and ideally every single shield sovereign in our collection can be unique per se, without necessarily bearing an extra value 

I read the other day about another sovereign with a no.1 struck on the neck next to WW went to try and find it again to memorise the date and couldn’t find it.

[dicker]

6 hours ago, Sovhead said:

I read the other day about another sovereign with a no.1 struck on the neck next to WW went to try and find it again to memorise the date and couldn’t find it.

1864.  I haven’t seen one or know anyone who has definitely seen an example.  

[Sovhead]

21 minutes ago, dicker said:

1864.  I haven’t seen one or know anyone who has definitely seen an example.  

You know in my head I was sure I read it was a ‘64 mate it’s strange it’s been said but there are no known pics.